ProEthica Case 56 Ontology
type: Ontology
created: 2026-01-05T23:56:09.403520
imports: cases
imports: intermediate

All_PEs_Public_Safety
type: SafetyObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Unlicensed practice threatens public safety by lacking ethical and legal obligations
compliancestatus: pending
confidencescore: 1.0
derivedfrom: NSPE Code and licensing requirements
enforcementcontext: State licensing boards and professional ethics enforcement
generatedattime: 2025-12-29T21:29:02.799639
obligatedparty: All Licensed Professional Engineers
obligationstatement: Hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public
sourcetext: Performance of engineering services by unqualified individuals is detrimental to public safety
temporalscope: Continuous professional duty
wasgeneratedby: ProEthica Dual Obligations Extraction
generated at time: 2026-01-06T00:20:52.909766
was generated by: ProEthica Case 56 Extraction

BER_Case_92-2
type: BoardEthicsCasePrecedent
type: NamedIndividual
confidencescore: 0.95
createdat: 1992
createdby: Board of Ethical Review
generatedattime: 2025-12-29T21:25:54.742463
hasdocumenttitle: BER Case 92-2 - Engineer Intern Misrepresentation Case
hasversion: Case 92-2
sourcetext: In BER Case 92-2, an engineer intern (EI) observed that the firm's advertising documents listed him as a PE
usedby: Case author/reviewer
usedincontext: Referenced as precedent for handling misrepresentation of engineering credentials
generated at time: 2026-01-06T00:20:52.906348
was generated by: ProEthica Case 56 Extraction

BER_Case_95-10
type: BoardEthicsCasePrecedent
type: NamedIndividual
confidencescore: 0.95
createdat: 1995
createdby: Board of Ethical Review
generatedattime: 2025-12-29T21:25:54.742463
hasdocumenttitle: BER Case 95-10 - ENGCO Engineering Title Usage Case
hasversion: Case 95-10
sourcetext: BER Case 95-10 considered an engineering firm, ENGCO, that listed key personnel who did not hold engineering degrees with titles including 'Engineer' and 'Design Engineer'
usedby: Case author/reviewer
usedincontext: Referenced for guidance on proper use of 'Engineer' title by non-licensed personnel
generated at time: 2026-01-06T00:20:52.906449
was generated by: ProEthica Case 56 Extraction

B reviews the documents before makes comments and directs changes
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-01-06T00:20:52.911098
was generated by: ProEthica Case 56 Extraction

Case 56 Timeline
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-01-06T00:20:52.903502
was generated by: ProEthica Case 56 Extraction

CausalLink_Document Review Decision
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-01-06T00:20:52.911205
was generated by: ProEthica Case 56 Extraction

CausalLink_Document Submission Decision
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-01-06T00:20:52.911178
was generated by: ProEthica Case 56 Extraction

CausalLink_Staff Title Assignment
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-01-06T00:20:52.911231
was generated by: ProEthica Case 56 Extraction

Competence_CaseA_Review
type: CompetencePrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Transportation Engineer B's authority to review and approve design documents
balancedwith: Employer loyalty
balancedwith: Organizational hierarchy
generatedattime: 2025-12-29T21:26:22.829852
hascaserelevance: Central to determining whether B can legally review engineering documents
hasconcreteexpression: neither a licensed engineer nor even a degreed engineer
hasinterpretation: Only qualified professionals should review and approve engineering work
hastensionresolution: Professional competence requirements override organizational titles
invokedby: Engineer A
sourcetext: Engineer A learns that 'Transportation Engineer' B is neither a licensed engineer nor even a degreed engineer
wasgeneratedby: ProEthica Dual Principles Extraction
generated at time: 2026-01-06T00:20:52.906751
was generated by: ProEthica Case 56 Extraction

Competence_Demonstration_Boundary
type: CompetenceConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer B lacks demonstrated competence through licensure
confidencescore: 0.9
constrainedentity: All engineering practitioners
constraintsource: Licensing requirements
constraintstatement: Must demonstrate acceptable levels of competence and expertise
enforcementmechanism: Licensing examinations, education requirements
generatedattime: 2025-12-29T21:29:40.687266
severity: critical
sourcetext: ensuring members of the profession have demonstrated acceptable levels of competence and expertise
temporalscope: Prior to practice
wasgeneratedby: ProEthica Dual Constraints Extraction
generated at time: 2026-01-06T00:20:52.910349
was generated by: ProEthica Case 56 Extraction

Competence_Supervision_Discussion
type: CompetencePrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Supervision requirements
balancedwith: Professional autonomy
generatedattime: 2025-12-29T21:28:26.623121
hascaserelevance: Shows Engineer B lacks proper supervision while reviewing Engineer A's work
hasconcreteexpression: Unqualified individuals providing these services when they are not under the direct personal supervision of a licensed professional engineer have caused harm
hasinterpretation: Competence requires either licensure or direct supervision by licensed professionals
hastensionresolution: Safety requires supervision of unlicensed individuals
invokedby: Case discussion author
sourcetext: Unqualified individuals providing these services when they are not under the direct personal supervision of a licensed professional engineer have caused harm to the public health, safety, and welfare
wasgeneratedby: ProEthica Dual Principles Extraction
generated at time: 2026-01-06T00:20:52.908858
was generated by: ProEthica Case 56 Extraction

Conclusion_1
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-01-06T00:20:52.902699
was generated by: ProEthica Case 56 Extraction

Conclusion_101
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-01-06T00:20:52.902728
was generated by: ProEthica Case 56 Extraction

Conclusion_102
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-01-06T00:20:52.902756
was generated by: ProEthica Case 56 Extraction

Conclusion_201
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-01-06T00:20:52.902782
was generated by: ProEthica Case 56 Extraction

Conclusion_202
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-01-06T00:20:52.903856
was generated by: ProEthica Case 56 Extraction

Conclusion_301
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-01-06T00:20:52.903941
was generated by: ProEthica Case 56 Extraction

Conclusion_302
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-01-06T00:20:52.911152
was generated by: ProEthica Case 56 Extraction

DP1
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP1
decision question: Should Engineer A continue submitting documents for review by Transportation Engineer B after discovering their lack of proper qualifications?
focus: Engineer A's obligation to verify qualifications and respond to unlicensed practice
option1: Report Transportation Engineer B for unlicensed practice
option2: Continue submitting documents while seeking alternative review arrangements
option3: Refuse to submit documents until qualified reviewer is assigned
role label: Engineer A
generated at time: 2026-01-09T13:26:23.224412
was generated by: ProEthica Case 56 Extraction

DP2
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP2
decision question: Should the State Agency continue assigning engineering titles and responsibilities to unqualified personnel for administrative convenience?
focus: State Agency's systematic violation of qualification and title accuracy requirements
option1: Reassign engineering review duties to properly licensed personnel
option2: Continue current assignment for administrative convenience
role label: State Agency
generated at time: 2026-01-09T13:26:23.224503
was generated by: ProEthica Case 56 Extraction

DP3
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP3
decision question: Should Transportation Engineer B continue performing engineering review functions despite lacking required licensure qualifications?
focus: Transportation Engineer B's acceptance of engineering responsibilities without proper qualifications
option1: Decline engineering responsibilities until properly qualified
option2: Continue performing assigned engineering functions
role label: Transportation Engineer B
generated at time: 2026-01-09T13:26:23.224575
was generated by: ProEthica Case 56 Extraction

DP4
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP4
decision question: Would adequate supervision by a licensed PE justify Transportation Engineer B's continued review of engineering documents?
focus: Supervision arrangements and competence requirements for engineering oversight
option1: Require direct licensed PE supervision for all reviews
option2: Maintain individual qualification requirements regardless of supervision
role label: Engineer A
generated at time: 2026-01-09T13:26:23.224672
was generated by: ProEthica Case 56 Extraction

Design_Document_Review_Authority
type: ReviewAuthorityConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: B lacks legal authority to perform final approval of Engineer A's design documents
confidencescore: 0.92
constrainedentity: Transportation Engineer B
constraintsource: State engineering practice laws
constraintstatement: Cannot review, approve, or direct changes to engineering design documents without engineering license
enforcementmechanism: State licensing board
generatedattime: 2025-12-29T21:27:19.764788
severity: critical
sourcetext: personally reviews those documents for final approval, makes comments, and directs changes
temporalscope: During all review activities
wasgeneratedby: ProEthica Dual Constraints Extraction
generated at time: 2026-01-06T00:20:52.907871
was generated by: ProEthica Case 56 Extraction

Direct_Supervision_Requirement
type: SupervisionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer B performing review without PE supervision
confidencescore: 0.85
constrainedentity: Unqualified individuals performing engineering services
constraintsource: Professional standards and state regulations
constraintstatement: Must be under direct personal supervision of licensed PE
enforcementmechanism: State boards, legal enforcement
generatedattime: 2025-12-29T21:29:40.687266
severity: critical
sourcetext: when they are not under the direct personal supervision of a licensed professional engineer have caused harm to the public
temporalscope: During performance of engineering services
wasgeneratedby: ProEthica Dual Constraints Extraction
generated at time: 2026-01-06T00:20:52.910260
was generated by: ProEthica Case 56 Extraction

Document Review Completion
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-01-06T00:20:52.910932
was generated by: ProEthica Case 56 Extraction

Document Review Decision
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-01-06T00:20:52.910874
was generated by: ProEthica Case 56 Extraction

Document Review Decision → Document Review Completion
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-01-06T00:20:52.911016
was generated by: ProEthica Case 56 Extraction

Document Submission Decision
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-01-06T00:20:52.910822
was generated by: ProEthica Case 56 Extraction

Document Submission Decision → Qualification Discovery
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-01-06T00:20:52.907065
was generated by: ProEthica Case 56 Extraction

EI
type: EngineerIntern
type: NamedIndividual
caseinvolvement: Observed and reported firm's misrepresentation of his credentials as PE
generatedattime: 2025-12-29T21:24:21.079089
hasactiveobligation: Report misrepresentation of qualifications
hasethicaltension: Firm misrepresenting EI as PE in advertising documents
hasstatus: not PE licensed
hastitle: Engineer Intern
sourcetext: an engineer intern (EI) observed that the firm's advertising documents listed him as a PE
wasattributedto: Case 56 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-01-06T00:20:52.904955
was generated by: ProEthica Case 56 Extraction

EI_Disclosure_Misrepresentation
type: DisclosureObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: EI reported to marketing department that advertising listed him as PE when he was not
compliancestatus: met
confidencescore: 0.95
derivedfrom: NSPE Code Section II.5.a
enforcementcontext: Internal firm reporting and ethics board review
generatedattime: 2025-12-29T21:29:02.799639
obligatedparty: Engineer Intern (EI)
obligationstatement: Report misrepresentation of qualifications in firm's advertising
sourcetext: The EI reported this misrepresentation to the marketing department
temporalscope: Upon discovery
wasgeneratedby: ProEthica Dual Obligations Extraction
generated at time: 2026-01-06T00:20:52.909647
was generated by: ProEthica Case 56 Extraction

EI_TitleMisrepresentation_BER92-2
type: TitleMisrepresentationState
type: NamedIndividual
affectsobligation: EI's right to accurate representation
affectsobligation: Firm's duty to accurately represent employee qualifications
caseinvolvement: Example of persistent misrepresentation despite awareness
confidencescore: 0.9
generatedattime: 2025-12-29T21:25:16.333331
hasrelatedparty: Engineer Intern
hasrelatedparty: Marketing department
hasrelatedparty: Public
hassubject: Engineering Firm (BER Case 92-2)
hasurgencylevel: moderate
initiatedat: When advertising documents were created
initiatedby: Firm's advertising documents incorrectly listing EI as PE
sourcetext: firm's advertising documents listed him as a PE...after six months, the documents had not been corrected
terminatedat: Ongoing at case review
terminatedby: Not corrected after six months despite notification
generated at time: 2026-01-06T00:20:52.906147
was generated by: ProEthica Case 56 Extraction

EI_Title_Verification_92-2
type: ProfessionalTitleVerificationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilitystatement: Ability to identify and report misrepresentation of PE credentials in firm documents
casecontext: EI observed firm listing him as PE when he was not licensed
confidence: 0.95
demonstratedthrough: Reporting misrepresentation to marketing department
enablesobligations: Maintaining professional integrity and accurate representation
generatedattime: 2025-12-29T21:30:17.429004
possessedby: Engineer Intern in BER Case 92-2
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: an engineer intern (EI) observed that the firm's advertising documents listed him as a PE
temporalaspect: When reviewing firm's advertising documents
generated at time: 2026-01-06T00:20:52.910435
was generated by: ProEthica Case 56 Extraction

EI reports misrepresentation before six months period of inaction
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-01-06T00:20:52.903471
was generated by: ProEthica Case 56 Extraction

ENGCO
type: EmployerRelationshipRole
type: NamedIndividual
caseinvolvement: Engineering firm that improperly used engineer titles for unqualified personnel
generatedattime: 2025-12-29T21:24:21.079089
hasactiveobligation: Ensure accurate representation of employee qualifications
hasethicaltension: Listed non-degreed personnel with Engineer and Design Engineer titles
haspersonnel: key personnel without engineering degrees
hastype: engineering firm
sourcetext: engineering firm, ENGCO, that listed key personnel who did not hold engineering degrees with titles including "Engineer"
wasattributedto: Case 56 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-01-06T00:20:52.905073
was generated by: ProEthica Case 56 Extraction

ENGCO_Personnel_Title_Accuracy
type: TitleAccuracyObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: ENGCO listed key personnel without engineering degrees as 'Engineer' and 'Design Engineer'
compliancestatus: unmet
confidencescore: 0.9
derivedfrom: State licensing acts and professional standards
enforcementcontext: Professional ethics review
generatedattime: 2025-12-29T21:29:02.799639
obligatedparty: ENGCO firm
obligationstatement: Not list non-degreed personnel with 'Engineer' titles
sourcetext: ENGCO, that listed key personnel who did not hold engineering degrees with titles including 'Engineer' and 'Design Engineer'
temporalscope: In all documentation
wasgeneratedby: ProEthica Dual Obligations Extraction
generated at time: 2026-01-06T00:20:52.909551
was generated by: ProEthica Case 56 Extraction

ENGCO_TitleMisrepresentation_BER95-10
type: TitleMisrepresentationState
type: NamedIndividual
affectsobligation: Duty to protect integrity of engineering profession
affectsobligation: Obligation to prevent public confusion
caseinvolvement: Precedent case showing improper use of protected titles
confidencescore: 0.85
generatedattime: 2025-12-29T21:25:16.333331
hasrelatedparty: Non-degreed personnel
hasrelatedparty: Professional bodies
hasrelatedparty: Public
hassubject: ENGCO
hasurgencylevel: high
initiatedat: When personnel listings were created
initiatedby: Listing non-degreed personnel with 'Engineer' and 'Design Engineer' titles
sourcetext: ENGCO, that listed key personnel who did not hold engineering degrees with titles including 'Engineer' and 'Design Engineer'
terminatedat: Unknown
terminatedby: Not specified in case
generated at time: 2026-01-06T00:20:52.906263
was generated by: ProEthica Case 56 Extraction

EngineerA_Compliance_Monitoring
type: LicensureComplianceMonitoringCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilitystatement: Ability to recognize unlawful engineering practice by unlicensed individuals
casecontext: Engineer A must respond to unlicensed Engineer B reviewing sealed work
confidence: 0.9
demonstratedthrough: Recognition that non-Engineer B should not review sealed documents
enablesobligations: Not aiding unlawful practice and reporting violations
generatedattime: 2025-12-29T21:30:17.429004
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer A has been directed to revise his 'signed and sealed contract documents' based on [non] Engineer B's review
temporalaspect: When directed to revise sealed documents
generated at time: 2026-01-06T00:20:52.910519
was generated by: ProEthica Case 56 Extraction

EngineerA_CredentialVerification
type: ProfessionalCredentialVerificationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilitystatement: Identify and verify the licensing status of individuals reviewing engineering work
casecontext: Engineer A demonstrates capability by discovering B's lack of qualifications
confidence: 0.9
demonstratedthrough: Discovery that Transportation Engineer B lacks proper credentials
enablesobligations: Enables identification of unauthorized practice of engineering
generatedattime: 2025-12-29T21:27:47.990363
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: Engineer A learns that "Transportation Engineer" B is neither a licensed engineer nor even a degreed engineer
temporalaspect: During interaction with State Agency
generated at time: 2026-01-06T00:20:52.908168
was generated by: ProEthica Case 56 Extraction

EngineerA_DesignDocumentPreparation
type: TechnicalCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilitystatement: Prepare signed and sealed engineering design contract documents
casecontext: Engineer A exercises technical capability by preparing official design documents
confidence: 0.95
demonstratedthrough: Professional engineering license and consulting practice
enablesobligations: Fulfills obligation to provide professionally certified engineering designs
generatedattime: 2025-12-29T21:27:47.990363
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: expert
sourcetext: Engineer A, a consulting engineer, presents signed and sealed design contract documents to the State Agency manager
temporalaspect: Prior to submission to State Agency
generated at time: 2026-01-06T00:20:52.908084
was generated by: ProEthica Case 56 Extraction

EngineerA_Design_Contract_Documents
type: EngineeringDesignContractDocuments
type: NamedIndividual
confidencescore: 0.95
createdby: Engineer A
generatedattime: 2025-12-29T21:23:51.776202
hasdocumenttitle: Signed and sealed design contract documents
hasversion: Final submission
sourcetext: Engineer A, a consulting engineer, presents signed and sealed design contract documents
usedby: Transportation Engineer B
usedincontext: Submitted for State Agency review and approval
generated at time: 2026-01-06T00:20:52.903279
was generated by: ProEthica Case 56 Extraction

EngineerA_Not_Aid_UnlawfulPractice
type: LegalObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A being directed to revise sealed documents based on unlicensed Engineer B's review
compliancestatus: unclear
confidencescore: 0.95
derivedfrom: NSPE Code Section II.1.e
enforcementcontext: State licensing laws and professional ethics enforcement
generatedattime: 2025-12-29T21:29:02.799639
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationstatement: Not aid or abet the unlawful practice of engineering by Engineer B
sourcetext: Per Section II.1.e, Engineer A 'shall not aid or abet the unlawful practice of engineering'
temporalscope: Ongoing
wasgeneratedby: ProEthica Dual Obligations Extraction
generated at time: 2026-01-06T00:20:52.909282
was generated by: ProEthica Case 56 Extraction

EngineerA_Report_UnlawfulPractice
type: ReportingObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A must report non-licensed Engineer B's review of sealed documents
compliancestatus: pending
confidencescore: 0.95
derivedfrom: NSPE Code Section II.1.f
enforcementcontext: Professional ethics board review and state licensing board
generatedattime: 2025-12-29T21:29:02.799639
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationstatement: Report Engineer B's unlawful practice of engineering to appropriate professional bodies
sourcetext: is obligated to report Engineer B's violation to appropriate professional bodies (Section II.1.f)
temporalscope: Upon discovery of violation
wasgeneratedby: ProEthica Dual Obligations Extraction
generated at time: 2026-01-06T00:20:52.909163
was generated by: ProEthica Case 56 Extraction

EngineerA_ReportingObligationTriggered_CurrentCase
type: ReportingObligationTriggeredState
type: NamedIndividual
affectsobligation: Mandatory reporting per Section II.1.f
affectsobligation: Protection of public interest
caseinvolvement: Creates specific duty for Engineer A to report violation
confidencescore: 0.85
generatedattime: 2025-12-29T21:25:16.333331
hasrelatedparty: Engineer B
hasrelatedparty: Professional bodies
hasrelatedparty: State board
hassubject: Engineer A
hasurgencylevel: high
initiatedat: When Engineer A became aware of Engineer B's lack of PE license
initiatedby: Discovery that Engineer B is unlicensed but performing engineering review
sourcetext: is obligated to report Engineer B's violation to appropriate professional bodies (Section II.1.f)
terminatedat: Pending action
terminatedby: Will be terminated when Engineer A reports to appropriate bodies
generated at time: 2026-01-06T00:20:52.906009
was generated by: ProEthica Case 56 Extraction

EngineerA_ReportingUnlicensedPractice
type: ReportingObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A discovered B is practicing engineering without license while reviewing sealed documents
compliancestatus: pending
confidencescore: 0.95
derivedfrom: State engineering practice laws and NSPE Code
enforcementcontext: State licensing board enforcement
generatedattime: 2025-12-29T21:26:52.864466
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationstatement: Report unlicensed practice of engineering by Transportation Engineer B to appropriate authorities
sourcetext: Engineer A learns that "Transportation Engineer" B is neither a licensed engineer nor even a degreed engineer
temporalscope: Upon discovery of unlicensed practice
wasgeneratedby: ProEthica Dual Obligations Extraction
generated at time: 2026-01-06T00:20:52.907152
was generated by: ProEthica Case 56 Extraction

EngineerA_Reporting_Obligation
type: ProfessionalBoundaryEnforcementCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilitystatement: Ability to report violations to appropriate professional bodies
casecontext: Must report Engineer B's unauthorized practice
confidence: 0.85
demonstratedthrough: Obligation under NSPE Code Section II.1.f
enablesobligations: Protecting public safety and professional integrity
generatedattime: 2025-12-29T21:30:17.429004
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: obligated to report Engineer B's violation to appropriate professional bodies (Section II.1.f)
temporalaspect: When violations are discovered
generated at time: 2026-01-06T00:20:52.910792
was generated by: ProEthica Case 56 Extraction

EngineerA_ResponsibleCharge
type: ResponsibleChargeObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: A's sealed documents being reviewed and changed by unlicensed person
compliancestatus: unclear
confidencescore: 0.8
derivedfrom: Professional engineering standards
enforcementcontext: Professional liability
generatedattime: 2025-12-29T21:26:52.864466
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationstatement: Maintain responsible charge over signed and sealed design documents
sourcetext: presents signed and sealed design contract documents
temporalscope: Throughout project lifecycle
wasgeneratedby: ProEthica Dual Obligations Extraction
generated at time: 2026-01-06T00:20:52.907504
was generated by: ProEthica Case 56 Extraction

EngineerA_UnlawfulPracticeEnablement_CurrentCase
type: UnlawfulPracticeEnablementState
type: NamedIndividual
affectsobligation: Duty not to aid unlawful practice per Section II.1.e
affectsobligation: Responsibility for sealed documents
caseinvolvement: Creates ethical dilemma requiring Engineer A to refuse or report
confidencescore: 0.9
generatedattime: 2025-12-29T21:25:16.333331
hasrelatedparty: Engineer B
hasrelatedparty: Public
hasrelatedparty: Supervisor/Director
hassubject: Engineer A
hasurgencylevel: critical
initiatedat: When Engineer A received direction to revise based on B's review
initiatedby: Being directed to revise sealed documents based on unlicensed Engineer B's review
sourcetext: Engineer A has been directed to revise his 'signed and sealed contract documents' based on [non] Engineer B's review
terminatedat: Pending
terminatedby: Not specified - Engineer A must decide whether to comply
generated at time: 2026-01-06T00:20:52.905337
was generated by: ProEthica Case 56 Extraction

EngineerA_UnlicensedPracticeDiscovery_TransportationEngineerB
type: UnlicensedPracticeDiscoveryState
type: NamedIndividual
affectsobligation: Ensure proper review of design documents
affectsobligation: Protect public from unqualified practice
affectsobligation: Report violations of engineering practice laws
caseinvolvement: Creates ethical dilemma about whether to report unlicensed practice by government official
confidencescore: 0.95
generatedattime: 2025-12-29T21:23:35.920513
hasrelatedparty: Public relying on infrastructure
hasrelatedparty: State Agency
hasrelatedparty: Transportation Engineer B
hassubject: Engineer A
hasurgencylevel: high
initiatedat: During document review process with Transportation Engineer B
initiatedby: Learning that Transportation Engineer B lacks engineering license and degree
sourcetext: Engineer A learns that 'Transportation Engineer' B is neither a licensed engineer nor even a degreed engineer
terminatedat: Not specified in case
terminatedby: Not specified in case
generated at time: 2026-01-06T00:20:52.904489
was generated by: ProEthica Case 56 Extraction

EngineerB_TitleMisrepresentation_CurrentCase
type: TitleMisrepresentationState
type: NamedIndividual
affectsobligation: Engineer B's obligation to accurately represent qualifications
affectsobligation: Public's right to qualified engineering services
caseinvolvement: Central ethical violation creating obligations for Engineer A
confidencescore: 0.95
generatedattime: 2025-12-29T21:25:16.333331
hasrelatedparty: Engineer A
hasrelatedparty: State licensing board
hasrelatedparty: The public
hassubject: Engineer B
hasurgencylevel: high
initiatedat: When Engineer B began reviewing Engineer A's work
initiatedby: Use of 'Engineer' title while performing engineering review without PE license
sourcetext: [non] Engineer B's review
terminatedat: Ongoing
terminatedby: Not terminated in case narrative
generated at time: 2026-01-06T00:20:52.905192
was generated by: ProEthica Case 56 Extraction

EngineerB_Title_Accuracy
type: TitleAccuracyObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer B uses 'Engineer' title despite not being licensed
compliancestatus: unmet
confidencescore: 0.9
derivedfrom: State licensing laws
enforcementcontext: State licensing board enforcement
generatedattime: 2025-12-29T21:29:02.799639
obligatedparty: Engineer B
obligationstatement: Not use 'Engineer' title without proper licensing
sourcetext: Use of the title, 'engineer,' conveys substantial education, examination, and experience, and, in many states, a license
temporalscope: Ongoing
wasgeneratedby: ProEthica Dual Obligations Extraction
generated at time: 2026-01-06T00:20:52.909426
was generated by: ProEthica Case 56 Extraction

Engineer A
type: EngineerRole
type: NamedIndividual
caseinvolvement: Presents design documents to State Agency, discovers reviewer lacks engineering qualifications
generatedattime: 2025-12-29T21:23:04.369968
hasactiveobligation: Maintain professional engineering standards
hasactiveobligation: Present signed and sealed design contract documents
hasethicaltension: Concern about unqualified person reviewing and approving engineering documents
haslicense: licensed engineer (implied by 'signed and sealed')
hasspecialization: consulting engineer
hastitle: consulting engineer
sourcetext: Engineer A, a consulting engineer, presents signed and sealed design contract documents to the State Agency manager
wasattributedto: Case 56 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-01-06T00:20:52.904176
was generated by: ProEthica Case 56 Extraction

Engineer A prepares, signs, and seals design documents before presents them to Transportation Engineer B
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-01-06T00:20:52.911043
was generated by: ProEthica Case 56 Extraction

Engineer A's obligation to verify qualifications of unlicensed engineers performing professional eng
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-01-06T00:20:52.903827
was generated by: ProEthica Case 56 Extraction

Engineer B
type: UnlicensedEngineeringPractitioner
type: NamedIndividual
caseinvolvement: Reviews Engineer A's signed and sealed contract documents despite not being licensed
generatedattime: 2025-12-29T21:24:21.079089
hasactiveobligation: None formally recognized
hasethicaltension: Using engineer title without license, reviewing licensed engineer's sealed documents
haslicense: not licensed
hasstatus: non-engineer
hastitle: Uses 'Engineer' title
sourcetext: based on [non] Engineer B's review, Engineer A is working in association with B
wasattributedto: Case 56 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-01-06T00:20:52.904848
was generated by: ProEthica Case 56 Extraction

Engineer_Title_Restriction
type: TitleUsageConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer B using 'Engineer' title without PE license
confidencescore: 0.9
constrainedentity: Engineer B and similar non-licensed individuals
constraintsource: State licensing acts and professional standards
constraintstatement: Cannot use 'Engineer' title without meeting state licensing requirements
enforcementmechanism: Professional boards, legal action
generatedattime: 2025-12-29T21:29:40.687266
severity: critical
sourcetext: Use of the title, "engineer," conveys substantial education, examination, and experience, and, in many states, a license to practice
temporalscope: Continuous
wasgeneratedby: ProEthica Dual Constraints Extraction
generated at time: 2026-01-06T00:20:52.909983
was generated by: ProEthica Case 56 Extraction

Engineer_Title_Usage_Restriction
type: ProfessionalTitleConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: State Agency improperly designated B as 'Transportation Engineer' without qualifications
confidencescore: 0.9
constrainedentity: State Agency
constraintsource: Professional engineering standards and state law
constraintstatement: Cannot assign 'Engineer' title to unlicensed, non-degreed staff
enforcementmechanism: Professional boards and legal action
generatedattime: 2025-12-29T21:27:19.764788
severity: major
sourcetext: "Transportation Engineer" B is neither a licensed engineer nor even a degreed engineer
temporalscope: Continuous
wasgeneratedby: ProEthica Dual Constraints Extraction
generated at time: 2026-01-06T00:20:52.907743
was generated by: ProEthica Case 56 Extraction

I.1.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-01-06T00:20:52.903614
was generated by: ProEthica Case 56 Extraction

II.1.e.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-01-06T00:20:52.903640
was generated by: ProEthica Case 56 Extraction

II.1.f.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-01-06T00:20:52.903671
was generated by: ProEthica Case 56 Extraction

II.5.a.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-01-06T00:20:52.903697
was generated by: ProEthica Case 56 Extraction

III.8.a.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-01-06T00:20:52.902452
was generated by: ProEthica Case 56 Extraction

Integrity_CaseA_Title
type: IntegrityPrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: State Agency's use of professional titles
balancedwith: Administrative flexibility
balancedwith: Organizational naming conventions
generatedattime: 2025-12-29T21:26:22.829852
hascaserelevance: Misuse of professional titles undermines public trust and professional standards
hasconcreteexpression: given staff in management positions the title of 'Engineer'
hasinterpretation: Professional titles should accurately reflect qualifications
hastensionresolution: Professional integrity requires accurate representation of credentials
invokedby: Engineer A's concern
sourcetext: the State Agency has given staff in management positions the title of 'Engineer' when they are not qualified
wasgeneratedby: ProEthica Dual Principles Extraction
generated at time: 2026-01-06T00:20:52.906948
was generated by: ProEthica Case 56 Extraction

Integrity_Profession_Discussion
type: IntegrityPrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Unqualified practice impact
balancedwith: Public Welfare Principle
generatedattime: 2025-12-29T21:28:26.623121
hascaserelevance: Explains why Engineer B's review authority is ethically problematic
hasconcreteexpression: Performance of engineering services by unqualified individuals is detrimental to public safety and to the integrity of the engineering profession at large
hasinterpretation: Professional integrity requires maintaining standards that exclude unqualified practitioners
hastensionresolution: Both principles align in requiring qualified practitioners
invokedby: Case discussion author
sourcetext: Performance of engineering services by unqualified individuals is detrimental to public safety and to the integrity of the engineering profession at large
wasgeneratedby: ProEthica Dual Principles Extraction
generated at time: 2026-01-06T00:20:52.908657
was generated by: ProEthica Case 56 Extraction

Licensed_PE_Responsible_Charge
type: ResponsibleChargeCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilitystatement: Maintaining active engagement and supervisory control of engineering work
casecontext: Licensed PEs must maintain supervision over unlicensed personnel
confidence: 0.95
demonstratedthrough: Professional license and adherence to code of ethics
enablesobligations: Personal and legal responsibility for engineering services
generatedattime: 2025-12-29T21:30:17.429004
possessedby: All Licensed Professional Engineers
proficiencylevel: expert
sourcetext: Professional engineers are personally and legally responsible for their services
temporalaspect: Throughout all engineering projects
generated at time: 2026-01-06T00:20:52.910622
was generated by: ProEthica Case 56 Extraction

NSPE_Code_Section_II.1.e
type: ProfessionalEthicsCode
type: NamedIndividual
confidencescore: 0.95
createdby: National Society of Professional Engineers
generatedattime: 2025-12-29T21:25:54.742463
hasdocumenttitle: NSPE Code of Ethics - Section II.1.e
sourcetext: Per Section II.1.e, Engineer A 'shall not aid or abet the unlawful practice of engineering'
usedby: Engineer A
usedincontext: Referenced to establish obligation not to aid unlawful practice
generated at time: 2026-01-06T00:20:52.903380
was generated by: ProEthica Case 56 Extraction

NSPE_Code_Section_II.1.f
type: ProfessionalEthicsCode
type: NamedIndividual
confidencescore: 0.95
createdby: National Society of Professional Engineers
generatedattime: 2025-12-29T21:25:54.742463
hasdocumenttitle: NSPE Code of Ethics - Section II.1.f
sourcetext: obligated to report Engineer B's violation to appropriate professional bodies (Section II.1.f)
usedby: Engineer A
usedincontext: Referenced for reporting obligations
generated at time: 2026-01-06T00:20:52.906592
was generated by: ProEthica Case 56 Extraction

NSPE_Code_Section_II.5.a
type: ProfessionalEthicsCode
type: NamedIndividual
confidencescore: 0.95
createdby: National Society of Professional Engineers
generatedattime: 2025-12-29T21:25:54.742463
hasdocumenttitle: NSPE Code of Ethics - Section II.5.a
sourcetext: NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.5.a. is very clear: 'Engineers shall not falsify their qualifications or permit misrepresentation of their or their associates' qualifications'
usedby: Engineer A
usedincontext: Applied to determine ethical obligations regarding qualification misrepresentation
generated at time: 2026-01-06T00:20:52.906522
was generated by: ProEthica Case 56 Extraction

No_Aiding_Unlawful_Practice
type: LegalConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A revising sealed documents based on unlicensed Engineer B's review
confidencescore: 0.95
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintsource: NSPE Code Section II.1.e
constraintstatement: Cannot aid or abet unlawful practice of engineering
enforcementmechanism: Professional boards, legal penalties
generatedattime: 2025-12-29T21:29:40.687266
severity: critical
sourcetext: Per Section II.1.e, Engineer A "shall not aid or abet the unlawful practice of engineering"
temporalscope: Continuous
wasgeneratedby: ProEthica Dual Constraints Extraction
generated at time: 2026-01-06T00:20:52.910169
was generated by: ProEthica Case 56 Extraction

No_Misrepresentation_Boundary
type: EthicalConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A must not allow Engineer B's misrepresentation
confidencescore: 0.95
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintsource: NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.5.a
constraintstatement: Cannot falsify or permit misrepresentation of qualifications
enforcementmechanism: Professional ethics boards, peer review
generatedattime: 2025-12-29T21:29:40.687266
severity: critical
sourcetext: Engineers shall not falsify their qualifications or permit misrepresentation of their or their associates' qualifications
temporalscope: Continuous
wasgeneratedby: ProEthica Dual Constraints Extraction
generated at time: 2026-01-06T00:20:52.910077
was generated by: ProEthica Case 56 Extraction

PE_License_Requirement
type: LegalConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer B reviewing and directing changes without PE license
confidencescore: 0.95
constrainedentity: All individuals practicing engineering
constraintsource: State licensing acts
constraintstatement: Cannot practice engineering without proper licensure
enforcementmechanism: State licensing boards, legal penalties
generatedattime: 2025-12-29T21:29:40.687266
severity: critical
sourcetext: Licensing requirements are imposed upon highly skilled professional occupations such as medicine, law, and engineering
temporalscope: Continuous
wasgeneratedby: ProEthica Dual Constraints Extraction
generated at time: 2026-01-06T00:20:52.909861
was generated by: ProEthica Case 56 Extraction

PE_Regulatory_Compliance
type: RegulatoryComplianceCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilitystatement: Ensuring compliance with state licensing acts and regulations
casecontext: Understanding when 'engineer' title can be legally used
confidence: 0.9
demonstratedthrough: Education, examination, and licensure process
enablesobligations: Meeting minimum standards and technical competence requirements
generatedattime: 2025-12-29T21:30:17.429004
possessedby: All Licensed Professional Engineers
proficiencylevel: expert
sourcetext: most states have in their state licensing act how and when the word 'engineer' can be used in a title
temporalaspect: Continuous throughout professional practice
generated at time: 2026-01-06T00:20:52.910707
was generated by: ProEthica Case 56 Extraction

Professional responsibility versus employment security when reporting violations
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-01-06T00:20:52.907996
was generated by: ProEthica Case 56 Extraction

PublicSafety_Licensing_Discussion
type: PublicWelfarePrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Licensing requirements justification
balancedwith: Individual practice rights
generatedattime: 2025-12-29T21:28:26.623121
hascaserelevance: Establishes foundation for why Engineer B's lack of license is problematic
hasconcreteexpression: protect the public interest by ensuring members of the profession have demonstrated acceptable levels of competence
hasinterpretation: Public safety requires verification of professional competence through formal licensing
hastensionresolution: Public protection takes precedence over unrestricted practice
invokedby: Case discussion author
sourcetext: These requirements protect the public interest by ensuring members of the profession have demonstrated acceptable levels of competence and expertise
wasgeneratedby: ProEthica Dual Principles Extraction
generated at time: 2026-01-06T00:20:52.908484
was generated by: ProEthica Case 56 Extraction

PublicWelfare_CaseA_Oversight
type: PublicWelfarePrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: State Agency's review process for engineering designs
balancedwith: Administrative efficiency
balancedwith: Organizational autonomy
generatedattime: 2025-12-29T21:26:22.829852
hascaserelevance: Unqualified review could compromise public safety through inadequate oversight
hasconcreteexpression: review and approve consulting engineers' design documents
hasinterpretation: Public safety requires qualified review of engineering designs
hastensionresolution: Public welfare requires proper qualifications despite organizational convenience
invokedby: Implicit in Engineer A's concern
sourcetext: not qualified to review and approve consulting engineers' design documents
wasgeneratedby: ProEthica Dual Principles Extraction
generated at time: 2026-01-06T00:20:52.906837
was generated by: ProEthica Case 56 Extraction

PublicWelfare_Endangerment_Discussion
type: PublicWelfarePrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Title misuse consequences
balancedwith: Individual employment rights
generatedattime: 2025-12-29T21:28:26.623121
hascaserelevance: Core argument against Engineer B's position and authority
hasconcreteexpression: Allowing unlicensed individuals to hold themselves out as 'Engineers' with none of the associated ethical or legal obligations diminishes the profession and endangers the public
hasinterpretation: Public welfare is endangered when unqualified individuals practice without ethical obligations
hastensionresolution: Public safety overrides employment flexibility
invokedby: Case discussion author
sourcetext: Allowing unlicensed individuals to hold themselves out as 'Engineers' with none of the associated ethical or legal obligations diminishes the profession and endangers the public by posing a significant threat to public health and safety
wasgeneratedby: ProEthica Dual Principles Extraction
generated at time: 2026-01-06T00:20:52.908945
was generated by: ProEthica Case 56 Extraction

Public's right to protection from unlicensed professional engineering practice
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-01-06T00:20:52.903996
was generated by: ProEthica Case 56 Extraction

Qualification Discovery
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-01-06T00:20:52.910960
was generated by: ProEthica Case 56 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_1
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-01-06T00:20:52.907531
was generated by: ProEthica Case 56 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_10
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-01-06T00:20:52.911312
was generated by: ProEthica Case 56 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_11
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-01-06T00:20:52.911338
was generated by: ProEthica Case 56 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_12
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-01-06T00:20:52.904056
was generated by: ProEthica Case 56 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_13
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-01-06T00:20:52.903914
was generated by: ProEthica Case 56 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_14
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-01-06T00:20:52.911413
was generated by: ProEthica Case 56 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_2
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-01-06T00:20:52.908531
was generated by: ProEthica Case 56 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_3
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-01-06T00:20:52.904028
was generated by: ProEthica Case 56 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_4
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-01-06T00:20:52.902900
was generated by: ProEthica Case 56 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_5
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-01-06T00:20:52.902973
was generated by: ProEthica Case 56 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_6
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-01-06T00:20:52.904083
was generated by: ProEthica Case 56 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_7
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-01-06T00:20:52.903800
was generated by: ProEthica Case 56 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_8
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-01-06T00:20:52.911259
was generated by: ProEthica Case 56 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_9
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-01-06T00:20:52.911286
was generated by: ProEthica Case 56 Extraction

Question_1
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-01-06T00:20:52.902500
was generated by: ProEthica Case 56 Extraction

Question_101
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-01-06T00:20:52.902563
was generated by: ProEthica Case 56 Extraction

Question_102
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-01-06T00:20:52.903726
was generated by: ProEthica Case 56 Extraction

Question_103
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-01-06T00:20:52.902591
was generated by: ProEthica Case 56 Extraction

Question_2
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-01-06T00:20:52.902534
was generated by: ProEthica Case 56 Extraction

Question_201
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-01-06T00:20:52.902619
was generated by: ProEthica Case 56 Extraction

Question_202
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-01-06T00:20:52.903754
was generated by: ProEthica Case 56 Extraction

Question_203
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-01-06T00:20:52.903004
was generated by: ProEthica Case 56 Extraction

Question_301
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-01-06T00:20:52.902645
was generated by: ProEthica Case 56 Extraction

Question_302
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-01-06T00:20:52.902672
was generated by: ProEthica Case 56 Extraction

Question_303
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-01-06T00:20:52.903034
was generated by: ProEthica Case 56 Extraction

Question_401
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-01-06T00:20:52.903062
was generated by: ProEthica Case 56 Extraction

Question_402
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-01-06T00:20:52.903094
was generated by: ProEthica Case 56 Extraction

Question_403
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-01-06T00:20:52.903121
was generated by: ProEthica Case 56 Extraction

Regulatory_CaseA_Practice
type: RegulatoryCompliance
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Transportation Engineer B's review activities
balancedwith: Management prerogatives
balancedwith: Organizational authority
generatedattime: 2025-12-29T21:26:22.829852
hascaserelevance: Establishes that B's activities legally require engineering licensure
hasconcreteexpression: under the laws of the state constitutes the practice of engineering
hasinterpretation: State law defines what activities require engineering licensure
hastensionresolution: Legal requirements supersede organizational arrangements
invokedby: Legal framework referenced by case
sourcetext: reviews those documents for final approval, makes comments, and directs changes – all of which under the laws of the state constitutes the practice of engineering
wasgeneratedby: ProEthica Dual Principles Extraction
generated at time: 2026-01-06T00:20:52.907035
was generated by: ProEthica Case 56 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_1
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-01-06T00:20:52.911439
was generated by: ProEthica Case 56 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_2
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-01-06T00:20:52.911464
was generated by: ProEthica Case 56 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_3
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-01-06T00:20:52.911489
was generated by: ProEthica Case 56 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_4
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-01-06T00:20:52.911515
was generated by: ProEthica Case 56 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_5
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-01-06T00:20:52.911540
was generated by: ProEthica Case 56 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_6
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-01-06T00:20:52.911584
was generated by: ProEthica Case 56 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_7
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-01-06T00:20:52.911611
was generated by: ProEthica Case 56 Extraction

Sealed_Document_Approval_Limitation
type: ProceduralConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A's sealed documents being reviewed by unqualified B
confidencescore: 0.88
constrainedentity: State Agency approval process
constraintsource: Professional engineering standards
constraintstatement: Signed and sealed engineering documents can only be reviewed and approved by licensed engineers
enforcementmechanism: Professional liability and state regulations
generatedattime: 2025-12-29T21:27:19.764788
severity: critical
sourcetext: presents signed and sealed design contract documents to the State Agency manager
temporalscope: During document approval process
wasgeneratedby: ProEthica Dual Constraints Extraction
generated at time: 2026-01-06T00:20:52.907967
was generated by: ProEthica Case 56 Extraction

Staff Title Assignment
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-01-06T00:20:52.910903
was generated by: ProEthica Case 56 Extraction

Staff Title Assignment → Document Review Decision
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-01-06T00:20:52.910990
was generated by: ProEthica Case 56 Extraction

StateAgency_MisleadingTitleAssignment
type: MisleadingTitleAssignmentState
type: NamedIndividual
affectsobligation: Comply with professional licensing laws
affectsobligation: Ensure qualified personnel review technical work
affectsobligation: Maintain public trust
caseinvolvement: Organizational practice that enables unlicensed engineering practice
confidencescore: 0.9
generatedattime: 2025-12-29T21:23:35.920513
hasrelatedparty: All consulting engineers
hasrelatedparty: Engineer A
hasrelatedparty: Other potentially unqualified 'Engineers'
hasrelatedparty: Transportation Engineer B
hassubject: State Agency
hasurgencylevel: high
initiatedat: Prior to case events (ongoing organizational practice)
initiatedby: Policy or practice of assigning 'Engineer' titles to unqualified staff
sourcetext: the State Agency has given staff in management positions the title of 'Engineer' when they are not qualified to review and approve consulting engineers' design documents
terminatedat: Not specified in case
terminatedby: Not specified in case
generated at time: 2026-01-06T00:20:52.904763
was generated by: ProEthica Case 56 Extraction

StateAgency_QualificationVerification
type: QualificationVerificationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Agency allowed unqualified person to review and approve engineering designs
compliancestatus: unmet
confidencescore: 0.85
derivedfrom: State engineering practice laws
enforcementcontext: State regulatory compliance
generatedattime: 2025-12-29T21:26:52.864466
obligatedparty: State Agency
obligationstatement: Must verify engineering qualifications before assigning staff to review engineering documents
sourcetext: Transportation Engineer" B, who personally reviews those documents for final approval
temporalscope: Before assignment of engineering review duties
wasgeneratedby: ProEthica Dual Obligations Extraction
generated at time: 2026-01-06T00:20:52.907411
was generated by: ProEthica Case 56 Extraction

StateAgency_TitleAccuracy
type: TitleAccuracyObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Agency gave engineering titles to unqualified management staff
compliancestatus: unmet
confidencescore: 0.9
derivedfrom: State professional licensing laws
enforcementcontext: State regulatory oversight
generatedattime: 2025-12-29T21:26:52.864466
obligatedparty: State Agency
obligationstatement: Must not assign 'Engineer' title to unlicensed personnel
sourcetext: State Agency has given staff in management positions the title of "Engineer" when they are not qualified
temporalscope: Ongoing
wasgeneratedby: ProEthica Dual Obligations Extraction
generated at time: 2026-01-06T00:20:52.907325
was generated by: ProEthica Case 56 Extraction

State Agency
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-01-06T00:20:52.902809
was generated by: ProEthica Case 56 Extraction

State Agency's responsibility for proper qualification verification and licensing enforcement
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-01-06T00:20:52.903885
was generated by: ProEthica Case 56 Extraction

State_Engineering_Practice_Boundary
type: LegalConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Transportation Engineer B's review and approval activities constitute illegal practice of engineering
confidencescore: 0.95
constrainedentity: All individuals performing engineering functions
constraintsource: State engineering laws
constraintstatement: Cannot practice engineering (including review and approval of engineering documents) without proper licensure
enforcementmechanism: State licensing board enforcement
generatedattime: 2025-12-29T21:27:19.764788
severity: critical
sourcetext: reviews those documents for final approval, makes comments, and directs changes – all of which under the laws of the state constitutes the practice of engineering
temporalscope: Continuous
wasgeneratedby: ProEthica Dual Constraints Extraction
generated at time: 2026-01-06T00:20:52.907624
was generated by: ProEthica Case 56 Extraction

State_Engineering_Practice_Laws
type: StateEngineeringPracticeAct
type: NamedIndividual
confidencescore: 0.9
createdby: State Legislature
generatedattime: 2025-12-29T21:23:51.776202
hasdocumenttitle: State laws defining the practice of engineering
sourcetext: all of which under the laws of the state constitutes the practice of engineering
usedby: Engineer A
usedincontext: Referenced to determine that B's review activities constitute engineering practice
generated at time: 2026-01-06T00:20:52.903201
was generated by: ProEthica Case 56 Extraction

State_Licensing_Act_Generic
type: StateLicensingAct
type: NamedIndividual
confidencescore: 0.85
createdby: State Legislature
generatedattime: 2025-12-29T21:25:54.742463
hasdocumenttitle: State Licensing Act for Professional Engineers
sourcetext: most states have in their state licensing act how and when the word 'engineer' can be used in a title, usually requiring a college degree and/or meeting licensing requirements
usedby: BER Case 95-10 reviewers
usedincontext: Referenced to determine legal requirements for using 'Engineer' title
generated at time: 2026-01-06T00:20:52.906661
was generated by: ProEthica Case 56 Extraction

Transparency_Title_Discussion
type: TransparencyPrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Professional title usage
balancedwith: Industry conventions
generatedattime: 2025-12-29T21:28:26.623121
hascaserelevance: Establishes why Engineer B's title is misleading
hasconcreteexpression: Use of the title, 'engineer,' conveys substantial education, examination, and experience, and, in many states, a license to practice
hasinterpretation: Transparency requires that professional titles accurately reflect actual qualifications
hastensionresolution: Accurate representation overrides informal usage
invokedby: Case discussion author
sourcetext: Use of the title, 'engineer,' conveys substantial education, examination, and experience, and, in many states, a license to practice
wasgeneratedby: ProEthica Dual Principles Extraction
generated at time: 2026-01-06T00:20:52.908770
was generated by: ProEthica Case 56 Extraction

TransportationEngineerB_LackingReviewAuthority
type: EngineeringReviewAuthorityCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilitystatement: Lacks legal capability to review and approve engineering documents
casecontext: B performs engineering review functions without required capability
confidence: 0.95
demonstratedthrough: Absence of engineering license and degree
enablesobligations: Cannot fulfill obligations requiring licensed engineering judgment
generatedattime: 2025-12-29T21:27:47.990363
possessedby: Transportation Engineer B
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: "Transportation Engineer" B is neither a licensed engineer nor even a degreed engineer
temporalaspect: Throughout employment as Transportation Engineer
generated at time: 2026-01-06T00:20:52.908306
was generated by: ProEthica Case 56 Extraction

TransportationEngineerB_LegalCompliance
type: LegalObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: B reviews and directs changes to engineering documents without license
compliancestatus: unmet
confidencescore: 1.0
derivedfrom: State engineering practice laws
enforcementcontext: State licensing board and legal system
generatedattime: 2025-12-29T21:26:52.864466
obligatedparty: Transportation Engineer B
obligationstatement: Must not practice engineering without proper license
sourcetext: reviews those documents for final approval, makes comments, and directs changes – all of which under the laws of the state constitutes the practice
temporalscope: Ongoing
wasgeneratedby: ProEthica Dual Obligations Extraction
generated at time: 2026-01-06T00:20:52.907239
was generated by: ProEthica Case 56 Extraction

TransportationEngineerB_UnlicensedPractice
type: UnlicensedPracticeDiscoveryState
type: NamedIndividual
affectsobligation: Competent review of technical documents
affectsobligation: Legal requirement for engineering licensure
caseinvolvement: B's unlicensed practice of engineering creates the central ethical issue
confidencescore: 0.95
generatedattime: 2025-12-29T21:23:35.920513
hasrelatedparty: All consulting engineers submitting documents
hasrelatedparty: Engineer A
hasrelatedparty: State Agency
hassubject: Transportation Engineer B
hasurgencylevel: critical
initiatedat: When appointed to position (prior to case events)
initiatedby: Accepting position and performing engineering review without license
sourcetext: personally reviews those documents for final approval, makes comments, and directs changes – all of which under the laws of the state constitutes the practice of engineering
terminatedat: Not specified in case
terminatedby: Not specified in case
generated at time: 2026-01-06T00:20:52.904614
was generated by: ProEthica Case 56 Extraction

"Transportation Engineer" B
type: TransportationEngineer
type: NamedIndividual
caseinvolvement: Reviews and approves Engineer A's design documents despite lacking engineering qualifications
generatedattime: 2025-12-29T21:23:04.369968
hasactiveobligation: Directs changes to engineering documents
hasactiveobligation: Makes comments on designs
hasactiveobligation: Reviews design documents
haseducation: not a degreed engineer
hasethicaltension: Practicing engineering without proper qualifications or license
haslicense: not a licensed engineer
hasposition: State Agency manager
hastitle: Transportation Engineer (job title)
sourcetext: "Transportation Engineer" B, who personally reviews those documents for final approval, makes comments, and directs changes
wasattributedto: Case 56 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-01-06T00:20:52.904277
was generated by: ProEthica Case 56 Extraction

document presentation and review process before Engineer A learns about B's lack of qualifications
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-01-06T00:20:52.903434
was generated by: ProEthica Case 56 Extraction

non-degreed personnel
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-01-06T00:20:52.903308
was generated by: ProEthica Case 56 Extraction

the firm
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-01-06T00:20:52.904987
was generated by: ProEthica Case 56 Extraction

val_A1
type: ArgumentValidation
type: NamedIndividual
argument id: A1
argument type: pro
decision point id: DP1
entity validation passed: false
founding good: public_safety
founding value analysis: This argument supports public safety by promoting professional responsibility.
founding value compliant: true
is valid: false
missing entity1: Data: case-56#EngineerA_Report_UnlawfulPractice_Engineer
missing virtue1: competence
validates argument: A1
validation note1: Entity validation failed: 1 missing references
validation note2: Missing virtues: competence
validation score: 0.4
virtue validation passed: false
generated at time: 2026-01-09T13:26:23.225347
was generated by: ProEthica Case 56 Extraction

val_A10
type: ArgumentValidation
type: NamedIndividual
argument id: A10
argument type: con
decision point id: DP2
entity validation passed: false
founding good: public_safety
founding value analysis: This argument identifies potential risks to public safety for evaluation.
founding value compliant: true
is valid: false
validates argument: A10
validation note1: Entity validation failed: 0 missing references
validation score: 0.6000000000000001
virtue validation passed: true
generated at time: 2026-01-09T13:26:23.226521
was generated by: ProEthica Case 56 Extraction

val_A11
type: ArgumentValidation
type: NamedIndividual
argument id: A11
argument type: pro
decision point id: DP3
entity validation passed: true
founding good: public_safety
founding value analysis: This argument supports public safety by promoting professional responsibility.
founding value compliant: true
is valid: true
missing entity1: Warrant: http://proethica.org/ontology/case/56#TransportationEngineerB_LegalCompliance
validates argument: A11
validation score: 1.0
virtue validation passed: true
generated at time: 2026-01-09T13:26:23.226664
was generated by: ProEthica Case 56 Extraction

val_A12
type: ArgumentValidation
type: NamedIndividual
argument id: A12
argument type: con
decision point id: DP3
entity validation passed: false
founding good: public_safety
founding value analysis: This argument identifies potential risks to public safety for evaluation.
founding value compliant: true
is valid: false
missing entity1: Rebuttal: http://proethica.org/ontology/case/56#TransportationEngineerB_LegalCompliance
validates argument: A12
validation note1: Entity validation failed: 1 missing references
validation score: 0.6000000000000001
virtue validation passed: true
generated at time: 2026-01-09T13:26:23.226803
was generated by: ProEthica Case 56 Extraction

val_A13
type: ArgumentValidation
type: NamedIndividual
argument id: A13
argument type: pro
decision point id: DP3
entity validation passed: false
founding good: public_safety
founding value analysis: This argument supports public safety by promoting professional responsibility.
founding value compliant: true
is valid: false
missing virtue1: competence
validates argument: A13
validation note1: Entity validation failed: 0 missing references
validation note2: Missing virtues: competence
validation score: 0.4
virtue validation passed: false
generated at time: 2026-01-09T13:26:23.226927
was generated by: ProEthica Case 56 Extraction

val_A14
type: ArgumentValidation
type: NamedIndividual
argument id: A14
argument type: con
decision point id: DP3
entity validation passed: false
founding good: public_safety
founding value analysis: This argument identifies potential risks to public safety for evaluation.
founding value compliant: true
is valid: false
missing entity1: Rebuttal: http://proethica.org/ontology/case/56#TransportationEngineerB_LegalCompliance
missing virtue1: competence
validates argument: A14
validation note1: Entity validation failed: 1 missing references
validation score: 0.6000000000000001
virtue validation passed: true
generated at time: 2026-01-09T13:26:23.227052
was generated by: ProEthica Case 56 Extraction

val_A15
type: ArgumentValidation
type: NamedIndividual
argument id: A15
argument type: pro
decision point id: DP4
entity validation passed: false
founding good: public_safety
founding value analysis: This argument supports public safety by promoting professional responsibility.
founding value compliant: true
is valid: false
validates argument: A15
validation note1: Entity validation failed: 0 missing references
validation score: 0.6000000000000001
virtue validation passed: true
generated at time: 2026-01-09T13:26:23.227237
was generated by: ProEthica Case 56 Extraction

val_A16
type: ArgumentValidation
type: NamedIndividual
argument id: A16
argument type: con
decision point id: DP4
entity validation passed: false
founding good: public_safety
founding value analysis: This argument identifies potential risks to public safety for evaluation.
founding value compliant: true
is valid: false
validates argument: A16
validation note1: Entity validation failed: 0 missing references
validation score: 0.6000000000000001
virtue validation passed: true
generated at time: 2026-01-09T13:26:23.227380
was generated by: ProEthica Case 56 Extraction

val_A17
type: ArgumentValidation
type: NamedIndividual
argument id: A17
argument type: pro
decision point id: DP4
entity validation passed: true
founding good: public_safety
founding value analysis: This argument supports public safety by promoting professional responsibility.
founding value compliant: true
is valid: false
missing virtue1: competence
validates argument: A17
validation note1: Missing virtues: competence
validation score: 0.8
virtue validation passed: false
generated at time: 2026-01-09T13:26:23.227527
was generated by: ProEthica Case 56 Extraction

val_A18
type: ArgumentValidation
type: NamedIndividual
argument id: A18
argument type: con
decision point id: DP4
entity validation passed: false
founding good: public_safety
founding value analysis: This argument identifies potential risks to public safety for evaluation.
founding value compliant: true
is valid: false
missing virtue1: competence
validates argument: A18
validation note1: Entity validation failed: 0 missing references
validation score: 0.6000000000000001
virtue validation passed: true
generated at time: 2026-01-09T13:26:23.227649
was generated by: ProEthica Case 56 Extraction

val_A2
type: ArgumentValidation
type: NamedIndividual
argument id: A2
argument type: con
decision point id: DP1
entity validation passed: false
founding good: public_safety
founding value analysis: This argument identifies potential risks to public safety for evaluation.
founding value compliant: true
is valid: false
validates argument: A2
validation note1: Entity validation failed: 0 missing references
validation score: 0.6000000000000001
virtue validation passed: true
generated at time: 2026-01-09T13:26:23.225468
was generated by: ProEthica Case 56 Extraction

val_A3
type: ArgumentValidation
type: NamedIndividual
argument id: A3
argument type: pro
decision point id: DP1
entity validation passed: false
founding good: public_safety
founding value analysis: This argument supports public safety by promoting professional responsibility.
founding value compliant: true
is valid: false
validates argument: A3
validation note1: Entity validation failed: 0 missing references
validation score: 0.6000000000000001
virtue validation passed: true
generated at time: 2026-01-09T13:26:23.225582
was generated by: ProEthica Case 56 Extraction

val_A4
type: ArgumentValidation
type: NamedIndividual
argument id: A4
argument type: con
decision point id: DP1
entity validation passed: false
founding good: public_safety
founding value analysis: This argument identifies potential risks to public safety for evaluation.
founding value compliant: true
is valid: false
validates argument: A4
validation note1: Entity validation failed: 0 missing references
validation score: 0.6000000000000001
virtue validation passed: true
generated at time: 2026-01-09T13:26:23.225725
was generated by: ProEthica Case 56 Extraction

val_A5
type: ArgumentValidation
type: NamedIndividual
argument id: A5
argument type: pro
decision point id: DP1
entity validation passed: false
founding good: public_safety
founding value analysis: This argument supports public safety by promoting professional responsibility.
founding value compliant: true
is valid: false
missing entity1: Data: case-56#EngineerA_Not_Aid_UnlawfulPractice_Engineer
validates argument: A5
validation note1: Entity validation failed: 1 missing references
validation score: 0.6000000000000001
virtue validation passed: true
generated at time: 2026-01-09T13:26:23.225868
was generated by: ProEthica Case 56 Extraction

val_A6
type: ArgumentValidation
type: NamedIndividual
argument id: A6
argument type: con
decision point id: DP1
entity validation passed: false
founding good: public_safety
founding value analysis: This argument identifies potential risks to public safety for evaluation.
founding value compliant: true
is valid: false
validates argument: A6
validation note1: Entity validation failed: 0 missing references
validation score: 0.6000000000000001
virtue validation passed: true
generated at time: 2026-01-09T13:26:23.225983
was generated by: ProEthica Case 56 Extraction

val_A7
type: ArgumentValidation
type: NamedIndividual
argument id: A7
argument type: pro
decision point id: DP2
entity validation passed: false
founding good: public_safety
founding value analysis: This argument supports public safety by promoting professional responsibility.
founding value compliant: true
is valid: false
missing entity1: Data: case-56#StateAgency_QualificationVerification_Agency
validates argument: A7
validation note1: Entity validation failed: 1 missing references
validation score: 0.6000000000000001
virtue validation passed: true
generated at time: 2026-01-09T13:26:23.226167
was generated by: ProEthica Case 56 Extraction

val_A8
type: ArgumentValidation
type: NamedIndividual
argument id: A8
argument type: con
decision point id: DP2
entity validation passed: false
founding good: public_safety
founding value analysis: This argument identifies potential risks to public safety for evaluation.
founding value compliant: true
is valid: false
validates argument: A8
validation note1: Entity validation failed: 0 missing references
validation score: 0.6000000000000001
virtue validation passed: true
generated at time: 2026-01-09T13:26:23.226284
was generated by: ProEthica Case 56 Extraction

val_A9
type: ArgumentValidation
type: NamedIndividual
argument id: A9
argument type: pro
decision point id: DP2
entity validation passed: false
founding good: public_safety
founding value analysis: This argument supports public safety by promoting professional responsibility.
founding value compliant: true
is valid: false
missing virtue1: competence
validates argument: A9
validation note1: Entity validation failed: 0 missing references
validation note2: Missing virtues: competence
validation score: 0.4
virtue validation passed: false
generated at time: 2026-01-09T13:26:23.226409
was generated by: ProEthica Case 56 Extraction

A1
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-01-06T00:20:52.908199
was generated by: ProEthica Case 56 Extraction

A10
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-01-06T00:20:52.911125
was generated by: ProEthica Case 56 Extraction

A11
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-01-06T00:20:52.911364
was generated by: ProEthica Case 56 Extraction

A12
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-01-06T00:20:52.911741
was generated by: ProEthica Case 56 Extraction

A13
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-01-06T00:20:52.903530
was generated by: ProEthica Case 56 Extraction

A14
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-01-06T00:20:52.903560
was generated by: ProEthica Case 56 Extraction

A15
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-01-06T00:20:52.903586
was generated by: ProEthica Case 56 Extraction

A16
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-01-06T00:20:52.902409
was generated by: ProEthica Case 56 Extraction

A17
type: Argument
type: NamedIndividual
argument type: pro
backing provision: II.1.b
claim entity: Maintain individual qualification requirements regardless of supervision
claim text: Engineer A should maintain individual qualification requirements regardless of supervision
confidence score: 0.7999999999999999
decision point id: DP4
founding good analysis: This action supports public safety by fulfilling the Supervision Obligation
option description: Maintain individual qualification requirements regardless of supervision
role label: Engineer A
warrant entity: Supervision Obligation
warrant type: obligation
generated at time: 2026-01-09T13:26:23.225084
was generated by: ProEthica Case 56 Extraction

A18
type: Argument
type: NamedIndividual
argument type: con
backing provision: Professional Standards
claim entity: Maintain individual qualification requirements regardless of supervision
claim text: Engineer A should NOT maintain individual qualification requirements regardless of supervision
confidence score: 0.7
decision point id: DP4
founding good analysis: This action may compromise public safety by violating the Human Oversight
option description: Maintain individual qualification requirements regardless of supervision
role label: Engineer A
warrant entity: Human Oversight
warrant type: ethical_tension
generated at time: 2026-01-09T13:26:23.225192
was generated by: ProEthica Case 56 Extraction

A2
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-01-06T00:20:52.911638
was generated by: ProEthica Case 56 Extraction

A3
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-01-06T00:20:52.911664
was generated by: ProEthica Case 56 Extraction

A4
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-01-06T00:20:52.911689
was generated by: ProEthica Case 56 Extraction

A5
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-01-06T00:20:52.902835
was generated by: ProEthica Case 56 Extraction

A6
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-01-06T00:20:52.911715
was generated by: ProEthica Case 56 Extraction

A7
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-01-06T00:20:52.908975
was generated by: ProEthica Case 56 Extraction

A8
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-01-06T00:20:52.909458
was generated by: ProEthica Case 56 Extraction

A9
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-01-06T00:20:52.911071
was generated by: ProEthica Case 56 Extraction