ProEthica Case 58 Ontology
type: Ontology
created: 2026-02-25T22:07:12.193438
imports: cases
imports: intermediate

Altruistic Motive Policy Circumvention Prohibition — Engineer W — Shadyvale Water Main
type: AltruisticMotivePolicyCircumventionProhibitionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer W's directive was motivated by sympathy for Shadyvale's inability to afford the $750,000 water main replacement, but this altruistic motive does not authorize circumvention of DOT policy or covert diversion of approximately $700,000 in public funds.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.91
constrainedentity: Engineer W
constraintclass: Altruistic Motive Policy Circumvention Prohibition Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer W's genuine sympathy for Shadyvale's financial hardship and the public benefit of upgrading the undersized water main does not justify directing a deliberate design manipulation to circumvent the DOT's unambiguous utility betterment cost-allocation policy.
discoveredincase: 58
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T21:53:48.105500+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 58
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T21:53:48.105500+00:00
importance: high
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case 98-5 (benevolent motives do not justify compromising ethical obligations); NSPE Code of Ethics Canon 5
sourcetext: The cost to replace is an unaffordable $750,000.
temporalscope: At the time of design development review when Engineer W communicated the indirect directive to Engineer Intern D
textreferences: As a result, Shadyvale would pay an affordable $50,000 for the water main upgrade, an amount they can afford.
textreferences: Engineer W conveys to Engineer Intern D in an indirect way that the design should be revised so that the old water main is impacted.
textreferences: The cost to replace is an unaffordable $750,000.
wasattributedto: Case 58 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:07:12.204913
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

BER Case 86-6
type: BERCasePrecedent
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.95
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
discoveredincase: 58
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case 86-6 (Intentional Misleading by Obscuring Truth)
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T21:46:54.272435+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 58
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T21:46:54.272435+00:00
importance: medium
resourceclass: BER Case Precedent
sourcetext: in the words of prior BER Case 86-6, 'intentionally designed to mislead… by obscuring the truth.'
textreferences: in the words of prior BER Case 86-6, 'intentionally designed to mislead… by obscuring the truth.'
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review in establishing the standard for deceptive conduct
usedincontext: Cited within the discussion of BER Case 05-5 as establishing the standard characterization of conduct 'intentionally designed to mislead by obscuring the truth,' providing foundational precedent for the deception analysis
version: 1986
wasattributedto: Case 58 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:07:12.197749
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

BER Case 86-6 before BER Case 98-5
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: in the words of prior BER Case 86-6... In BER Case 98-5, case numbering implies chronological precedence
from entity text: BER Case 86-6
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: BER Case 98-5
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: BER Case 98-5
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:07:12.219728
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

BER Case 98-5 before BER Case 05-5
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: In BER Case 98-5... BER Case 05-5 relates how Engineer Adam, case numbering implies chronological precedence
from entity text: BER Case 98-5
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: BER Case 05-5
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: BER Case 05-5
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:07:12.219806
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

Case 58 Timeline
type: NamedIndividual
type: TemporalEntity
action count: 5
event count: 6
total elements: 11
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:07:12.219936
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

CausalLink_Compliance Decision by Intern
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:22:51.685657
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

CausalLink_Indirect Design Redirection Or
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:22:51.685595
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

CausalLink_Project Delegation to Intern
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:22:51.681005
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

CausalLink_Responsibility-Shifting Sign-O
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:22:51.685626
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

CausalLink_Utility-Avoidance Compliant De
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:22:51.681060
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

Compliance Decision by Intern
type: Action
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
event role context: Engineer Intern, DOT
foreseen unintended effects: Either decision will shape Engineer Intern D's professional identity and ethical disposition at a formative pre-licensure stage
foreseen unintended effects: If compliant: participation in policy circumvention, creation of a false engineering record, professional and legal exposure despite sign-off offer, lasting harm to professional ethical formation
foreseen unintended effects: If non-compliant: potential supervisory conflict, career risk in a dependent pre-licensure position, but preservation of professional integrity and fulfillment of independent ethical obligation
fulfills obligation text: If non-compliant: Canon 4 faithful agency to DOT employer, Canon 3 objectivity and truthfulness, Canon 1 public welfare, independent ethical obligation as a pre-licensure engineer
guided by principle text: NSPE Code Canon 1: Engineers shall hold public safety, health, and welfare paramount
guided by principle text: NSPE Code Canon 3: Engineers shall issue only objective and truthful statements
guided by principle text: NSPE Code Canon 4: Engineers shall act as faithful agents of their employers
guided by principle text: Obligation to report unethical supervisory conduct through appropriate channels if direct compliance is refused
guided by principle text: Pre-licensure engineers bear independent ethical obligations and cannot defer ethical judgment entirely to supervisors
guided by principle text: Professional responsibility is personal and non-transferable regardless of supervisory sign-off
has agent: Engineer Intern D
has mental state: deliberative and under duress, decision not yet made
intended outcome: Undetermined at time of analysis; compliance would produce a revised design intentionally impacting the water main; non-compliance would require Engineer Intern D to resist supervisory direction and potentially escalate the ethical conflict
requires capability text: Ability to identify and utilize legitimate escalation channels for reporting unethical supervisory conduct
requires capability text: Independent ethical judgment under supervisory pressure
requires capability text: Knowledge of DOT policy and the ethical significance of intentional utility conflict manipulation
requires capability text: Understanding that professional responsibility is personal and non-transferable
temporal marker: Pending at the time of case analysis, unresolved decision point following Engineer W's directive and sign-off offer
temporal sequence: 11
violates obligation text: If compliant: Canon 1 public welfare, contributing to misallocation of DOT public funds
violates obligation text: If compliant: Canon 3 objectivity, executing a design that misrepresents a manufactured conflict as unavoidable
violates obligation text: If compliant: Canon 4 faithful agency to DOT employer by participating in policy circumvention
violates obligation text: If compliant: Independent ethical obligation, reliance on Engineer W's sign-off as moral cover abdicates personal professional responsibility
within competence: true
comment: At the time of case analysis, Engineer Intern D faced the unresolved volitional decision of whether to comply with Engineer W's directive to revise the design to intentionally impact the water main. This pending decision represents the central ethical choice of the case and the point at which Engineer Intern D must exercise independent professional judgment despite supervisory pressure.
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:07:12.218863
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

Compliant Design Produced
type: Event
type: NamedIndividual
activates constraint: Design_Review_Required_Before_Finalization
activates constraint: Licensed_Engineer_Must_Review_And_Stamp_Design
causes state change: Compliant design exists as formal work product; design enters review phase; the existence of this compliant design makes subsequent redirection a deliberate choice to abandon compliance, not a correction of error
concept category: Event
creates obligation: Design_Must_Proceed_To_Review_Phase
creates obligation: Engineer_W_Must_Review_Design_For_Policy_Compliance
creates obligation: Engineer_W_Must_Review_Design_For_Technical_Adequacy
emergency status: routine
event type: outcome
temporal marker: Design development phase; following project assignment and before design development review
temporal sequence: 6
urgency level: low
comment: Engineer Intern D completed an initial highway reconstruction design that successfully avoided conflicts with existing utilities, including the aging water main, in full compliance with DOT policy. This design represented the technically and ethically correct outcome of the assignment as originally framed.
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:07:12.219091
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

Conclusion_1
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 1
conclusion number: 1
conclusion text: It would not be ethical for Engineer Intern D to accede to Engineer W’s veiled directive to revise the design so that the old water main is impacted by the DOT project.
conclusion type: board_explicit
extraction reasoning: Parsed from imported case text (no LLM)
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:22:51.683261
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

Conclusion_101
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: I 3
cites provision: I 5
answers question1: 101
cited provision1: I.5.
cited provision2: I.3.
conclusion number: 101
conclusion text: Beyond the Board's finding that Engineer Intern D should not accede to Engineer W's veiled directive, the indirectness of Engineer W's communication itself constitutes a distinct ethical violation independent of the underlying policy circumvention. By conveying the design redirection in an oblique, deniable manner rather than issuing a direct written order, Engineer W engaged in a form of institutional deception — structuring the communication to obscure the policy conflict from DOT oversight while still achieving the policy-violating outcome. This indirection does not reduce Engineer Intern D's ethical burden; it heightens it. Because Engineer Intern D demonstrably understood the directive's import — the case facts establish that he grasped the cost-allocation mechanism and its policy implications — the ambiguity of the communication cannot function as cover for compliance. An intern who recognizes that an indirect directive is designed to circumvent policy bears the same refusal obligation as one who receives an explicit order to the same effect.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:22:51.683407
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

Conclusion_102
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: I 4
cites provision: I 5
answers question1: 102
cited provision1: I.4.
cited provision2: I.5.
conclusion number: 102
conclusion text: Engineer W's offer to personally sign off on the revised design does not transfer ethical responsibility away from Engineer Intern D and cannot function as an ethical shield for the intern's compliance. The sign-off promise is structurally a responsibility-laundering mechanism: it is designed to make Engineer Intern D feel insulated from consequences while still securing his technical execution of the policy-violating revision. Under the NSPE Code's faithful agent and deception avoidance provisions, each engineer bears independent ethical obligations that cannot be contractually or informally reassigned by a supervisor's promise. Applying the Kantian universalizability test, a maxim permitting interns to execute policy-violating designs whenever a supervisor accepts nominal sign-off responsibility would, if universalized, systematically enable senior engineers to circumvent institutional controls by routing violations through subordinates — a result that is self-defeating as a professional norm and corrosive to the integrity of public engineering institutions. Engineer Intern D therefore retains full independent culpability for executing the revision regardless of Engineer W's offer.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:22:51.683479
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

Conclusion_103
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: I 4
cites provision: I 6
answers question1: 103
cited provision1: I.4.
cited provision2: I.6.
conclusion number: 103
conclusion text: Engineer Intern D's ethical obligations in this situation extend beyond mere refusal of the directive to an affirmative obligation to escalate the policy conflict to higher DOT authority. Silent non-compliance — declining to revise the design without reporting the directive — would leave Engineer W's policy-circumventing conduct unaddressed and would fail to protect the institutional integrity of the DOT cost-allocation framework. The fact that Engineer Intern D is unlicensed and about to sit for the PE exam does not diminish this escalation obligation; if anything, the pre-licensure context heightens its importance, because the formative professional norms Engineer Intern D internalizes at this stage will shape his conduct throughout his career. The escalation obligation is also practically significant: Engineer W's deliberate use of indirect communication was specifically calibrated to avoid creating a formal record of the directive, meaning that Engineer Intern D's upward reporting would supply precisely the institutional accountability that Engineer W's indirection was designed to prevent.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:22:51.683550
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

Conclusion_104
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: I 4
cites provision: I 5
cites provision: I 6
answers question1: 104
answers question2: 2
cited provision1: I.4.
cited provision2: I.5.
cited provision3: I.6.
conclusion number: 104
conclusion text: Beyond the Board's finding that Engineer W should not sign off on the manipulated design, Engineer W's conduct represents a compounded ethical failure that cannot be redeemed by the genuinely benevolent motive of assisting Shadyvale's financially constrained municipality. The NSPE Code's faithful agent obligation requires Engineer W to act as a trustee of DOT resources and policy, not as an independent arbiter of which public interests deserve cross-subsidization through covert fund diversion. The approximately $700,000 in DOT funds that would be redirected to Shadyvale's water main upgrade are public funds subject to legislatively and administratively established cost-allocation rules; Engineer W lacks the authority to unilaterally redistribute them through design manipulation, regardless of how sympathetic Shadyvale's situation may be. Benevolent motive is not an ethical defense under the Code — it is precisely the kind of rationalization that enables well-intentioned engineers to cause institutional harm while believing themselves to be acting virtuously. The ethical path available to Engineer W was transparent institutional advocacy: formally petitioning DOT leadership or the relevant legislative authority for a hardship exception or policy amendment on Shadyvale's behalf. That pathway was available, would have been professionally appropriate, and would have achieved the same public benefit without deception or policy circumvention.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:22:51.683652
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

Conclusion_105
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: I 3
cites provision: I 4
cites provision: I 5
answers question1: 204
answers question2: 2
cited provision1: I.3.
cited provision2: I.4.
cited provision3: I.5.
conclusion number: 105
conclusion text: Engineer W's signing off on the manipulated design would constitute a violation of the responsible charge obligation that is analytically distinct from, and compounding of, the faithful agent and deception violations. Responsible charge requires active, substantive review of work to ensure policy and technical compliance — not nominal endorsement of a design that the reviewing engineer himself directed to be made non-compliant. When Engineer W offers to sign off on the revised design, he is simultaneously abdicating genuine responsible charge review and weaponizing the sign-off mechanism as an institutional cover for the policy violation. The sign-off, in this context, would function as a false professional representation to the DOT institution: it would signal to the agency that the design has been reviewed for policy compliance when in fact the reviewing engineer is the architect of the policy circumvention. This transforms the sign-off from a quality assurance instrument into a deception instrument, implicating the Code's honesty and deception avoidance provisions in addition to the faithful agent obligation.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:22:51.683751
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

Conclusion_106
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: I 6
answers question1: 104
cited provision1: I.6.
conclusion number: 106
conclusion text: Engineer W's direction of Engineer Intern D to execute a policy-circumventing design revision constitutes a distinct and serious ethical failure in professional mentorship that the Board's conclusions do not explicitly address. Engineer Intern D is at the most formative stage of his professional career — he is about to sit for the PE exam, the threshold credential that marks entry into the licensed profession. The professional norms, ethical reflexes, and institutional dispositions that Engineer Intern D internalizes through his supervised practice at this stage will shape his conduct for decades. By using Engineer Intern D as the instrument of a policy circumvention, Engineer W is not merely committing an isolated ethical violation; he is actively modeling for a pre-licensure engineer that indirect communication, supervisor sign-off promises, and benevolent rationalization are acceptable tools for navigating policy constraints. This formative harm is independent of and additional to the immediate policy violation, and it represents a breach of the senior engineer's obligation to conduct himself in a manner that enhances the honor and reputation of the profession — an obligation that carries heightened weight when the audience is an engineer in professional formation.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:22:51.683828
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

Conclusion_107
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: I 3
cites provision: I 4
cites provision: I 5
answers question1: 403
cited provision1: I.3.
cited provision2: I.5.
cited provision3: I.4.
conclusion number: 107
conclusion text: The counterfactual in which the water main conflict was genuinely unavoidable — where the highway alignment truly could not have been designed around the existing main — illuminates with precision why the artificial manufacture of a utility conflict is the core ethical violation in this case, rather than the cost outcome itself. Under DOT policy, a genuinely unavoidable conflict would have entitled Shadyvale to exactly the cost relief that Engineer W is attempting to engineer artificially. The ethical violation is therefore not the outcome — Shadyvale receiving DOT-funded water main replacement — but the means: the deliberate falsification of the engineering record to make an avoidable conflict appear unavoidable. This distinction is critical because it demonstrates that the NSPE Code's honesty and deception avoidance provisions are violated not by the cost allocation result but by the misrepresentation of engineering facts to achieve it. It also confirms that Engineer W's conduct cannot be defended on public welfare grounds: the public welfare argument would justify the outcome only if the factual predicate — unavoidability — were true, and Engineer W's entire scheme depends on manufacturing that predicate falsely.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:22:51.683905
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

Conclusion_2
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 2
conclusion number: 2
conclusion text: It would not be ethical for Engineer W to sign off on a design altered so that the old water main is impacted by the DOT project.
conclusion type: board_explicit
extraction reasoning: Parsed from imported case text (no LLM)
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:22:51.683332
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

Conclusion_201
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: I 3
cites provision: I 5
answers question1: 101
cited provision1: I.3.
cited provision2: I.5.
conclusion number: 201
conclusion text: In response to Q101: Engineer W's deliberate use of indirect, veiled language to convey the design redirection directive — rather than issuing a direct written order — itself constitutes a deceptive act under the NSPE Code. By obscuring the directive's policy-violating character through indirection, Engineer W exploited the ambiguity of informal communication to create plausible deniability while still achieving the policy-circumventing outcome. This indirection is not ethically neutral; it is a calculated mechanism to avoid the institutional scrutiny that a direct written order would invite. Under Code provisions I.3 and I.5, which require objective and truthful public statements and prohibit deceptive acts, the choice of indirect communication is itself a violation independent of the substantive design manipulation it produces. For Engineer Intern D, this indirection imposes a heightened — not diminished — ethical burden. The very ambiguity Engineer W introduced cannot serve as cover for compliance. An engineer who recognizes that a supervisor's indirect communication is designed to achieve a policy-violating outcome is obligated to name that conflict explicitly rather than treat the ambiguity as permission to proceed. Engineer Intern D's professional formation, his imminent PE examination, and his demonstrated knowledge of DOT utility betterment policy all establish that he possessed the capability to recognize the directive's policy-violating character. The indirectness of the communication therefore heightens rather than excuses Engineer Intern D's independent ethical responsibility to refuse and escalate.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:22:51.683983
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

Conclusion_202
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: I 4
cites provision: I 6
answers question1: 102
cited provision1: I.4.
cited provision2: I.6.
conclusion number: 202
conclusion text: In response to Q102: Engineer W's explicit offer to personally sign off on the revised design does not transfer ethical and professional responsibility away from Engineer Intern D, nor does it extinguish Engineer Intern D's independent ethical culpability for executing a design revision he knows to be policy-violating. The sign-off promise functions as a responsibility-shifting mechanism — a form of institutional cover — but it cannot operate as a moral shield under the NSPE Code. Code provision I.4 requires each engineer individually to act as a faithful agent or trustee of the employer; that obligation is personal and non-delegable. Engineer Intern D's duty to comply with DOT utility betterment policy is not contingent on whether a supervisor endorses the violation. Moreover, the sign-off promise is itself ethically suspect: it is offered precisely because Engineer W knows the revised design would not survive neutral institutional review, and the promise is therefore a mechanism to suppress that review rather than to satisfy it. Engineer Intern D, who possesses knowledge of DOT policy and has already produced a compliant design, cannot in good conscience treat the sign-off promise as absolution. A maxim permitting interns to execute policy-violating designs whenever a supervisor accepts personal responsibility would, if universalized, systematically enable senior engineers to launder policy circumvention through subordinates — a result that is self-defeating as a professional norm and directly contrary to the Code's requirement that engineers conduct themselves honorably and lawfully under provision I.6.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:22:51.684108
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

Conclusion_203
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: I 4
cites provision: I 5
cites provision: I 6
answers question1: 103
cited provision1: I.4.
cited provision2: I.5.
cited provision3: I.6.
conclusion number: 203
conclusion text: In response to Q103: Engineer Intern D bears an affirmative obligation to escalate Engineer W's policy-circumventing directive to higher DOT authority, and this obligation is not diminished by his unlicensed status. The NSPE Code's faithful agent obligation under provision I.4 and its prohibition on deceptive acts under provision I.5 apply to all engineers regardless of licensure status. Engineer Intern D's imminent PE examination is ethically significant not as a reason for reduced obligation but as evidence that he has internalized the professional standards that make the policy conflict recognizable to him. The argument that an intern should defer to supervisory judgment as a matter of epistemic humility has force only where the supervisor's directive falls within a range of reasonable professional judgment; it has no force where the directive unambiguously violates a clear written policy, as is the case here. Silent refusal — declining to revise the design without escalating — satisfies the non-complicity obligation but does not fully discharge Engineer Intern D's duties, because it leaves Engineer W free to reassign the work or pursue the policy circumvention through other means. Escalation to higher DOT authority is the affirmative step that creates institutional accountability and protects the public funds that DOT policy is designed to safeguard. The graduated escalation pathway available to Engineer Intern D — raising the conflict with Engineer W directly, then escalating to DOT supervisory authority if Engineer W persists — is both practically available and professionally obligatory under the circumstances.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:22:51.684187
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

Conclusion_204
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: I 6
answers question1: 104
cited provision1: I.6.
conclusion number: 204
conclusion text: In response to Q104: Engineer W's conduct in directing Engineer Intern D — a pre-licensure engineer on the verge of taking the PE examination — to execute a policy-circumventing design constitutes a distinct and serious ethical failure in professional mentorship, separate from and compounding the faithful agent and deception violations. The NSPE Code's requirement under provision I.6 that engineers conduct themselves honorably and responsibly encompasses the formative modeling obligation that senior engineers bear toward those in their charge. Engineer W's use of Engineer Intern D as the instrument of a policy violation — shielded by an offer to sign off — exposes a junior engineer at the most formative moment of his professional development to a corrupting model: that policy violations are acceptable when the cause is sympathetic, that indirect communication can launder unethical directives, and that supervisor sign-off transfers moral responsibility. Each of these lessons, if internalized, would degrade Engineer Intern D's professional integrity across his entire career. The mentorship failure is compounded by the power asymmetry: Engineer Intern D, dependent on Engineer W's supervision and professional endorsement as he approaches licensure, faces heightened pressure to comply. Engineer W's exploitation of that asymmetry — however unintentionally — represents a failure of the duty to support and protect the professional formation of subordinate engineers, a duty that is implicit in the Code's broader mandate of honorable and responsible professional conduct.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:22:51.684255
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

Conclusion_205
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: I 4
cites provision: I 5
answers question1: 201
cited provision1: I.4.
cited provision2: I.5.
conclusion number: 205
conclusion text: In response to Q201: The tension between the Public Welfare Paramount principle and the Faithful Agent and Procurement Integrity obligations is real but ultimately resolvable in favor of the latter. The public benefit to Shadyvale — a $700,000 reduction in water main replacement cost — is genuine and not trivial. However, the means by which Engineer W proposes to achieve that benefit involve covert diversion of DOT funds through design manipulation, which violates the DOT's cost-allocation policy, deceives the DOT as the institutional steward of public funds, and sets a precedent that undermines the integrity of public infrastructure procurement. The Public Welfare Paramount principle does not authorize engineers to achieve public benefits through deceptive or policy-circumventing means; it requires that public welfare be served through honest, transparent, and lawful professional conduct. Furthermore, the DOT's betterment policy is itself a public welfare instrument: it ensures that highway project funds are allocated to highway purposes and that municipalities bear the cost of improvements that benefit them specifically, thereby protecting the broader taxpaying public from subsidizing local utility upgrades through highway budgets. Engineer W's invocation of public welfare for Shadyvale therefore pits one public interest against another, and the resolution must favor the transparent, policy-compliant pathway — including open advocacy for a hardship exception — over covert fund diversion.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:22:51.684327
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

Conclusion_206
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: I 4
cites provision: I 6
answers question1: 202
cited provision1: I.4.
cited provision2: I.6.
conclusion number: 206
conclusion text: In response to Q202: The tension between Engineer W's sympathy for Shadyvale's financial constraints and his DOT employer obligations is a genuine moral tension, but it is one that the NSPE Code resolves through the principle of transparent advocacy rather than covert policy circumvention. Had Engineer W formally petitioned DOT leadership or the relevant state authority to amend the betterment policy, create a hardship exception for financially constrained municipalities, or seek legislative authorization for cost-sharing arrangements in cases of genuine public health need, he would have served Shadyvale's interests without violating his faithful agent obligation, without deceiving the DOT, and without corrupting Engineer Intern D's professional formation. This transparent advocacy pathway was practically available: the case facts establish that Engineer W possessed knowledge of Shadyvale's situation, the DOT policy, and the design options — precisely the information needed to frame a formal advocacy request. The pathway was also professionally obligatory: Code provision I.4 requires faithful agency to the employer, and the appropriate response to a perceived injustice in employer policy is transparent advocacy through legitimate channels, not unilateral circumvention. Engineer W's failure to pursue this pathway — and his choice instead of indirect directive and sign-off cover — reveals that the ethical violation was not the product of an impossible dilemma but of a choice to achieve a sympathetic outcome through impermissible means.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:22:51.684399
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

Conclusion_207
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: I 4
cites provision: I 5
answers question1: 203
cited provision1: I.4.
cited provision2: I.5.
conclusion number: 207
conclusion text: In response to Q203: The tension between the Subordinate Complicity Prohibition and the Intern Epistemic Humility Escalation Obligation is resolved by the clarity of the policy violation at issue. The epistemic humility principle — which counsels interns to defer to supervisory judgment in matters of professional discretion — applies where a supervisor's directive reflects a reasonable exercise of engineering judgment within a range of permissible options. It does not apply where the directive unambiguously violates a clear written policy, as is the case here. State DOT policy unambiguously requires that only unavoidable utility conflicts be paid for as part of highway projects; Engineer Intern D has already produced a compliant design demonstrating that the conflict is avoidable; and Engineer W's directive is explicitly aimed at manufacturing an artificial conflict to circumvent that policy. In this context, there is no genuine epistemic uncertainty for Engineer Intern D to defer to supervisory resolution. The Subordinate Complicity Prohibition therefore governs: Engineer Intern D must refuse to execute the policy-violating revision. The Intern Epistemic Humility Escalation Obligation retains relevance not as a reason to comply but as a reason to escalate — to bring the conflict to higher DOT authority rather than resolving it unilaterally through silent refusal. The calibration for an unlicensed intern facing a clearly policy-violating directive from a senior engineer is therefore: refuse compliance, name the conflict explicitly, and escalate through available institutional channels.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:22:51.684472
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

Conclusion_208
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: I 3
cites provision: I 5
cites provision: I 6
answers question1: 204
cited provision1: I.3.
cited provision2: I.5.
cited provision3: I.6.
conclusion number: 208
conclusion text: In response to Q204: Engineer W's offer to sign off on the revised design simultaneously constitutes an abdication of genuine responsible charge review and a mechanism to obscure the policy violation from DOT institutional oversight, creating a direct conflict between the Responsible Charge Engagement principle and the Honesty in Professional Representations principle — but this conflict is not a genuine tension requiring resolution; it is a compound violation. Responsible charge requires Engineer W to actively review work for policy compliance and to ensure that designs submitted under his authority conform to applicable standards. By offering to sign off on a design he knows to be policy-violating, Engineer W is not exercising responsible charge — he is inverting it, using the authority of his signature to certify compliance he knows does not exist. This simultaneously violates Code provision I.3's requirement of objective and truthful professional representations and provision I.5's prohibition on deceptive acts. The sign-off offer is therefore not a case where two legitimate principles pull in opposite directions; it is a case where the appearance of responsible charge authority is weaponized to achieve the opposite of what that authority is meant to ensure. The institutional harm is compounded because Engineer W's signature would cause DOT reviewers to rely on a false certification of policy compliance, depriving the institution of the oversight opportunity that the responsible charge requirement is designed to create.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:22:51.684572
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

Conclusion_209
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: I 4
answers question1: 301
cited provision1: I.4.
conclusion number: 209
conclusion text: In response to Q301: From a deontological perspective, Engineer Intern D's duty to act as a faithful agent of the DOT holds unconditionally in this case, and benevolent motive cannot serve as a moral justification for revising the design to artificially impact the old water main. The Kantian framework is particularly illuminating here: the maxim 'an engineer may artificially manufacture a utility conflict in a public highway design in order to shift costs to the highway project budget when the municipality cannot afford the true cost of the improvement' cannot be universalized without destroying the integrity of public infrastructure cost-allocation systems entirely. If every engineer were permitted to manipulate designs to achieve sympathetic cost outcomes for financially constrained municipalities, the DOT betterment policy — and analogous policies across all public agencies — would become unenforceable, public funds would be systematically diverted from their authorized purposes, and the institutional trust that makes public engineering possible would be undermined. The categorical nature of the faithful agent duty means that Engineer Intern D's awareness of Shadyvale's genuine financial hardship, while morally relevant as context, cannot function as a justification for the design revision. The NSPE Code's provision I.4 does not contain a hardship exception, and the Board's conclusion that compliance with the directive would be unethical is fully consistent with the deontological analysis: the duty holds regardless of the sympathetic outcome it forecloses.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:22:51.684652
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

Conclusion_210
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: I 4
cites provision: I 5
cites provision: I 6
answers question1: 302
cited provision1: I.4.
cited provision2: I.5.
cited provision3: I.6.
conclusion number: 210
conclusion text: In response to Q302: From a consequentialist perspective, the aggregate benefit to Shadyvale residents of a $700,000 cost reduction does not outweigh the harms of covert DOT fund diversion, policy circumvention, and the corrupting precedent set for Engineer Intern D's professional formation, and the revised design cannot be justified on net-outcome grounds. The consequentialist calculus must account for harms beyond the immediate transaction. First, the $700,000 diverted from DOT highway funds represents a real cost to the broader public — taxpayers who funded the highway project for highway purposes — not a costless benefit to Shadyvale. Second, the precedent established by a successful covert policy circumvention creates systemic harm: it signals to other engineers that sympathetic outcomes justify deceptive means, erodes the integrity of public procurement, and invites replication across other projects and jurisdictions. Third, the harm to Engineer Intern D's professional formation — exposure at the most formative moment of his career to a model of policy circumvention through indirect directives and sign-off cover — carries long-term costs that are difficult to quantify but real and serious. Fourth, the institutional harm to DOT oversight mechanisms — which depend on engineers' honest representations in responsible charge certifications — is a systemic harm that compounds across every future project. When these harms are aggregated and compared against the genuine but localized benefit to Shadyvale, the net-outcome calculus does not support the revised design, particularly given that the transparent advocacy pathway could have achieved the same public benefit without the associated harms.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:22:51.684728
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

Conclusion_211
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: I 3
cites provision: I 5
cites provision: I 6
answers question1: 303
cited provision1: I.3.
cited provision2: I.5.
cited provision3: I.6.
conclusion number: 211
conclusion text: In response to Q303: From a virtue ethics perspective, Engineer W's indirect communication of a policy-circumventing directive reveals deficiencies in the virtues of honesty, integrity, and practical wisdom that compound the ethical violation beyond mere rule-breaking. A virtuous senior public engineer, confronted with a genuine tension between employer policy and a municipality's financial hardship, would exercise practical wisdom by identifying the transparent advocacy pathway — formally petitioning for a policy exception — rather than resorting to design manipulation. The choice of indirection is itself a virtue failure: it reflects a disposition to achieve desired outcomes through oblique means rather than honest engagement, which is the antithesis of the integrity that Code provision I.6 requires. Furthermore, Engineer W's offer to sign off on the revised design — framed as a gesture of personal responsibility — is in virtue terms an act of moral cowardice rather than courage: it uses the appearance of accountability to shield a policy violation from institutional scrutiny rather than openly defending the decision to DOT leadership. The virtue ethics analysis also illuminates the mentorship dimension: a virtuous senior engineer models the professional character he wishes to cultivate in subordinates. Engineer W's conduct models precisely the character deficiencies — indirection, policy circumvention, and the use of authority to launder ethical violations — that the profession most needs to prevent in its formative members.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:22:51.684847
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

Conclusion_212
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: I 4
cites provision: I 5
answers question1: 304
cited provision1: I.4.
cited provision2: I.5.
conclusion number: 212
conclusion text: In response to Q304: From a deontological perspective, Engineer Intern D bears fully independent ethical responsibility for refusing the policy-violating directive regardless of Engineer W's sign-off promise, and the Kantian universalizability test confirms this. The proposed maxim — 'an engineering intern may comply with a supervisor's directive to execute a policy-violating design when the supervisor accepts personal responsibility for the outcome' — fails the universalizability test decisively. If universalized, this maxim would create a systematic mechanism by which senior engineers could launder policy violations through subordinates simply by offering to sign off, effectively nullifying the independent ethical obligations of every engineer in a subordinate position. The result would be a profession in which ethical responsibility is entirely hierarchical — concentrated at the top and absent at every other level — which is precisely the structure the NSPE Code's individual obligations are designed to prevent. Code provision I.4's faithful agent obligation and provision I.5's prohibition on deceptive acts are stated in terms that apply to each engineer individually; they do not contain a supervisor-authorization exception. Engineer Intern D's independent culpability is therefore not diminished by Engineer W's sign-off promise; it is, if anything, clarified by it, because the promise makes explicit that Engineer W knows the design is policy-violating and is seeking to use Engineer Intern D's execution of it as a mechanism to achieve the violation while distributing the appearance of responsibility.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:22:51.684929
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

Conclusion_213
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: I 4
cites provision: I 6
answers question1: 401
cited provision1: I.4.
cited provision2: I.6.
conclusion number: 213
conclusion text: In response to Q401: Had Engineer W pursued transparent institutional advocacy — formally petitioning the DOT or state legislature to amend the betterment policy or create a hardship exception for municipalities like Shadyvale — the ethical violations identified by the Board would have been avoided entirely, and this pathway was both practically available and professionally obligatory. The case facts establish that Engineer W possessed all the information necessary to frame a compelling advocacy request: a consultant's confirmation of the water main's condition and inadequacy, Shadyvale's documented inability to afford the full replacement cost, and the specific cost differential that a policy exception would produce. A formal petition to DOT leadership or the relevant legislative authority would have been transparent, honest, and consistent with Engineer W's faithful agent obligation — it would have placed the decision about whether to make an exception to the betterment policy with the institutional actors who have authority to make that decision, rather than unilaterally circumventing the policy through design manipulation. The transparent advocacy pathway was professionally obligatory because Code provision I.4 requires faithful agency to the employer, and the appropriate response to a perceived injustice in employer policy is advocacy through legitimate channels. Engineer W's failure to pursue this pathway — and his choice of indirect directive and sign-off cover instead — is therefore not merely an ethical violation but a failure to exercise the practical wisdom and institutional courage that the Code requires of senior public engineers.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:22:51.685005
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

Conclusion_214
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: I 4
cites provision: I 5
answers question1: 402
cited provision1: I.4.
cited provision2: I.5.
conclusion number: 214
conclusion text: In response to Q402: If Engineer Intern D had immediately escalated Engineer W's indirect directive to a higher DOT authority rather than either complying or refusing in silence, this escalation would have satisfied all of Engineer Intern D's ethical obligations and would have created precisely the institutional accountability that Engineer W's indirect communication was designed to avoid. The escalation pathway satisfies the non-complicity obligation by ensuring Engineer Intern D does not execute the policy-violating revision; it satisfies the faithful agent obligation by protecting the DOT's cost-allocation policy from circumvention; and it satisfies the complete and unfiltered upward reporting obligation by ensuring that DOT institutional authority is informed of the policy conflict and can exercise oversight. The counterfactual also illuminates the strategic function of Engineer W's indirection: by conveying the directive in an indirect, veiled manner rather than through a direct written order, Engineer W created ambiguity that could discourage escalation — an intern who is uncertain whether he has correctly understood the directive may be reluctant to escalate for fear of mischaracterizing a supervisor's intent. This is precisely why the indirect communication itself constitutes a deceptive act under Code provision I.5: it is designed to achieve the policy-circumventing outcome while suppressing the institutional accountability mechanisms that a direct written order would trigger. Engineer Intern D's obligation to name the conflict explicitly and escalate is therefore not merely a best practice but a necessary response to the specific deceptive mechanism Engineer W employed.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:22:51.685079
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

Conclusion_215
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: I 3
cites provision: I 5
answers question1: 403
cited provision1: I.3.
cited provision2: I.5.
conclusion number: 215
conclusion text: In response to Q403: If the water main had been genuinely unavoidable — if the highway alignment truly could not have been designed to avoid impacting it — the same design outcome would have been ethically permissible under DOT policy, and this counterfactual illuminates precisely why the artificial manufacture of a utility conflict is the core ethical violation rather than the cost outcome itself. The DOT betterment policy explicitly permits payment for unavoidable utility conflicts as part of highway projects; it is only avoidable conflicts — those that the engineer has the design freedom to prevent — that must be treated as betterments paid for by the municipality. The ethical violation in this case is not that Shadyvale would receive a cost benefit, nor that the water main would be replaced, nor even that DOT funds would be used for water main work. The violation is that Engineer Intern D has already demonstrated through his compliant design that the conflict is avoidable, and Engineer W is directing him to artificially manufacture the appearance of unavoidability in order to shift costs to the DOT budget in violation of policy. This counterfactual therefore clarifies that the Board's conclusions are not about the outcome — water main replacement at DOT expense — but about the integrity of the process by which that outcome is achieved. An engineer who honestly determines that a utility conflict is unavoidable and designs accordingly is acting with full integrity; an engineer who manufactures a fictitious conflict to achieve the same cost outcome is committing a deceptive act regardless of the sympathetic motivation.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:22:51.685151
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

Conclusion_301
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: I 4
cites provision: I 5
answers question1: 201
answers question2: 301
cited provision1: I.4.
cited provision2: I.5.
conclusion number: 301
conclusion text: The most fundamental principle tension in this case — between the Public Welfare Paramount principle invoked on Shadyvale's behalf and the Faithful Agent Obligation owed to the DOT — is resolved decisively in favor of the Faithful Agent Obligation, but not because public welfare is unimportant. Rather, the resolution turns on the distinction between ends and means: the public welfare benefit to Shadyvale is real, but it is achievable through legitimate channels such as transparent institutional advocacy, policy exception requests, or legislative amendment. Because an ethical pathway to the same public benefit exists, the covert diversion of DOT funds through design manipulation cannot be justified by invoking public welfare. This case teaches that the Public Welfare Paramount principle does not license deception or policy circumvention when transparent alternatives are available; it is a principle that governs the priority of outcomes, not a blanket override of the means by which those outcomes are pursued.
conclusion type: principle_synthesis
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:22:51.685229
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

Conclusion_302
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: I 3
cites provision: I 5
cites provision: I 6
answers question1: 204
answers question2: 208
cited provision1: I.3.
cited provision2: I.5.
cited provision3: I.6.
conclusion number: 302
conclusion text: The Honesty in Professional Representations principle and the Responsible Charge Engagement principle, which might appear to operate independently, are shown in this case to be mutually reinforcing and simultaneously violated by a single act: Engineer W's offer to personally sign off on the revised design. That offer is simultaneously an abdication of genuine responsible charge review — because Engineer W is not independently verifying policy compliance but rather ratifying a known policy violation — and a mechanism of deception, because the sign-off functions institutionally as a representation that the design is policy-compliant when Engineer W knows it is not. This case teaches that when a senior engineer's sign-off is offered not as the product of honest review but as a shield for a subordinate executing a policy-circumventing directive, the sign-off itself becomes a deceptive act, and the Responsible Charge Engagement principle and the Honesty principle collapse into a single compound violation rather than two separate ones.
conclusion type: principle_synthesis
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:22:51.685309
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

Conclusion_303
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: I 4
cites provision: I 5
cites provision: I 6
answers question1: 203
answers question2: 102
cited provision1: I.4.
cited provision2: I.5.
cited provision3: I.6.
conclusion number: 303
conclusion text: The tension between the Subordinate Complicity Prohibition — which bars Engineer Intern D from executing the policy-violating revision — and the Intern Epistemic Humility Escalation Obligation — which counsels deference to supervisory judgment — is resolved by recognizing that the deference owed to supervisory judgment is calibrated to the clarity of the policy violation, not to the seniority of the supervisor. Where, as here, the DOT betterment policy is unambiguous and Engineer Intern D himself produced the initial policy-compliant design with full awareness of that policy, there is no genuine epistemic uncertainty about whether the revised design would violate policy. The indirectness of Engineer W's communication does not create ambiguity about the substance of the directive; it merely obscures accountability. Consequently, the Subordinate Complicity Prohibition prevails over any residual deference obligation, and Engineer Intern D's independent ethical culpability for executing the revision is not diminished by Engineer W's sign-off promise. This case further teaches that the Supervisor Sign-Off Non-Exculpation constraint is not merely a formal rule but reflects the deeper principle that ethical responsibility in engineering is personal and non-transferable: a subordinate who knowingly executes a policy-violating design cannot launder that culpability through a supervisor's acceptance of formal responsibility.
conclusion type: principle_synthesis
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:22:51.685391
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

Conclusion_304
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: I 4
cites provision: I 5
cites provision: I 6
answers question1: 201
answers question2: 202
cited provision1: I.4.
cited provision2: I.5.
cited provision3: I.6.
conclusion number: 304
conclusion text: The Procurement Integrity principle and the Faithful Agent Obligation, taken together, establish that Engineer W's conduct represents not merely a sympathetic policy deviation but a structural betrayal of the public trust embedded in the DOT's cost-allocation framework. The betterment policy exists precisely to prevent the covert reallocation of highway project funds to utility upgrades that municipalities should finance independently — a reallocation that, if normalized, would systematically distort infrastructure budgeting and undermine the integrity of competitive procurement and legislative appropriation processes. Engineer W's altruistic motive does not mitigate this structural harm; if anything, the case teaches that altruistically motivated procurement violations are more insidious than self-interested ones, because they are harder to detect, more likely to attract sympathetic complicity from subordinates, and more corrosive to the institutional norm that policy compliance is non-negotiable regardless of the perceived worthiness of the beneficiary.
conclusion type: principle_synthesis
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:22:51.685489
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

Conclusion_305
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: I 6
answers question1: 104
answers question2: 404
cited provision1: I.6.
conclusion number: 305
conclusion text: The Formative Professional Mentorship Integrity Obligation surfaces in this case as a distinct ethical dimension that the Board's explicit conclusions do not fully address. The principle tension between Engineer W's role as a senior engineer modeling professional conduct for a pre-licensure intern and his decision to issue an indirect, policy-circumventing directive is not merely an aggravating circumstance — it is a separate ethical failure. Engineer W's conduct exposes Engineer Intern D, at the most formative moment of his professional development, to the lesson that policy compliance is negotiable when a supervisor has sympathetic motives and is willing to accept formal responsibility. This corrupts the very professional formation that the PE licensure process is designed to ensure. The case teaches that the Formative Mentorship Integrity Obligation is not subordinate to the Faithful Agent and Honesty violations but operates in parallel: a senior engineer who would not personally execute a policy-circumventing design bears a heightened, not diminished, ethical obligation to refrain from directing an unlicensed subordinate to execute it in his place.
conclusion type: principle_synthesis
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:22:51.685560
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

DOT Highway Project Initiated
type: Event
type: NamedIndividual
activates constraint: Coordination_With_Existing_Utilities_Requirement
activates constraint: DOT_Policy_Utility_Conflict_Avoidance
activates constraint: Standard_Engineering_Design_Obligations
causes state change: DOT project enters design phase; Engineer W assigned as senior engineer; project delegation to Engineer Intern D follows; geographic overlap with water main corridor becomes operationally relevant
concept category: Event
creates obligation: DOT_Must_Survey_Existing_Utilities
creates obligation: Design_Must_Account_For_Utility_Conflicts
creates obligation: Senior_Engineer_Must_Supervise_Delegated_Work
emergency status: routine
event type: exogenous
temporal marker: Concurrent with or shortly after water main assessment; project planning phase
temporal sequence: 2
urgency level: low
comment: The State Department of Transportation independently initiated a highway reconstruction project in Shadyvale, creating a concurrent infrastructure project in the same geographic corridor as the deficient water main. This convergence of two independent projects in the same location is the exogenous event that makes cost-shifting manipulation conceivable.
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:07:12.218987
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

DOT construction activities overlaps Shadyvale water main replacement need
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: overlaps
evidence: Perhaps Shadyvale could be allowed to benefit from construction activities the DOT was already undertaking. Perhaps that efficiency would sufficiently decrease the scope of Shadyvale's work to make it affordable.
from entity text: DOT construction activities
owl time property: time:intervalOverlaps
to entity text: Shadyvale water main replacement need
comment: Entity1 starts before Entity2 and ends during Entity2
interval overlaps: Shadyvale water main replacement need
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:07:12.219860
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

DP1
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP1
decision question: Should Engineer Intern D revise the design to artificially impact the old water main in response to Engineer W's indirect directive, given that the revision would violate DOT cost-allocation policy and divert approximately $700,000 of public funds to Shadyvale?
focus: Engineer Intern D's decision whether to revise the policy-compliant design to artificially incorporate the old Shadyvale water main in response to Engineer W's indirect directive
option1: Decline to revise the design and explicitly name the DOT cost-allocation policy conflict to Engineer W, then escalate the directive to higher DOT authority if Engineer W persists
option2: Revise the design as directed in reliance on Engineer W's sign-off promise, treating the supervisor's acceptance of formal responsibility as sufficient ethical cover for the intern's execution of the revision
option3: Decline to revise the design without escalating, treating silent non-compliance as a sufficient discharge of ethical obligation while deferring to Engineer W to resolve the policy question through other means
role label: Engineer Intern D Policy Violating Design Revision Refusal Shadyvale
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:22:51.681317
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

DP2
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP2
decision question: Would it be ethical for Engineer W to sign off on the artificially revised design, and does his willingness to personally assume formal responsibility for the revision discharge his faithful agent, responsible charge, and honesty obligations under the NSPE Code?
focus: Engineer W's decision whether to sign off on a design artificially revised to impact the old Shadyvale water main, and whether his offer to personally assume formal responsibility discharges his ethical obligations as a licensed DOT engineer
option1: Refuse to sign off on the artificially revised design and instead formally petition DOT leadership or the relevant state authority for a hardship exception or policy amendment on Shadyvale's behalf
option2: Sign off on the revised design on the basis that the water main's genuine deficiency and Shadyvale's financial hardship constitute sufficient public welfare grounds for a senior licensed engineer to exercise professional judgment in interpreting the unavoidability standard broadly
option3: Sign off on the revised design while simultaneously documenting the public welfare rationale in the project record, treating the documented justification as satisfying the responsible charge and transparency obligations even if the revision technically exceeds policy
role label: Engineer W Faithful Agent Obligation Violated DOT Policy Shadyvale
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:22:51.681435
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

DP3
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP3
decision question: Does Engineer W's use of indirect, veiled language to convey the policy-violating design redirection directive constitute a distinct deceptive act under the NSPE Code, and does that indirection impose a heightened ethical burden on Engineer Intern D to recognize and resist the directive rather than treating the ambiguity as cover for compliance?
focus: Engineer W's decision whether to communicate the design redirection directive to Engineer Intern D indirectly and obliquely rather than through a direct written order, and whether that indirection itself constitutes a deceptive act independent of the underlying policy circumvention
option1: Recognize the indirect communication as ethically equivalent to a direct policy-violating directive, name the policy conflict explicitly to Engineer W, and refuse to treat the ambiguity of the communication as cover for compliance or as reducing the obligation to escalate
option2: Seek explicit written clarification from Engineer W about whether the indirect comment constitutes a formal directive before treating it as a policy-violating order, deferring escalation until the directive's character is confirmed
option3: Treat the indirect communication as an ambiguous supervisory suggestion rather than a confirmed directive, proceed with the original compliant design without escalating, and await a more explicit instruction before taking any further action
role label: Engineer W Supervisor Indirect Communication Policy Evasion Prohibition Shadyvale
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:22:51.681515
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

DP4
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP4
decision question: Does Engineer W's explicit offer to personally sign off on the revised design transfer ethical and professional responsibility from Engineer Intern D to Engineer W, or does Engineer Intern D retain independent ethical culpability for executing a design revision he knows to be policy-violating regardless of the sign-off promise?
focus: Engineer Intern D's decision whether Engineer W's sign-off promise transfers ethical responsibility away from the intern, and whether the intern retains independent culpability for executing a design revision he knows to be policy-violating
option1: Refuse to execute the policy-violating revision on the grounds that the sign-off promise does not discharge the intern's independent ethical obligation, and escalate the policy conflict to higher DOT authority regardless of Engineer W's offer to assume formal responsibility
option2: Execute the revision in reliance on Engineer W's sign-off promise, treating the licensed supervisor's acceptance of formal professional responsibility as a complete transfer of ethical accountability that discharges the intern's independent obligations
option3: Execute the technical revision as directed while simultaneously documenting personal objections in writing to Engineer W, treating the written objection as sufficient to preserve independent ethical standing while deferring to the licensed engineer's final professional judgment on policy compliance
role label: Engineer Intern D Subordinate Complicity Refusal Sign Off Promise Obligation
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:22:51.681594
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

DP5
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP5
decision question: What affirmative obligation does Engineer Intern D have to escalate Engineer W's policy-circumventing directive to higher DOT authority, and does the fact that Engineer Intern D is unlicensed and about to sit for the PE exam diminish, preserve, or heighten the standard of professional courage and completeness of reporting expected of him?
focus: Engineer Intern D's affirmative obligation to escalate Engineer W's policy-circumventing directive to higher DOT authority, and whether the intern's unlicensed pre-PE status affects the standard of professional courage and the scope of the escalation duty
option1: Escalate the policy conflict to higher DOT authority with complete and unfiltered reporting of all material facts — including the indirectness of the communication, the financial magnitude of the cost shift, and the sign-off promise — after first raising the conflict directly with Engineer W
option2: Decline to revise the design without escalating to higher authority, treating silent non-compliance as a sufficient discharge of ethical obligation and deferring to Engineer W to resolve the policy question through whatever channels he chooses
option3: Raise the policy conflict directly with Engineer W in writing and await his response before deciding whether to escalate further, treating the written exchange with the immediate supervisor as a sufficient first step that may resolve the conflict without requiring upward reporting
role label: Engineer Intern D Indirect Policy Violating Directive Escalation Shadyvale
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:22:51.687286
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

DP6
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP6
decision question: Was transparent institutional advocacy — formally petitioning the DOT or state legislature to amend the betterment policy or create a hardship exception for municipalities like Shadyvale — both practically available and professionally obligatory for Engineer W, such that his failure to pursue it and his choice of indirect directive and sign-off cover instead constitutes a compounded ethical failure that cannot be redeemed by benevolent motive?
focus: Engineer W's decision whether to pursue transparent institutional advocacy — formally petitioning DOT leadership or the state legislature for a hardship exception or policy amendment — as the ethically obligatory alternative to covert policy circumvention through design manipulation
option1: Formally petition DOT leadership or the relevant state authority for a hardship exception or policy amendment on Shadyvale's behalf, presenting the consultant's findings and the financial hardship documentation as the basis for a transparent institutional request
option2: Proceed with the indirect directive and sign-off cover on the grounds that the transparent advocacy pathway would be practically futile given DOT's likely denial of any exception, and that the genuine public health need of Shadyvale's residents justifies the covert approach as the only effective means of achieving the public benefit
option3: Informally advocate to DOT supervisors for Shadyvale's situation without filing a formal petition, treating the informal advocacy as a sufficient discharge of the transparency obligation while preserving the option to pursue the design manipulation if the informal approach yields no result
role label: Engineer W Non-Subordination of DOT Policy to Shadyvale Financial Sympathy Obligation
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:22:51.687403
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

Design Review Session Occurs
type: Event
type: NamedIndividual
activates constraint: Engineer_Must_Not_Direct_Policy_Violations
activates constraint: Review_Must_Assess_Technical_And_Policy_Compliance
activates constraint: Supervisor_Must_Provide_Honest_And_Ethical_Direction
causes state change: Review session becomes the transmission point for unethical direction; Engineer Intern D receives implicit instruction to revise compliant design to intentionally impact water main; professional relationship is compromised
concept category: Event
creates obligation: Any_Design_Change_Must_Have_Legitimate_Technical_Basis
creates obligation: Engineer_Intern_D_Must_Evaluate_Direction_Against_Ethical_Standards
creates obligation: Engineer_W_Must_Give_Honest_Technical_Feedback_Only
emergency status: medium
event type: outcome
temporal marker: Design development review phase; after compliant design produced, before revised design
temporal sequence: 7
urgency level: medium
comment: A design development review took place in which Engineer W and Engineer Intern D engaged with the compliant design, creating the occasion through which Engineer W indirectly communicated the directive to revise the design to intentionally impact the water main. This review session is the event that transforms a routine design process into an ethically compromised one.
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:07:12.219133
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

Engineer-Dissent-Framework
type: EngineerDissentFramework
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.88
createdby: Professional engineering ethics norms
discoveredincase: 58
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: Engineer Dissent Framework
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T21:46:17.448016+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 58
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T21:46:17.448016+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Engineer Dissent Framework
sourcetext: Engineer W conveys to Engineer Intern D in an indirect way that the design should be revised so that the old water main is impacted
textreferences: Engineer W conveys to Engineer Intern D in an indirect way that the design should be revised so that the old water main is impacted
usedby: Engineer Intern D in evaluating how to respond to Engineer W's indirect instruction
usedincontext: Governs Engineer Intern D's ethical options when receiving an indirect instruction from a supervising engineer to revise a design in a manner that would violate DOT policy, including the conditions under which D may ethically refuse and the professional consequences of doing so
version: Current professional norms
wasattributedto: Case 58 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:07:12.194221
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

Engineer Adam Artful Misrepresentation in Negotiation Recognition
type: ArtfulMisrepresentationinNegotiationRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Artful Misrepresentation in Negotiation Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer Adam needed the capability to recognize that the artfully misleading statement made to Engineer Baker during firm sale negotiations — though technically not a direct lie — constituted an ethical violation by creating a false impression, and to refrain from such conduct.
casecontext: Engineering firm sale negotiation between Engineer Adam and Engineer Baker
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.82
demonstratedthrough: Engineer Adam's artfully misleading statement to Engineer Baker in an effort to accelerate stalled negotiations
discoveredincase: 58
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T21:53:57.364817+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 58
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T21:53:57.364817+00:00
importance: medium
possessedby: Engineer Adam
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer Adam Engineering Firm Sale Negotiator Engineer -- Chief negotiator in the sale of a small engineering subsidiary who, in an effort to accelerate stalled negotiations with Engineer Baker, made an artfully misleading statement
textreferences: Engineer Adam Engineering Firm Sale Negotiator Engineer -- Chief negotiator in the sale of a small engineering subsidiary who, in an effort to accelerate stalled negotiations with Engineer Baker, made an artfully misleading statement
wasattributedto: Case 58 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:07:12.209161
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

Engineer Adam Artfully Misleading Statement Non-Deception Constraint — Firm Sale Negotiation
type: Non-Deception
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer Adam used Engineer Mary's prior expression of interest — which had been definitively withdrawn — as a false negotiating pressure tactic, cited as precedent for the truthfulness constraint applicable to Engineer W in the present case.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.93
constrainedentity: Engineer Adam
constraintclass: Non-Deception
constraintstatement: Engineer Adam was prohibited from telling Engineer Baker that 'another company has expressed an interest in buying our subsidiary' when Engineer Mary had definitively decided she was not interested in purchasing the subsidiary, as this statement was artfully misleading and intentionally designed to obscure the truth to advance Engineer Adam's negotiating interests.
discoveredincase: 58
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T21:59:59.573160+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 58
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T21:59:59.573160+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Canon 3; BER Case 05-5; BER Case 86-6
sourcetext: Engineer Adam told Engineer Baker, 'Another company has expressed an interest in buying our subsidiary, so you had better move quickly if you are interested.'
temporalscope: During the negotiation for the sale of the engineering subsidiary
textreferences: 'This Board strongly believes that honesty and truthfulness are hallmark qualities of a practicing engineer.'
textreferences: Engineer Adam told Engineer Baker, 'Another company has expressed an interest in buying our subsidiary, so you had better move quickly if you are interested.'
textreferences: Had Engineer Adam disclosed the full circumstances relating to his conversation with Engineer Mary, the Board's conclusion for Engineer Adam would have been different.
textreferences: the Board found Engineer Adam's words 'artfully misleading' or, in the words of prior BER Case 86-6, 'intentionally designed to mislead… by obscuring the truth.'
wasattributedto: Case 58 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:07:12.215798
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

Engineer Adam Artfully Misleading Statement Prohibition Firm Sale
type: ArtfulMisrepresentationinNegotiationRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Artful Misrepresentation in Negotiation Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer Adam failed to apply the capability to recognize that his statement about 'another company' expressing interest was artfully constructed to create a false impression of competitive urgency in Engineer Baker's mind
casecontext: Engineer Adam made an artfully misleading statement in firm sale negotiations to accelerate stalled negotiations with Engineer Baker, as analyzed in BER Case 05-5
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: Telling Engineer Baker 'Another company has expressed an interest in buying our subsidiary, so you had better move quickly' when Engineer Mary had definitively declined interest, creating a false impression of active competitive interest
discoveredincase: 58
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T22:00:02.751142+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 58
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T22:00:02.751142+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer Adam
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: Engineer Adam told Engineer Baker, 'Another company has expressed an interest in buying our subsidiary, so you had better move quickly if you are interested'
textreferences: Engineer Adam told Engineer Baker, 'Another company has expressed an interest in buying our subsidiary, so you had better move quickly if you are interested'
textreferences: Had Engineer Adam disclosed the full circumstances relating to his conversation with Engineer Mary, the Board's conclusion for Engineer Adam would have been different
textreferences: the Board found Engineer Adam's words 'artfully misleading' or, in the words of prior BER Case 86-6, 'intentionally designed to mislead… by obscuring the truth'
wasattributedto: Case 58 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:07:12.218340
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

Engineer Baker Engineering Firm Acquisition Prospect
type: ParticipantRole
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'license': 'Professional Engineer', 'case_reference': 'BER Case 05-5', 'role_in_case': 'Negotiation counterpart; recipient of misleading statement'}
caseinvolvement: Prospective buyer of the engineering subsidiary being negotiated by Engineer Adam, who was the target of Engineer Adam's artfully misleading statement about competing interest, and whose stalling in negotiations prompted the deceptive conduct.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.8
discoveredincase: 58
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T21:47:15.090058+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 58
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T21:47:15.090058+00:00
importance: low
relationships: {'type': 'negotiation_counterpart', 'target': 'Engineer Adam'}
rolecategory: provider_client
roleclass: Participant Role
sourcetext: Engineer Adam, while acting as the chief negotiator in the sale of a small engineering subsidiary to Engineer Baker
textreferences: Engineer Adam, while acting as the chief negotiator in the sale of a small engineering subsidiary to Engineer Baker
textreferences: Engineer Baker was stalling
wasattributedto: Case 58 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:07:12.198648
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

Engineer Charlie Non-Subordination of Safety Reporting to Political Bargaining
type: Non-SubordinationofSafetyReportingtoPoliticalBargainingCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Non-Subordination of Safety Reporting to Political Bargaining Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer Charlie needed the capability to recognize that the city council chairperson's offer to hire additional inspectors in exchange for concurrence with inadequate regulatory measures constituted an impermissible political bargain, and to refuse to subordinate safety reporting standards to that bargain.
casecontext: City building inspection program under budget cutbacks and political pressure
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.87
demonstratedthrough: Engineer Charlie's agreement with the city council chairperson to compromise safety reporting standards in exchange for resource allocation
discoveredincase: 58
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T21:53:57.364817+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 58
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T21:53:57.364817+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer Charlie
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer Charlie Building Inspection Program PE Under Political Pressure -- Director of a city building department who, facing budget cutbacks and inability to perform adequate inspections, agreed with a city council chairperson
textreferences: Engineer Charlie Building Inspection Program PE Under Political Pressure -- Director of a city building department who, facing budget cutbacks and inability to perform adequate inspections, agreed with a city council chairperson
wasattributedto: Case 58 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:07:12.209405
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

Engineer Charlie Political Trade-Off Building Inspection Safety Non-Compromise Constraint
type: PoliticalTrade-OffSafetyandTruthNon-CompromiseConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer Charlie agreed to a political bargain trading concurrence on a grandfathering ordinance for resources to hire additional building inspection staff, cited as precedent in the present case.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.92
constrainedentity: Engineer Charlie
constraintclass: Political Trade-Off Safety and Truth Non-Compromise Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer Charlie was prohibited from agreeing to concur on a grandfathering ordinance permitting specified buildings to be exempted from current code enforcement requirements as a condition of receiving authorization to hire additional code officials, establishing that the political trade-off logic does not apply to safety standard compromise.
discoveredincase: 58
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T21:59:59.573160+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 58
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T21:59:59.573160+00:00
importance: critical
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case 98-5
sourcetext: The Board acknowledged that Engineer Charlie might interpret the situation as one involving 'trade-offs' in which one must weigh one 'public good' (a better building inspection process) against a competing or concurrent 'public good' (a consistent code enforcement process).
temporalscope: At the time of the city council chairman negotiation
textreferences: The Board acknowledged that Engineer Charlie might interpret the situation as one involving 'trade-offs' in which one must weigh one 'public good' (a better building inspection process) against a competing or concurrent 'public good' (a consistent code enforcement process).
textreferences: the Board rejected the logic of compromise for Case 98-5, concluding that Engineer Charlie had a responsibility to make it plain and clear to the chairman that 'righting a wrong with another wrong,' increases risk of grave damage to the public health and safety
wasattributedto: Case 58 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:07:12.214691
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

Engineer Charlie Political Trade-Off Non-Compromise Building Inspection
type: PoliticalTrade-OffSafetyandTruthNon-CompromiseCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Political Trade-Off Safety and Truth Non-Compromise Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer Charlie lacked or failed to apply the capability to recognize that the political trade-off framing — better inspection process versus consistent code enforcement — did not render the compromise of professional ethics obligations permissible
casecontext: Engineer Charlie agreed to a political trade-off that compromised consistent code enforcement in exchange for resources to improve building inspection capacity, as analyzed in BER Case 98-5
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.86
demonstratedthrough: Agreement with city council chairman's bargain to concur on a grandfathering ordinance in exchange for authorization to hire additional code officials
discoveredincase: 58
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T22:00:02.751142+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 58
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T22:00:02.751142+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer Charlie
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: The Board acknowledged that Engineer Charlie might interpret the situation as one involving 'trade-offs' in which one must weigh one 'public good' (a better building inspection process) against a competing or concurrent 'public good' (a consistent code enforcement process)
textreferences: The Board acknowledged that Engineer Charlie might interpret the situation as one involving 'trade-offs' in which one must weigh one 'public good' (a better building inspection process) against a competing or concurrent 'public good' (a consistent code enforcement process)
textreferences: the Board rejected the logic of compromise for Case 98-5, concluding that Engineer Charlie had a responsibility to make it plain and clear to the chairman that 'righting a wrong with another wrong,' increases risk of grave damage to the public health and safety
wasattributedto: Case 58 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:07:12.217563
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

Engineer Intern D Benevolent Motive Non-Justification Recognition
type: BenevolentMotiveNon-JustificationRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Benevolent Motive Non-Justification Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer Intern D needed the capability to recognize that Engineer W's altruistic motivation to help Shadyvale residents did not render the policy-violating directive ethically permissible, and to refuse cooperation on that basis
casecontext: Engineer Intern D faced pressure to cooperate with a policy-violating directive motivated by genuine sympathy for an impoverished community
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.86
demonstratedthrough: Recognition that Engineer W's praiseworthy motivation to help impoverished Shadyvale residents did not justify covert diversion of $700,000 in DOT funds
discoveredincase: 58
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T22:00:02.751142+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 58
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T22:00:02.751142+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer Intern D
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: benevolent motives do not make unethical conduct ethical
textreferences: benevolent motives do not make unethical conduct ethical
textreferences: the Board is not concerned about Engineer W's competence, his intention, or his motivation; these appear meritorious and praiseworthy
wasattributedto: Case 58 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:07:12.216882
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

Engineer Intern D Covert Fund Diversion Recognition and Refusal
type: CovertFundDiversionRecognitionandRefusalCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Covert Fund Diversion Recognition and Refusal Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer Intern D needed the capability to recognize that cooperating with Engineer W's directive would result in the covert diversion of $700,000 in DOT funds to benefit Shadyvale without authorization, and to refuse participation on that basis
casecontext: Engineer Intern D faced a scenario in which cooperation with a supervisory directive would result in covert diversion of public funds that 'no one else would ever know' about
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.85
demonstratedthrough: Recognition that implementing the policy-violating design revision would covertly divert public agency funds without authorization or transparency
discoveredincase: 58
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T22:00:02.751142+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 58
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T22:00:02.751142+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer Intern D
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: If Engineer Intern D decides to cooperate with Engineer W, it is likely that no one else would ever know that $700,000 of DOT money had been diverted for the benefit of Shadyvale
textreferences: If Engineer Intern D decides to cooperate with Engineer W, it is likely that no one else would ever know that $700,000 of DOT money had been diverted for the benefit of Shadyvale
textreferences: secretly diverting $700,000 of state DOT funds is not an ethical solution
wasattributedto: Case 58 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:07:12.217869
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

Engineer Intern D Engineer Intern Dissent Calibration
type: EngineerInternDissentCalibrationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Engineer Intern Dissent Calibration Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer Intern D needed to correctly calibrate the form and intensity of dissent from Engineer W's indirect directive — distinguishing between the ethical obligation to refuse the policy-violating revision and the appropriate escalation pathway — while assessing career implications and selecting the dissent pathway most likely to achieve ethical objectives.
casecontext: Engineer intern dissent from supervisor's policy-violating directive
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: Engineer Intern D's position as an engineer intern about to sit for the PE exam, facing a directive from a senior engineer
discoveredincase: 58
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T21:53:57.364817+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 58
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T21:53:57.364817+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer Intern D
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: Engineer W delegates the project to Engineer Intern D, who is about to sit for the PE exam.
textreferences: Engineer W delegates the project to Engineer Intern D, who is about to sit for the PE exam.
textreferences: Engineer W tells Engineer Intern D, 'I'll sign off on it.'
wasattributedto: Case 58 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:07:12.208386
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

Engineer Intern D Faithful Agent DOT Policy Compliance
type: PublicAgencyCost-AllocationPolicyKnowledgeCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Public Agency Cost-Allocation Policy Knowledge Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer Intern D's faithful agent obligation to the State DOT required applying knowledge of the DOT's cost-allocation policy to preserve the integrity of the policy-compliant design and to refuse revisions that would circumvent it.
casecontext: Faithful agent obligation to State DOT as client and employer
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.86
demonstratedthrough: Engineer Intern D's initial policy-compliant design and subsequent receipt of the policy-violating directive
discoveredincase: 58
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T21:53:57.364817+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 58
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T21:53:57.364817+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer Intern D
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: State DOT policy unambiguously requires that only unavoidable utility conflicts will be paid for as part of highway projects.
textreferences: Engineer Intern D initiates the design layout for the Shadyvale DOT project to avoid conflicts with the existing utilities.
textreferences: State DOT policy unambiguously requires that only unavoidable utility conflicts will be paid for as part of highway projects.
wasattributedto: Case 58 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:07:12.207928
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

Engineer Intern D Fictitious Utility Conflict Design Manipulation Recognition
type: FictitiousUtilityConflictDesignManipulationRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Fictitious Utility Conflict Design Manipulation Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer Intern D possessed the capability to recognize that Engineer W's directive would require artificially manufacturing a utility conflict — where none need exist — for the purpose of shifting water main replacement costs from Shadyvale to the DOT in violation of the agency's cost-allocation policy.
casecontext: Shadyvale DOT highway reconstruction project design
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.87
demonstratedthrough: Engineer Intern D's design that successfully avoided the utility conflict, demonstrating awareness that the conflict was avoidable and therefore any resulting conflict would be fictitious
discoveredincase: 58
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T21:53:57.364817+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 58
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T21:53:57.364817+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer Intern D
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: Engineer Intern D initiates the design layout for the Shadyvale DOT project to avoid conflicts with the existing utilities, including separation of a new closed drainage system from the old water main.
textreferences: Engineer Intern D initiates the design layout for the Shadyvale DOT project to avoid conflicts with the existing utilities, including separation of a new closed drainage system from the old water main.
textreferences: Engineer W conveys to Engineer Intern D in an indirect way that the design should be revised so that the old water main is impacted.
textreferences: In that case, the cost to Shadyvale would be only the difference in price between the existing size of the water main and the proposed larger size.
wasattributedto: Case 58 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:07:12.207346
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

Engineer Intern D Graduated Escalation Navigation
type: GraduatedEscalationNavigationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Graduated Escalation Navigation Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer Intern D needed to navigate graduated escalation pathways — from refusal of the directive, to escalation to appropriate DOT agency authority — in a careful, sensitive manner that fulfilled professional obligations while respecting institutional channels.
casecontext: Escalation of policy conflict within DOT organizational hierarchy
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.86
demonstratedthrough: Obligation to escalate Engineer W's indirect policy-violating directive to appropriate agency authority
discoveredincase: 58
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T21:53:57.364817+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 58
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T21:53:57.364817+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer Intern D
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: Engineer Intern D was obligated, upon receiving Engineer W's indirect directive to revise the design in a manner that would violate DOT cost-allocation policy, to escalate to appropriate agency authority.
textreferences: Engineer Intern D was obligated, upon receiving Engineer W's indirect directive to revise the design in a manner that would violate DOT cost-allocation policy, to escalate to appropriate agency authority.
wasattributedto: Case 58 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:07:12.208623
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

Engineer Intern D Indirect Directive Policy Evasion Detection
type: IndirectDirectivePolicyEvasionDetectionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Indirect Directive Policy Evasion Detection Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer Intern D possessed the capability to detect that Engineer W's indirect manner of communicating the design revision directive was designed to avoid explicit acknowledgment of the DOT cost-allocation policy conflict, and to recognize that this indirectness did not diminish the ethical significance of the directive.
casecontext: Design development review of Shadyvale DOT highway reconstruction project
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.86
demonstratedthrough: Receipt of Engineer W's indirectly communicated directive during design development review
discoveredincase: 58
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T21:53:57.364817+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 58
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T21:53:57.364817+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer Intern D
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: Engineer W conveys to Engineer Intern D in an indirect way that the design should be revised so that the old water main is impacted.
textreferences: Engineer W conveys to Engineer Intern D in an indirect way that the design should be revised so that the old water main is impacted.
wasattributedto: Case 58 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:07:12.206702
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

Engineer Intern D Intern Materiality Judgment Restraint Full Reporting
type: InternMaterialityJudgmentRestraintCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Intern Materiality Judgment Restraint Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer Intern D was obligated to exercise materiality judgment restraint when escalating the policy conflict — reporting all material facts including the indirect nature of Engineer W's communication, the cost-shifting mechanism, and the DOT policy at issue — without filtering or withholding information based on personal judgments about what the agency authority needed to know.
casecontext: Escalation of policy conflict to DOT agency authority
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.87
demonstratedthrough: Obligation to report completely and without filtering when escalating Engineer W's indirect directive to appropriate agency authority
discoveredincase: 58
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T21:53:57.364817+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 58
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T21:53:57.364817+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer Intern D
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: Engineer W conveys to Engineer Intern D in an indirect way that the design should be revised so that the old water main is impacted.
textreferences: Engineer Intern D was obligated, when escalating the policy conflict to appropriate agency authority, to refrain from independently filtering or withholding information
textreferences: Engineer W conveys to Engineer Intern D in an indirect way that the design should be revised so that the old water main is impacted.
wasattributedto: Case 58 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:07:12.208123
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

Engineer Intern D Objectivity and Truthfulness Canon 3 Compliance
type: EthicalReasoning
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Ethical Reasoning
capabilitystatement: Engineer Intern D demonstrated ethical reasoning capability by adhering to DOT policy in the original design, consistent with Canon 3 requirements of objectivity and truthfulness
casecontext: Engineer Intern D's adherence to DOT policy in the original design was recognized by the Board as consistent with Canon 3 requirements
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.86
demonstratedthrough: Independently producing a policy-compliant design that avoided the old water main, consistent with Canon 3 objectivity and truthfulness requirements
discoveredincase: 58
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T22:00:02.751142+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 58
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T22:00:02.751142+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer Intern D
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: Engineer Intern D's adherence to DOT policy (avoiding the old water main) is in accord with the Canon 3 requirements of objectivity and truthfulness
textreferences: Engineer Intern D's adherence to DOT policy (avoiding the old water main) is in accord with the Canon 3 requirements of objectivity and truthfulness
wasattributedto: Case 58 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:07:12.218660
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

Engineer Intern D PE exam after current project events
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: after
evidence: Engineer W delegates the project to Engineer Intern D, who is about to sit for the PE exam, exam is imminent but has not yet occurred during the case events
from entity text: Engineer Intern D PE exam
owl time property: time:intervalAfter
to entity text: current project events
comment: Entity1 is after Entity2
interval after: current project events
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:07:12.219893
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

Engineer Intern D Policy-Compliant Design Preservation Truthfulness Constraint — Shadyvale
type: Non-Deception
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The BER explicitly found that Engineer Intern D's adherence to DOT policy in avoiding the old water main was in accord with Canon 3 requirements of objectivity and truthfulness, establishing that the truthfulness constraint independently prohibited cooperation with the policy-circumventing directive.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.91
constrainedentity: Engineer Intern D
constraintclass: Non-Deception
constraintstatement: Engineer Intern D was constrained by the Canon 3 requirements of objectivity and truthfulness to preserve the policy-compliant design that avoided the existing water main, prohibiting cooperation with Engineer W's indirect directive to revise the design in a manner that would create a false impression of an unavoidable utility conflict.
discoveredincase: 58
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T21:59:59.573160+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 58
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T21:59:59.573160+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Canon 3; Present BER Case Analysis
sourcetext: Engineer Intern D's adherence to DOT policy (avoiding the old water main) is in accord with the Canon 3 requirements of objectivity and truthfulness.
temporalscope: Upon receipt of Engineer W's indirect directive to revise the Shadyvale DOT project design
textreferences: Engineer Intern D's adherence to DOT policy (avoiding the old water main) is in accord with the Canon 3 requirements of objectivity and truthfulness.
textreferences: helping the residents of Shadyvale cannot be accomplished at the expense of the truth
wasattributedto: Case 58 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:07:12.216475
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

Engineer Intern D Policy-Violating Directive Recognition
type: Policy-ViolatingDirectiveRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Policy-Violating Directive Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer Intern D possessed the capability to recognize that Engineer W's indirect directive to revise the design so that the old water main would be impacted constituted a policy-violating directive that must be refused, and that Engineer W's promise to 'sign off' did not relieve Engineer Intern D of independent ethical responsibility.
casecontext: Shadyvale DOT highway reconstruction project design development review
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: Engineer Intern D's independent production of a policy-compliant design avoiding the water main, and subsequent receipt of Engineer W's indirect directive to revise it
discoveredincase: 58
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T21:53:57.364817+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 58
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T21:53:57.364817+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer Intern D
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: Engineer W conveys to Engineer Intern D in an indirect way that the design should be revised so that the old water main is impacted.
textreferences: Engineer W conveys to Engineer Intern D in an indirect way that the design should be revised so that the old water main is impacted.
textreferences: Engineer W tells Engineer Intern D, 'I'll sign off on it.'
wasattributedto: Case 58 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:07:12.206530
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

Engineer Intern D Public Agency Cost-Allocation Policy Knowledge
type: PublicAgencyCost-AllocationPolicyKnowledgeCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Public Agency Cost-Allocation Policy Knowledge Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer Intern D possessed knowledge of the State DOT's unambiguous cost-allocation policy requiring that only unavoidable utility conflicts be paid for as part of highway projects, and that betterment work must be paid for by the local municipality — enabling Engineer Intern D to recognize that the proposed design revision would violate this policy.
casecontext: Shadyvale DOT highway reconstruction project design
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.89
demonstratedthrough: Engineer Intern D's initial design that avoided conflicts with existing utilities, consistent with DOT policy
discoveredincase: 58
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T21:53:57.364817+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 58
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T21:53:57.364817+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer Intern D
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: State DOT policy unambiguously requires that only unavoidable utility conflicts will be paid for as part of highway projects, and that other utility work is to be considered as a betterment that must be paid for by the local municipality.
textreferences: Engineer Intern D initiates the design layout for the Shadyvale DOT project to avoid conflicts with the existing utilities, including separation of a new closed drainage system from the old water main.
textreferences: State DOT policy unambiguously requires that only unavoidable utility conflicts will be paid for as part of highway projects, and that other utility work is to be considered as a betterment that must be paid for by the local municipality.
wasattributedto: Case 58 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:07:12.206938
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

Engineer Intern D initial design (avoiding water main) before Engineer W instruction to revise design (impacting water main)
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: Engineer Intern D initiates the design layout for the Shadyvale DOT project to avoid conflicts with the existing utilities... During design development review, Engineer W conveys to Engineer Intern D in an indirect way that the design should be revised so that the old water main is impacted.
from entity text: Engineer Intern D initial design (avoiding water main)
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: Engineer W instruction to revise design (impacting water main)
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: Engineer W instruction to revise design impacting
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:07:12.219664
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

Engineer Intern D initial design layout before design development review
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: Engineer Intern D initiates the design layout... During design development review, Engineer W conveys to Engineer Intern D in an indirect way that the design should be revised.
from entity text: Engineer Intern D initial design layout
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: design development review
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: design development review
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:07:12.219585
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

Engineer Mary Declined Acquisition Interest Stakeholder
type: ParticipantRole
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'license': 'Professional Engineer', 'case_reference': 'BER Case 05-5', 'role_in_case': 'Misrepresented third party whose declined interest was used deceptively'}
caseinvolvement: A licensed engineer who expressed initial interest in purchasing the engineering subsidiary but definitively declined further interest, whose earlier expression of interest was subsequently misrepresented by Engineer Adam to Engineer Baker as ongoing competing interest to pressure the negotiation.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.8
discoveredincase: 58
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T21:47:15.090058+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 58
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T21:47:15.090058+00:00
importance: low
relationships: {'type': 'misrepresented_by', 'target': 'Engineer Adam'}
rolecategory: provider_client
roleclass: Participant Role
sourcetext: Engineer Mary had expressed some initial interest in buying the subsidiary, but after further consideration, Engineer Mary decided she was definitely not interested in purchasing the subsidiary
textreferences: Engineer Mary had expressed some initial interest in buying the subsidiary, but after further consideration, Engineer Mary decided she was definitely not interested in purchasing the subsidiary
textreferences: referring to Engineer Mary's earlier interest, Engineer Adam told Engineer Baker, 'Another company has expressed an interest in buying our subsidiary'
wasattributedto: Case 58 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:07:12.198826
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

Engineer W Benevolent Motive Non-Exculpation Policy Violation Constraint — Shadyvale
type: AltruisticMotivePolicyCircumventionProhibitionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The BER explicitly acknowledged Engineer W's altruistic motivation and practical awareness of project efficiencies while nonetheless concluding that benevolent motives do not exculpate the ethical violation.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.92
constrainedentity: Engineer W
constraintclass: Altruistic Motive Policy Circumvention Prohibition Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer W's altruistic motivation to help the impoverished residents of Shadyvale did not render ethically permissible the covert diversion of $700,000 of DOT funds through artificial design manipulation, establishing that benevolent motives do not make unethical conduct ethical and that the Board's censure was not affected by Engineer W's praiseworthy intentions.
discoveredincase: 58
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T21:59:59.573160+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 58
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T21:59:59.573160+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Canons 3, 4, 5, 6; Present BER Case Analysis
sourcetext: The facts of the present case do not indicate Engineer W will personally profit by helping the residents of Shadyvale upgrade their water main.
temporalscope: Throughout the Shadyvale DOT project design phase
textreferences: However, benevolent motives do not make unethical conduct ethical.
textreferences: The facts of the present case do not indicate Engineer W will personally profit by helping the residents of Shadyvale upgrade their water main.
textreferences: helping the residents of Shadyvale cannot be accomplished at the expense of the truth
textreferences: the Board is not concerned about Engineer W's competence, his intention, or his motivation; these appear meritorious and praiseworthy.
textreferences: the facts imply both practical awareness of project efficiencies and a strongly altruistic motivation to do all the good he can do.
wasattributedto: Case 58 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:07:12.215974
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

Engineer W Benevolent Motive Non-Justification Recognition Deficit
type: BenevolentMotiveNon-JustificationRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Benevolent Motive Non-Justification Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer W lacked or failed to apply the capability to recognize that his altruistic motivation to help Shadyvale residents did not render the policy-violating directive ethically permissible
casecontext: Engineer W directed Engineer Intern D to revise a policy-compliant design based on altruistic motivation to help Shadyvale, without recognizing that benevolent motives cannot justify ethical violations
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.87
demonstratedthrough: Failure to recognize that praiseworthy motivation to help impoverished Shadyvale residents did not justify directing Engineer Intern D to implement a policy-violating design revision
discoveredincase: 58
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T22:00:02.751142+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 58
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T22:00:02.751142+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer W
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: The facts of the present case do not indicate Engineer W will personally profit by helping the residents of Shadyvale upgrade their water main
textreferences: However, benevolent motives do not make unethical conduct ethical
textreferences: If anything, the facts imply both practical awareness of project efficiencies and a strongly altruistic motivation to do all the good he can do
textreferences: The facts of the present case do not indicate Engineer W will personally profit by helping the residents of Shadyvale upgrade their water main
wasattributedto: Case 58 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:07:12.217035
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

Engineer W Competing Stakeholder Interest Faithful Agent Boundary
type: CompetingStakeholderInterestFaithfulAgentBoundaryCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Competing Stakeholder Interest Faithful Agent Boundary Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer W failed to apply the capability to recognize that his sympathies for Shadyvale residents were causing him to place Shadyvale's interests above the DOT's interests in violation of his faithful agent obligations as a DOT employee
casecontext: Engineer W, as a DOT employee with no contractual relationship with Shadyvale, directed a design revision that subordinated DOT interests to Shadyvale's interests
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.87
demonstratedthrough: Directing Engineer Intern D to implement a design revision that placed Shadyvale's financial interests above the DOT's cost-allocation policy interests, despite having no contractual relationship with Shadyvale
discoveredincase: 58
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T22:00:02.751142+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 58
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T22:00:02.751142+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer W
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: Engineer W is a DOT engineer and does not have a contractual relationship with Shadyvale
textreferences: Engineer W is a DOT engineer and does not have a contractual relationship with Shadyvale
textreferences: Engineer W's direction to Engineer Intern D has placed the interests of Shadyvale above the interests of the DOT in violation of the clear policy of the DOT
textreferences: Whose interests is the engineer (Engineer W) serving?
wasattributedto: Case 58 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:07:12.218168
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

Engineer W Covert Fund Diversion Formational Harm Prohibition — Engineer Intern D
type: CovertFundDiversionFormationalHarmProhibitionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer W supervised Engineer Intern D at the outset of the intern's professional career and directed the intern to revise a policy-compliant design in a manner that would covertly divert $700,000 of DOT funds, with the BER specifically noting the formational significance of this lesson.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.87
constrainedentity: Engineer W
constraintclass: Covert Fund Diversion Formational Harm Prohibition Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer W was prohibited from directing Engineer Intern D to participate in or implement a covert diversion of DOT funds through design manipulation, not only because such diversion violated DOT policy and professional ethics, but also because directing an early-career intern to witness and participate in such conduct caused independent formational harm to Engineer Intern D's professional ethical development at a critical career stage.
discoveredincase: 58
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T21:59:59.573160+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 58
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T21:59:59.573160+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Canon 6; BER Case Analysis on Formational Impact; Engineering Intern Supervision Standard
sourcetext: The matter is particularly poignant when it is realized how formational the lesson will be to Engineer Intern D, a young engineer about to begin a professional career.
temporalscope: Throughout Engineer Intern D's supervised work on the Shadyvale DOT project
textreferences: Is secretly diverting $700,000 of state DOT funds to benefit an impoverished village the best version of how projects are done? No.
textreferences: The matter is particularly poignant when it is realized how formational the lesson will be to Engineer Intern D, a young engineer about to begin a professional career.
textreferences: Were Engineer W willing to try an open and transparent way, an ethical way, to help the residents of Shadyvale, this Board would offer our support, not our censure.
wasattributedto: Case 58 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:07:12.214938
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

Engineer W Covert Fund Diversion Recognition and Refusal Deficit
type: CovertFundDiversionRecognitionandRefusalCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Covert Fund Diversion Recognition and Refusal Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer W failed to apply the capability to recognize that directing Engineer Intern D to implement the policy-violating design revision would result in the covert diversion of $700,000 in DOT funds to benefit Shadyvale without authorization
casecontext: Engineer W directed a design manipulation that would have resulted in covert diversion of $700,000 in DOT funds to Shadyvale without agency authorization or transparency
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.86
demonstratedthrough: Directing Engineer Intern D to revise the design in a manner that would covertly divert public agency funds to a non-client municipality
discoveredincase: 58
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T22:00:02.751142+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 58
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T22:00:02.751142+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer W
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: If Engineer Intern D decides to cooperate with Engineer W, it is likely that no one else would ever know that $700,000 of DOT money had been diverted for the benefit of Shadyvale
textreferences: If Engineer Intern D decides to cooperate with Engineer W, it is likely that no one else would ever know that $700,000 of DOT money had been diverted for the benefit of Shadyvale
textreferences: secretly diverting $700,000 of state DOT funds to benefit an impoverished village the best version of how projects are done? No
wasattributedto: Case 58 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:07:12.218015
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

Engineer W Faithful Agent DOT Employer Policy Compliance Constraint — Shadyvale
type: ConflictofInterestAvoidance
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer W had no contractual relationship with Shadyvale yet directed a design outcome that placed Shadyvale's financial interests above the DOT's policy interests, violating the faithful agent obligation.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.9
constrainedentity: Engineer W
constraintclass: Conflict of Interest Avoidance
constraintstatement: Engineer W was constrained by Canon 4's faithful agent obligation to act as a trustee of the State DOT — his employer — by adhering to the DOT's explicit cost-allocation policy, prohibiting the placement of Shadyvale's interests above the DOT's interests through policy-circumventing design manipulation, regardless of the absence of a personal financial benefit to Engineer W.
discoveredincase: 58
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T21:59:59.573160+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 58
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T21:59:59.573160+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Canon 4; Present BER Case Analysis
sourcetext: Engineer W's willingness to overlook DOT policy is inconsistent with Canon 4, the engineer's obligation to act as faithful agent or trustee of one's employer
temporalscope: Throughout Engineer W's employment as a senior DOT engineer on the Shadyvale project
textreferences: Engineer W is a DOT engineer and does not have a contractual relationship with Shadyvale. However, Engineer W's direction to Engineer Intern D has placed the interests of Shadyvale above the interests of the DOT in violation of the clear policy of the DOT.
textreferences: Engineer W's willingness to overlook DOT policy is inconsistent with Canon 4, the engineer's obligation to act as faithful agent or trustee of one's employer
wasattributedto: Case 58 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:07:12.216695
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

Engineer W Financial Sympathy Non-Subordination of Policy Deficiency
type: FinancialSympathyNon-SubordinationofPolicyCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Financial Sympathy Non-Subordination of Policy Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer W lacked or failed to exercise the capability to resist the pressure of Shadyvale's genuine financial hardship — the unaffordable $750,000 replacement cost — and instead allowed sympathy for Shadyvale's situation to motivate a directive that would circumvent the DOT's unambiguous cost-allocation policy.
casecontext: Shadyvale DOT highway reconstruction project cost-allocation dispute
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.86
demonstratedthrough: Engineer W's directive to revise the design to impact the water main, motivated by the fact that Shadyvale could afford only $50,000 rather than $750,000
discoveredincase: 58
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T21:53:57.364817+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 58
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T21:53:57.364817+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer W
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: The cost to replace is an unaffordable $750,000.
textreferences: As a result, Shadyvale would pay an affordable $50,000 for the water main upgrade, an amount they can afford.
textreferences: Engineer W conveys to Engineer Intern D in an indirect way that the design should be revised so that the old water main is impacted.
textreferences: The cost to replace is an unaffordable $750,000.
wasattributedto: Case 58 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:07:12.207515
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

Engineer W Formative Mentorship Ethical Modeling
type: FormativeMentorshipEthicalModelingCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Formative Mentorship Ethical Modeling Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer W failed to apply the capability to recognize the formative professional impact of his conduct on Engineer Intern D's ethical development, instead modeling policy circumvention and indirect directive communication at the outset of the intern's career
casecontext: Engineer W supervised Engineer Intern D at the outset of the intern's professional career and modeled ethically impermissible conduct through indirect policy-violating directives
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.87
demonstratedthrough: Failure to recognize that directing Engineer Intern D to implement a policy-violating design revision would teach improper professional norms at a formative career stage
discoveredincase: 58
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T22:00:02.751142+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 58
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T22:00:02.751142+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer W
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: The matter is particularly poignant when it is realized how formational the lesson will be to Engineer Intern D, a young engineer about to begin a professional career
textreferences: Is secretly diverting $700,000 of state DOT funds to benefit an impoverished village the best version of how projects are done? No.
textreferences: The matter is particularly poignant when it is realized how formational the lesson will be to Engineer Intern D, a young engineer about to begin a professional career
wasattributedto: Case 58 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:07:12.217414
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

Engineer W Non-Aiding Policy Circumvention Through Design Manipulation
type: Non-AidingUnlawfulPracticeBoundaryMaintenanceCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Non-Aiding Unlawful Practice Boundary Maintenance Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer W was obligated to maintain the boundary between permissible design flexibility and impermissible aiding of policy circumvention through artificial design manipulation — specifically refraining from directing the artificial creation of a utility conflict to shift costs contrary to DOT policy.
casecontext: DOT cost-allocation policy compliance in Shadyvale highway reconstruction project
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.78
demonstratedthrough: Engineer W's indirect directive to revise the design to impact the water main, which would constitute aiding circumvention of the DOT's cost-allocation policy
discoveredincase: 58
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T21:53:57.364817+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 58
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T21:53:57.364817+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer W
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer W was obligated to refrain from directing, facilitating, or aiding the artificial manipulation of a highway design to create a fictitious utility conflict
textreferences: Engineer W conveys to Engineer Intern D in an indirect way that the design should be revised so that the old water main is impacted.
textreferences: Engineer W was obligated to refrain from directing, facilitating, or aiding the artificial manipulation of a highway design to create a fictitious utility conflict
wasattributedto: Case 58 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:07:12.208803
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

Engineer W Objectivity and Truthfulness Canon 3 Compliance
type: EthicalReasoning
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Ethical Reasoning
capabilitystatement: Engineer W failed to apply ethical reasoning capability to recognize that his directive to Engineer Intern D violated Canon 3 requirements of objectivity and truthfulness by directing a design manipulation that misrepresented the nature of the utility conflict
casecontext: Engineer W's conduct violated all four Canons 3, 4, 5, and 6 of the engineering ethics code
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.85
demonstratedthrough: Directing Engineer Intern D to revise a policy-compliant design in a manner inconsistent with Canon 3 objectivity and truthfulness requirements, as well as Canon 4 faithful agent obligations, Canon 5 deception avoidance, and Canon 6 profession protection
discoveredincase: 58
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T22:00:02.751142+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 58
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T22:00:02.751142+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer W
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: Engineer W's willingness to overlook DOT policy is inconsistent with Canon 4, the engineer's obligation to act as faithful agent or trustee of one's employer and with Canon 5, to avoid deception, which, of course, challenges Canon 6, protecting the honor, reputation, and usefulness of the profession
textreferences: All four of Canons 3, 4, 5, and 6 have been attacked
textreferences: Engineer W's willingness to overlook DOT policy is inconsistent with Canon 4, the engineer's obligation to act as faithful agent or trustee of one's employer and with Canon 5, to avoid deception, which, of course, challenges Canon 6, protecting the honor, reputation, and usefulness of the profession
wasattributedto: Case 58 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:07:12.218496
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

Engineer W Political Trade-Off DOT Policy Truth Non-Compromise Constraint
type: PoliticalTrade-OffSafetyandTruthNon-CompromiseConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer W directed Engineer Intern D to revise a policy-compliant design to artificially incorporate the existing water main, covertly diverting approximately $700,000 of DOT funds to benefit Shadyvale, motivated by altruistic concern for the impoverished municipality.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.9
constrainedentity: Engineer W
constraintclass: Political Trade-Off Safety and Truth Non-Compromise Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer W was prohibited from treating the Shadyvale situation as a political trade-off in which DOT cost-allocation policy truthfulness could be compromised in exchange for achieving the public benefit of upgrading Shadyvale's water main, establishing that the logic of political compromise does not apply to core engineering ethical values including truthfulness and public fund integrity.
discoveredincase: 58
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T21:59:59.573160+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 58
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T21:59:59.573160+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Canons 3, 4, 5, 6; BER Case 98-5; Present BER Case Analysis
sourcetext: The Board rejected the logic of compromise for Case 98-5, concluding that Engineer Charlie had a responsibility to make it plain and clear to the chairman that 'righting a wrong with another wrong,' increases risk of grave damage to the public health and safety.
temporalscope: Throughout the Shadyvale DOT highway reconstruction project design phase
textreferences: As regards the present case, clearly the situation with the State DOT and Shadyvale is a political one, but the ethical value directly at risk is not the public safety, health and welfare, but rather, the truth.
textreferences: The Board rejected the logic of compromise for Case 98-5, concluding that Engineer Charlie had a responsibility to make it plain and clear to the chairman that 'righting a wrong with another wrong,' increases risk of grave damage to the public health and safety.
textreferences: benevolent motives do not make unethical conduct ethical
wasattributedto: Case 58 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:07:12.214461
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

Engineer W Political Trade-Off Truth Non-Compromise DOT Shadyvale
type: PoliticalTrade-OffSafetyandTruthNon-CompromiseCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Political Trade-Off Safety and Truth Non-Compromise Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer W failed to apply the capability to recognize that the political nature of the DOT-Shadyvale situation did not render compromise of professional truth and policy integrity obligations permissible
casecontext: Engineer W operated in a politically charged situation involving an impoverished municipality and failed to recognize that professional truth and policy integrity obligations could not be compromised through political rationalization
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.85
demonstratedthrough: Directing Engineer Intern D to implement a policy-violating design revision in a politically motivated effort to help Shadyvale, without recognizing that the political context did not justify the ethics compromise
discoveredincase: 58
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T22:00:02.751142+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 58
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T22:00:02.751142+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer W
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: clearly the situation with the State DOT and Shadyvale is a political one, but the ethical value directly at risk is not the public safety, health and welfare, but rather, the truth
textreferences: The Board consistently upholds objectivity and truthfulness as a core ethical value of the engineering profession
textreferences: clearly the situation with the State DOT and Shadyvale is a political one, but the ethical value directly at risk is not the public safety, health and welfare, but rather, the truth
wasattributedto: Case 58 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:07:12.217709
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

Engineer W Procurement Integrity Violation Recognition
type: ProcurementRationalizationResistanceCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Procurement Rationalization Resistance Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer W needed to recognize and resist the rationalization that Shadyvale's financial hardship justified circumventing the DOT's unambiguous cost-allocation policy — understanding that sympathetic circumstances do not justify policy violations and that the spirit of the policy requires compliance regardless of the financial consequences to the municipality.
casecontext: DOT cost-allocation policy compliance and procurement integrity
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.82
demonstratedthrough: Engineer W's failure to resist the rationalization that Shadyvale's $750,000 unaffordable cost justified the policy-circumventing design revision
discoveredincase: 58
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T21:53:57.364817+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 58
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T21:53:57.364817+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer W
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: State DOT policy unambiguously requires that only unavoidable utility conflicts will be paid for as part of highway projects.
textreferences: As a result, Shadyvale would pay an affordable $50,000 for the water main upgrade, an amount they can afford.
textreferences: State DOT policy unambiguously requires that only unavoidable utility conflicts will be paid for as part of highway projects.
textreferences: The cost to replace is an unaffordable $750,000.
wasattributedto: Case 58 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:07:12.209000
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

Engineer W Public Agency Cost-Allocation Policy Knowledge Deficiency
type: PublicAgencyCost-AllocationPolicyKnowledgeCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Public Agency Cost-Allocation Policy Knowledge Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer W, as the senior DOT engineer in responsible charge, possessed — but failed to apply — knowledge of the State DOT's unambiguous cost-allocation policy, instead directing a design revision that would violate that policy by artificially creating a utility conflict to shift costs to the DOT.
casecontext: Shadyvale DOT highway reconstruction project design development review
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.87
demonstratedthrough: Engineer W's indirect directive to revise the design to impact the old water main, contrary to DOT cost-allocation policy
discoveredincase: 58
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T21:53:57.364817+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 58
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T21:53:57.364817+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer W
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: State DOT policy unambiguously requires that only unavoidable utility conflicts will be paid for as part of highway projects.
textreferences: Engineer W conveys to Engineer Intern D in an indirect way that the design should be revised so that the old water main is impacted.
textreferences: State DOT policy unambiguously requires that only unavoidable utility conflicts will be paid for as part of highway projects.
wasattributedto: Case 58 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:07:12.207122
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

Engineer W Public Fund Diversion Design Manipulation Prohibition — Shadyvale Water Main
type: PublicFundDiversionDesignManipulationProhibitionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer W directed Engineer Intern D to revise a policy-compliant design that avoided the existing water main to instead artificially incorporate it, which would have caused the DOT to fund the water main replacement as an unavoidable conflict rather than requiring Shadyvale to pay for it as a betterment.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.94
constrainedentity: Engineer W
constraintclass: Public Fund Diversion Design Manipulation Prohibition Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer W was prohibited from directing Engineer Intern D to artificially design the Shadyvale DOT highway project to incorporate the existing water main — creating a fictitious unavoidable utility conflict — for the purpose of causing DOT funds to be expended on what DOT policy designated as a Shadyvale betterment, thereby covertly diverting approximately $700,000 of public DOT funds to benefit the municipality.
discoveredincase: 58
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T21:59:59.573160+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 58
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T21:59:59.573160+00:00
importance: critical
severity: critical
source: State DOT Utility Betterment Policy; NSPE Code of Ethics Canons 3, 4, 5; Present BER Case Analysis
sourcetext: If Engineer Intern D decides to cooperate with Engineer W, it is likely that no one else would ever know that $700,000 of DOT money had been diverted for the benefit of Shadyvale.
temporalscope: During the design phase of the Shadyvale DOT highway reconstruction project
textreferences: All four of Canons 3, 4, 5, and 6 have been attacked.
textreferences: If Engineer Intern D decides to cooperate with Engineer W, it is likely that no one else would ever know that $700,000 of DOT money had been diverted for the benefit of Shadyvale.
textreferences: secretly diverting $700,000 of state DOT funds is not an ethical solution
wasattributedto: Case 58 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:07:12.216211
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

Engineer W Responsible Charge Policy Compliance Active Review Deficiency
type: ResponsibleChargeActiveEngagementCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Responsible Charge Active Engagement Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer W failed to exercise the responsible charge active engagement capability by delegating the design to Engineer Intern D and then, rather than conducting substantive policy compliance review, indirectly directing a policy-violating revision and offering merely to 'sign off' on the result — substituting post-hoc ratification for genuine responsible charge.
casecontext: Shadyvale DOT highway reconstruction project responsible charge
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.85
demonstratedthrough: Engineer W's delegation of design to Engineer Intern D followed by indirect directive and promise to 'sign off' rather than active policy compliance review
discoveredincase: 58
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T21:53:57.364817+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 58
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T21:53:57.364817+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer W
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer W is the senior DOT engineer responsible for this project. Engineer W delegates the project to Engineer Intern D.
textreferences: Engineer W is the senior DOT engineer responsible for this project. Engineer W delegates the project to Engineer Intern D.
textreferences: Engineer W tells Engineer Intern D, 'I'll sign off on it.'
wasattributedto: Case 58 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:07:12.207719
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

Engineer W Transparent Institutional Advocacy Pathway Identification
type: TransparentInstitutionalAdvocacyPathwayIdentificationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Transparent Institutional Advocacy Pathway Identification Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer W failed to apply the capability to identify and pursue transparent institutional advocacy pathways — such as requesting joint meetings, escalating through chain of command, or facilitating grant applications — as ethical alternatives to covert policy circumvention
casecontext: Engineer W had multiple available transparent advocacy pathways to help Shadyvale but instead chose covert policy circumvention through design manipulation
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: Failure to pursue available transparent advocacy alternatives before directing Engineer Intern D to implement a policy-violating design revision
discoveredincase: 58
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T22:00:02.751142+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 58
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T22:00:02.751142+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer W
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: Were Engineer W willing to try an open and transparent way, an ethical way, to help the residents of Shadyvale, this Board would offer our support, not our censure
textreferences: Engineer W could request a joint meeting to discuss the situation
textreferences: Engineer W could run this up the chain of command with the State DOT
textreferences: Perhaps the DOT could assist Shadyvale with grant applications so that Shadyvale would be prepared to take advantage of the on-going DOT work
textreferences: Were Engineer W willing to try an open and transparent way, an ethical way, to help the residents of Shadyvale, this Board would offer our support, not our censure
wasattributedto: Case 58 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:07:12.217253
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

Engineer W Transparent Institutional Advocacy Substitution Mandate — Shadyvale Water Main
type: TransparentInstitutionalAdvocacySubstitutionMandateConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer W directed Engineer Intern D to artificially incorporate the existing water main into the highway design rather than pursuing any of the multiple transparent pathways the BER identified as available and ethically permissible alternatives.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.91
constrainedentity: Engineer W
constraintclass: Transparent Institutional Advocacy Substitution Mandate Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer W was prohibited from pursuing the public benefit of upgrading Shadyvale's water main through covert design manipulation when multiple transparent, institutionally authorized advocacy pathways were available — including requesting a joint DOT-Shadyvale meeting, escalating through DOT chain of command, facilitating grant applications, and exploring construction efficiency sharing — establishing that the availability of these alternatives rendered covert circumvention ethically impermissible.
discoveredincase: 58
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T21:59:59.573160+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 58
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T21:59:59.573160+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Canons 3, 4, 5; Present BER Case Analysis
sourcetext: Were Engineer W willing to try an open and transparent way, an ethical way, to help the residents of Shadyvale, this Board would offer our support, not our censure.
temporalscope: Prior to and during the Shadyvale DOT highway reconstruction project design phase
textreferences: Better approaches are available. For example, Engineer W could request a joint meeting to discuss the situation. Or Engineer W could run this up the chain of command with the State DOT.
textreferences: Perhaps Shadyvale could be allowed to benefit from construction activities the DOT was already undertaking.
textreferences: Perhaps the DOT could assist Shadyvale with grant applications so that Shadyvale would be prepared to take advantage of the on-going DOT work.
textreferences: Were Engineer W willing to try an open and transparent way, an ethical way, to help the residents of Shadyvale, this Board would offer our support, not our censure.
textreferences: secretly diverting $700,000 of state DOT funds is not an ethical solution
wasattributedto: Case 58 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:07:12.215109
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

Engineer W Whose Interests Self-Assessment Faithful Agent Constraint — Shadyvale vs DOT
type: WhoseInterestsAreBeingServedSelf-AssessmentConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The BER explicitly posed the 'whose interests' question as a diagnostic tool for identifying Engineer W's ethical violation, noting that Engineer W had no contractual relationship with Shadyvale yet placed Shadyvale's interests above the DOT's interests.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.86
constrainedentity: Engineer W
constraintclass: Whose Interests Are Being Served Self-Assessment Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer W was required to affirmatively assess whose interests were being served by directing the design revision — the DOT employer, the travelling public, Shadyvale residents, or Engineer W personally — and was prohibited from proceeding with the policy-deviating directive once that self-assessment revealed that Shadyvale's interests were being placed above the DOT's interests in violation of the faithful agent obligation.
discoveredincase: 58
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T21:59:59.573160+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 58
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T21:59:59.573160+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Canon 4 (Faithful Agent); BER Case 05-5; Present BER Case Analysis
sourcetext: it is appropriate to ask, 'Whose interests is the engineer (Engineer W) serving? Is it the interests of the travelling public? Or is it the residents of Shadyvale interest in their water system? Or perhaps it is the engineer's own interests?
temporalscope: At the time Engineer W directed Engineer Intern D to revise the Shadyvale DOT project design
textreferences: Engineer W is a DOT engineer and does not have a contractual relationship with Shadyvale. However, Engineer W's direction to Engineer Intern D has placed the interests of Shadyvale above the interests of the DOT in violation of the clear policy of the DOT.
textreferences: it is appropriate to ask, 'Whose interests is the engineer (Engineer W) serving? Is it the interests of the travelling public? Or is it the residents of Shadyvale interest in their water system? Or perhaps it is the engineer's own interests?
wasattributedto: Case 58 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:07:12.215290
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

Engineer W delegation of project to Engineer Intern D before Engineer Intern D initiates design layout
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: Engineer W delegates the project to Engineer Intern D... Engineer Intern D initiates the design layout for the Shadyvale DOT project to avoid conflicts with the existing utilities.
from entity text: Engineer W delegation of project to Engineer Intern D
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: Engineer Intern D initiates design layout
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: Engineer Intern D initiates design layout
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:07:12.219541
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

Engineer W sign-off offer after Engineer W direction to revise design
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: after
evidence: Engineer W tells Engineer Intern D, 'I'll sign off on it.', stated after directing the design revision
from entity text: Engineer W sign-off offer
owl time property: time:intervalAfter
to entity text: Engineer W direction to revise design
comment: Entity1 is after Entity2
interval after: Engineer W direction to revise design
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:07:12.219696
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

Engineering-Intern-Supervision-Standard
type: EngineeringInternSupervisionStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.92
createdby: Professional engineering norms and state licensing boards
discoveredincase: 58
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: Engineering Intern Supervision Standard
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T21:46:17.448016+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 58
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T21:46:17.448016+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Engineering Intern Supervision Standard
sourcetext: Engineer W is the senior DOT engineer responsible for this project
textreferences: Engineer W delegates the project to Engineer Intern D, who is about to sit for the PE exam
textreferences: Engineer W is the senior DOT engineer responsible for this project
textreferences: Engineer W tells Engineer Intern D, 'I'll sign off on it'
usedby: Engineer W in supervising Engineer Intern D's design work
usedincontext: Governs Engineer W's obligations as supervising PE over Engineer Intern D, including the ethical limits of instructions given to supervised interns and the responsibility Engineer W assumes by stating 'I'll sign off on it'
version: Current professional norms
wasattributedto: Case 58 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:07:12.194060
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

I.3.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:07:15.905917
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

I.4.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:07:15.905959
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

I.5.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:07:15.905994
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

I.6.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:07:15.906025
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

Incomplete-Disclosure-to-Supervisor-Standard
type: IncompleteDisclosuretoSupervisorStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.78
createdby: Professional engineering ethics norms
discoveredincase: 58
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: Incomplete Disclosure to Supervisor Standard
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T21:46:17.448016+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 58
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T21:46:17.448016+00:00
importance: medium
resourceclass: Incomplete Disclosure to Supervisor Standard
sourcetext: Engineer W conveys to Engineer Intern D in an indirect way that the design should be revised so that the old water main is impacted
textreferences: Engineer W conveys to Engineer Intern D in an indirect way that the design should be revised so that the old water main is impacted
usedby: Engineer Intern D in deciding how to respond to and report Engineer W's instruction
usedincontext: Governs Engineer Intern D's obligation to fully and accurately report the ethical concern raised by Engineer W's instruction to supervisors or appropriate authorities, without omitting material facts about the nature or intent of the instruction
version: Current professional norms
wasattributedto: Case 58 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:07:12.194550
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

Indirect Design Redirection Order
type: Action
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
event role context: Senior DOT Engineer
foreseen unintended effects: Corruption of Engineer Intern D's professional formation by exposing a pre-licensure engineer to unethical supervisory direction
foreseen unintended effects: Creation of a false engineering record misrepresenting the conflict as unavoidable
foreseen unintended effects: Potential precedent undermining integrity of DOT cost-allocation processes
foreseen unintended effects: Risk of legal and professional liability for both Engineer W and Engineer Intern D
foreseen unintended effects: Violation of DOT policy and misallocation of DOT public funds
fulfills obligation text: Altruistic concern for Shadyvale residents' welfare and access to safe water infrastructure, a morally relevant but insufficient justification
guided by principle text: BER 05-5 analogy: engineers must not misrepresent project conditions to achieve favorable cost outcomes
guided by principle text: BER 98-5 analogy: altruistic motivation does not excuse manipulation of institutional processes
guided by principle text: Good ends do not justify unethical means in professional engineering practice
guided by principle text: NSPE Code Canon 1: Engineers shall hold public safety, health, and welfare paramount: interpreted here as applying to the broader public, not only Shadyvale
guided by principle text: NSPE Code Canon 3: Engineers shall issue only objective and truthful statements
guided by principle text: NSPE Code Canon 4: Engineers shall act as faithful agents of their employers
guided by principle text: NSPE Code Canon 5: Engineers shall avoid deceptive acts
has agent: Engineer W
has mental state: deliberate and calculated
intended outcome: Shift the majority of the water main replacement cost ($700,000) from Shadyvale to the DOT by engineering an 'unavoidable' conflict, reducing Shadyvale's share to an affordable $50,000 and enabling necessary infrastructure replacement
raises obligation text: Supervisory ethics obligation: exploiting authority over a pre-licensure engineer to achieve an unethical end
requires capability text: Senior-level highway design authority and policy interpretation
requires capability text: Supervisory authority over design development review process
requires capability text: Understanding of DOT utility conflict cost-allocation mechanisms
temporal marker: Design development review phase, after Engineer Intern D's initial compliant design was submitted
temporal sequence: 8
violates obligation text: Canon 1: Public welfare, misallocating DOT public funds undermines the broader taxpaying public's interest in honest fund stewardship
violates obligation text: Canon 3: Objectivity and truthfulness, directing creation of a design record that misrepresents a manufactured conflict as unavoidable
violates obligation text: Canon 4: Faithful agency to DOT employer, deliberately circumventing DOT cost-allocation policy
violates obligation text: Canon 5: Deceptive conduct, indirect communication designed to obscure Engineer W's direct culpability while achieving the manipulated outcome
violates obligation text: Fiduciary duty to DOT as employer and to the public as ultimate client of public infrastructure funds
violates obligation text: Professional obligation not to engage in deceptive or fraudulent conduct in engineering practice
within competence: true
comment: During design development review, Engineer W indirectly communicated to Engineer Intern D that the design should be revised to intentionally impact the water main, circumventing DOT policy on unavoidable utility conflicts. This was a deliberate supervisory directive intended to shift $700,000 in replacement costs from Shadyvale to the DOT.
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:07:12.218785
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

Indirect Design Redirection Order (Action 3) → Intern Exposed To Ethical Compromise (Event 6)
type: CausalChain
type: NamedIndividual
causal language: During design development review, Engineer W indirectly communicated to Engineer Intern D that the design should be redirected, and as a direct outcome of Engineer W's redirection and sign-off offer, Engineer Intern D was placed in a position of ethical compromise
cause: Indirect Design Redirection Order (Action 3)
counterfactual: Had Engineer W accepted the compliant design or provided transparent ethical justification for any design change, the intern would not have been exposed to ethical compromise
effect: Intern Exposed To Ethical Compromise (Event 6)
necessary factors: Engineer W's decision to redirect the design away from the compliant approach
necessary factors: Engineer W's indirect rather than transparent communication style obscuring the ethical stakes
necessary factors: Engineer W's supervisory authority over Engineer Intern D
necessary factors: The existence of the already-completed compliant design creating a conflict point
responsibility type: direct
responsible agent: Engineer W (Senior/Supervising Engineer)
sufficient factors: Engineer W's supervisory redirection combined with the Responsibility-Shifting Sign-Off Offer (Action 4) together created sufficient conditions to place the intern in an ethical dilemma
within agent control: true
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:07:12.219335
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

Indirect Directive Policy Evasion Recognition — Engineer Intern D — Engineer W Communication
type: IndirectDirectivePolicyEvasionRecognitionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer W communicated the policy-violating directive indirectly, in a manner designed to avoid explicit acknowledgment of the DOT policy violation it would require, creating risk that Engineer Intern D might treat the indirectness as reducing ethical culpability for compliance.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.87
constrainedentity: Engineer Intern D
constraintclass: Indirect Directive Policy Evasion Recognition Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer Intern D is constrained to recognize Engineer W's indirectly communicated directive to revise the design to impact the water main as ethically equivalent to an explicit policy-violating directive, and must respond with the same refusal and escalation obligations that would apply to an explicit directive.
discoveredincase: 58
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T21:53:48.105500+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 58
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T21:53:48.105500+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; Engineer Dissent Framework; BER Case 05-5 (artfully misleading statements violate ethics); NSPE Code of Ethics Canon 3
sourcetext: Engineer W conveys to Engineer Intern D in an indirect way that the design should be revised so that the old water main is impacted.
temporalscope: At the moment of receiving Engineer W's indirect communication during design development review
textreferences: Engineer W conveys to Engineer Intern D in an indirect way that the design should be revised so that the old water main is impacted.
wasattributedto: Case 58 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:07:12.205062
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

Intern Assigned To Project
type: Event
type: NamedIndividual
activates constraint: DOT_Design_Standards_Apply_To_All_Work_Product
activates constraint: Intern_Must_Work_Under_Licensed_Engineer_Supervision
activates constraint: Supervisor_Must_Provide_Adequate_Oversight
causes state change: Engineer Intern D is now the active designer of record (under supervision); Engineer W holds supervisory and sign-off authority; professional formation relationship is formally established
concept category: Event
creates obligation: Engineer_Intern_D_Must_Follow_DOT_Policy_And_Standards
creates obligation: Engineer_Intern_D_Must_Seek_Guidance_When_Uncertain
creates obligation: Engineer_W_Must_Not_Exploit_Intern_Inexperience
creates obligation: Engineer_W_Must_Supervise_Intern_Work_Adequately
emergency status: routine
event type: outcome
temporal marker: Early project phase; immediately following Project Delegation to Intern action
temporal sequence: 4
urgency level: low
comment: As a direct result of Engineer W's delegation decision, Engineer Intern D became the responsible designer for the DOT highway reconstruction project, formally entering a supervisory relationship with Engineer W and acquiring design authority over a project that would later be manipulated. This is the outcome state created by the delegation action.
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:07:12.219047
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

Intern Exposed To Ethical Compromise
type: Event
type: NamedIndividual
activates constraint: Engineer_Must_Not_Harm_Junior_Engineers_Professional_Formation
activates constraint: Professional_Formation_Protection_Obligation
activates constraint: Prohibition_On_Using_Supervisory_Authority_To_Compel_Unethical_Conduct
causes state change: Engineer Intern D's professional formation is compromised; the intern now faces a binary choice between compliance with unethical direction and resistance to supervisory authority; whichever choice is made, the formational harm of exposure has already occurred
concept category: Event
creates obligation: Engineer_Intern_D_Must_Evaluate_Direction_Against_Ethical_Codes
creates obligation: Engineer_Intern_D_Must_Seek_Guidance_From_Ethics_Resources_If_Uncertain
creates obligation: Engineering_Profession_Must_Provide_Interns_With_Ethical_Resistance_Tools
emergency status: high
event type: outcome
temporal marker: Concurrent with and following the design review session; before compliance decision
temporal sequence: 10
urgency level: high
comment: As a direct outcome of Engineer W's redirection and sign-off offer, Engineer Intern D was placed in a situation where compliance with a supervisor's directive required participation in a deliberate policy violation. This exposure to institutionally-sanctioned unethical practice constitutes a formational harm to the intern's professional development, identified explicitly in the case's Discussion section.
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:07:12.219171
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

Intern Materiality Judgment Deferral — Engineer Intern D — Policy Conflict Escalation
type: InternMaterialityAssessmentIncompetenceConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer Intern D, who is not yet licensed and is about to sit for the PE exam, lacks the professional qualification to independently assess which aspects of Engineer W's directive are most material to the agency authority's assessment of the situation.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.88
constrainedentity: Engineer Intern D
constraintclass: Intern Materiality Assessment Incompetence Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer Intern D is constrained from independently filtering or withholding any material facts about Engineer W's directive when escalating the policy conflict to appropriate agency authority, and must report all facts completely — including the indirect nature of the communication, the sign-off offer, and the full financial implications — without independently assessing which facts are most relevant.
discoveredincase: 58
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T21:53:48.105500+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 58
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T21:53:48.105500+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; Incomplete Disclosure to Supervisor Standard; Engineer Dissent Framework
sourcetext: Engineer W delegates the project to Engineer Intern D, who is about to sit for the PE exam.
temporalscope: At the time of escalating the policy conflict to appropriate DOT authority
textreferences: Engineer W conveys to Engineer Intern D in an indirect way that the design should be revised so that the old water main is impacted.
textreferences: Engineer W delegates the project to Engineer Intern D, who is about to sit for the PE exam.
textreferences: Engineer W tells Engineer Intern D, 'I'll sign off on it.'
wasattributedto: Case 58 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:07:12.205685
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

Intern Professional Formation Ethical Modeling Constraint — Engineer W — Engineer Intern D
type: InternProfessionalFormationEthicalModelingConstraintEngineerWEngineerInternD
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer Intern D is described as being about to sit for the PE exam, placing them at a critical stage of professional formation where exposure to ethically questionable supervisory direction carries heightened formative harm.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.82
constrainedentity: Engineer W
constraintclass: Intern Professional Formation State
constraintstatement: Engineer W is constrained by the professional responsibility to model ethical conduct for Engineer Intern D — who is in active professional formation and about to sit for the PE exam — from directing the intern to participate in policy-circumventing design manipulation, as such direction causes direct harm to the intern's professional ethical formation at a critical developmental stage.
discoveredincase: 58
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T21:53:48.105500+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 58
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T21:53:48.105500+00:00
importance: medium
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; Engineering Intern Supervision Standard
sourcetext: Engineer W delegates the project to Engineer Intern D, who is about to sit for the PE exam.
temporalscope: Throughout Engineer W's supervisory relationship with Engineer Intern D on the Shadyvale DOT project
textreferences: Engineer W conveys to Engineer Intern D in an indirect way that the design should be revised so that the old water main is impacted.
textreferences: Engineer W delegates the project to Engineer Intern D, who is about to sit for the PE exam.
textreferences: Engineer W tells Engineer Intern D, 'I'll sign off on it.'
wasattributedto: Case 58 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:07:12.206289
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

NSPE-Code-of-Ethics
type: ProfessionalCode
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.97
createdby: National Society of Professional Engineers
discoveredincase: 58
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T21:46:17.448016+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 58
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T21:46:17.448016+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Professional Code
sourcetext: Engineer W conveys to Engineer Intern D in an indirect way that the design should be revised so that the old water main is impacted
textreferences: Engineer W conveys to Engineer Intern D in an indirect way that the design should be revised so that the old water main is impacted
textreferences: Engineer W tells Engineer Intern D, 'I'll sign off on it'
usedby: Engineer W and Engineer Intern D in evaluating professional obligations
usedincontext: Primary normative authority governing Engineer W's obligation to act in the public interest, avoid deception, and not direct Engineer Intern D to violate DOT policy; also governs Engineer Intern D's obligation to refuse unethical instructions and report the situation
version: Current
wasattributedto: Case 58 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:07:12.193767
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

NSPE Code of Ethics - Canon 3
type: ProfessionalCode
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.95
createdby: National Society of Professional Engineers
discoveredincase: 58
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers - Canon 3 (Objectivity and Truthfulness)
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T21:46:54.272435+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 58
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T21:46:54.272435+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Professional Code
sourcetext: Engineer Intern D's adherence to DOT policy (avoiding the old water main) is in accord with the Canon 3 requirements of objectivity and truthfulness.
textreferences: Engineer Intern D's adherence to DOT policy (avoiding the old water main) is in accord with the Canon 3 requirements of objectivity and truthfulness.
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review in evaluating Engineer Intern D and Engineer W
usedincontext: Canon 3 requirements of objectivity and truthfulness are cited to evaluate Engineer Intern D's adherence to DOT policy and Engineer W's willingness to overlook it
version: Current
wasattributedto: Case 58 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:07:12.196678
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

NSPE Code of Ethics - Canon 4
type: ProfessionalCode
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.95
createdby: National Society of Professional Engineers
discoveredincase: 58
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers - Canon 4 (Faithful Agent or Trustee)
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T21:46:54.272435+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 58
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T21:46:54.272435+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Professional Code
sourcetext: Engineer W's willingness to overlook DOT policy is inconsistent with Canon 4, the engineer's obligation to act as faithful agent or trustee of one's employer
textreferences: Engineer W's willingness to overlook DOT policy is inconsistent with Canon 4, the engineer's obligation to act as faithful agent or trustee of one's employer
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review in evaluating Engineer W
usedincontext: Canon 4 is cited to evaluate Engineer W's obligation to act as faithful agent or trustee of the DOT employer
version: Current
wasattributedto: Case 58 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:07:12.196854
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

NSPE Code of Ethics - Canon 5
type: ProfessionalCode
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.95
createdby: National Society of Professional Engineers
discoveredincase: 58
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers - Canon 5 (Avoid Deception)
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T21:46:54.272435+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 58
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T21:46:54.272435+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Professional Code
sourcetext: Engineer W's willingness to overlook DOT policy is inconsistent with... Canon 5, to avoid deception
textreferences: Engineer W's willingness to overlook DOT policy is inconsistent with... Canon 5, to avoid deception
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review in evaluating Engineer W
usedincontext: Canon 5 is cited to evaluate Engineer W's direction to Engineer Intern D as involving deception by obscuring the truth about DOT fund allocation
version: Current
wasattributedto: Case 58 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:07:12.197043
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

NSPE Code of Ethics - Canon 6
type: ProfessionalCode
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.95
createdby: National Society of Professional Engineers
discoveredincase: 58
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers - Canon 6 (Honor, Reputation, and Usefulness of the Profession)
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T21:46:54.272435+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 58
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T21:46:54.272435+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Professional Code
sourcetext: which, of course, challenges Canon 6, protecting the honor, reputation, and usefulness of the profession
textreferences: All four of Canons 3, 4, 5, and 6 have been attacked.
textreferences: which, of course, challenges Canon 6, protecting the honor, reputation, and usefulness of the profession
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review in evaluating Engineer W
usedincontext: Canon 6 is cited as being challenged by Engineer W's conduct, which risks damaging the honor, reputation, and usefulness of the engineering profession
version: Current
wasattributedto: Case 58 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:07:12.197210
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

Non-Deception DOT Policy Compliance — Engineer W — Indirect Communication
type: Non-DeceptionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer W's indirect communication of the directive was structured to avoid explicit acknowledgment that the design revision would violate DOT utility betterment policy — a form of deception by obscuring the truth about the policy implications of the directive.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.89
constrainedentity: Engineer W
constraintclass: Non-Deception (Constraint)
constraintstatement: Engineer W is constrained by the non-deception provision of the NSPE Code of Ethics from communicating the policy-violating design directive indirectly in a manner intentionally designed to obscure the truth about DOT fund allocation and avoid explicit acknowledgment of the policy violation.
discoveredincase: 58
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T21:53:48.105500+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 58
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T21:53:48.105500+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section III.2; BER Case 05-5; BER Case 86-6
sourcetext: Engineer W conveys to Engineer Intern D in an indirect way that the design should be revised so that the old water main is impacted.
temporalscope: At the time of design development review communication with Engineer Intern D
textreferences: Engineer W conveys to Engineer Intern D in an indirect way that the design should be revised so that the old water main is impacted.
wasattributedto: Case 58 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:07:12.205349
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

Professional Competence Invoked By Engineer Intern D Initial Policy Compliant Design
type: ProfessionalCompetence
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Shadyvale DOT highway reconstruction project design layout
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
concept category: Capability
concreteexpression: Engineer Intern D's initial design decision to avoid conflicts with existing utilities — producing a policy-compliant design that separated the new closed drainage system from the old water main — demonstrates professional competence in applying DOT policy requirements to design decisions, and establishes the baseline from which Engineer W's improper directive departs
confidence: 0.85
discoveredincase: 58
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T21:50:17.420916+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 58
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T21:50:17.420916+00:00
importance: medium
interpretation: Professional competence in the public agency engineering context requires not only technical design skill but also knowledge of and compliance with applicable mandatory agency policies; Engineer Intern D's initial policy-compliant design reflects this competence
invokedby: Engineer Intern D DOT Highway Project Engineer Intern
principleclass: Professional Competence
sourcetext: Engineer Intern D initiates the design layout for the Shadyvale DOT project to avoid conflicts with the existing utilities, including separation of a new closed drainage system from the old water main.
tensionresolution: Professional competence supports Engineer Intern D's resistance to Engineer W's directive, because a competent engineer understands that the policy-compliant design is the correct professional product
textreferences: Engineer Intern D initiates the design layout for the Shadyvale DOT project to avoid conflicts with the existing utilities, including separation of a new closed drainage system from the old water main.
textreferences: State DOT policy unambiguously requires that only unavoidable utility conflicts will be paid for as part of highway projects.
wasattributedto: Case 58 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:07:12.202031
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

Project Delegation to Intern
type: Action
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
event role context: Senior DOT Engineer
foreseen unintended effects: Creating conditions where Engineer Intern D's professional development could be compromised by subsequent unethical direction
foreseen unintended effects: Placing a formative pre-licensure engineer in a position susceptible to supervisory pressure
fulfills obligation text: Nominal supervisory oversight by retaining sign-off authority
fulfills obligation text: Routine administrative delegation of project work within organizational hierarchy
guided by principle text: NSPE Code Canon 2: Engineers shall perform services only in areas of competence, applicable to ensuring delegated work is appropriately supervised
guided by principle text: Protection of pre-licensure engineers from undue institutional pressure
guided by principle text: Supervisory responsibility for subordinate professional development
has agent: Engineer W
has mental state: deliberate
intended outcome: Advance the highway reconstruction project through a qualified subordinate while retaining supervisory oversight and sign-off authority
raises obligation text: Canon 4 duty of faithful agency to DOT, delegation used as a mechanism to distance Engineer W from direct ethical accountability
raises obligation text: Duty to protect formative engineers from ethically compromising situations (mentorship obligation)
raises obligation text: Obligation not to exploit supervisory authority over pre-licensure engineers
requires capability text: Ethical foresight regarding downstream risks of delegation decisions
requires capability text: Project management and task delegation
requires capability text: Supervisory judgment regarding appropriate assignment of work to pre-licensure engineers
temporal marker: Project initiation phase, prior to design development
temporal sequence: 3
within competence: true
comment: Engineer W assigned the highway reconstruction project to Engineer Intern D, who was preparing to sit for the PE exam. This placed a pre-licensure engineer in a position that would later expose them to ethical compromise.
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:07:12.218707
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

Project Delegation to Intern (Action 1) + Indirect Design Redirection Order (Action 3) → Intern Exposed To Ethical Compromise (Event 6)
type: CausalChain
type: NamedIndividual
causal language: Engineer W assigned the project to Engineer Intern D and subsequently indirectly communicated redirection during design review; as a direct outcome of Engineer W's redirection and sign-off offer, Engineer Intern D was placed in a position of ethical compromise
cause: Project Delegation to Intern (Action 1) + Indirect Design Redirection Order (Action 3)
counterfactual: If Engineer W had either (a) not delegated to the intern, (b) accepted the compliant design, or (c) not offered to sign off as a pressure mechanism, the intern would not have been placed in the ethical compromise position
effect: Intern Exposed To Ethical Compromise (Event 6)
necessary factors: Engineer W's sign-off offer creating false accountability transfer (Action 4)
necessary factors: Engineer W's supervisory redirection contradicting the compliant design (Action 3)
necessary factors: Initial delegation placing intern in design authority role (Action 1)
necessary factors: Intern's production of a compliant design creating the conflict artifact (Action 2 / Event 4)
necessary factors: Water main deficiency as the underlying factual basis for the ethical stakes (Event 1)
responsibility type: direct
responsible agent: Engineer W (Senior/Supervising Engineer)
sufficient factors: The combination of delegation without ethical guidance, followed by supervisory redirection toward a non-compliant design, followed by a responsibility-shifting offer, collectively constituted a sufficient set to expose the intern to ethical compromise
within agent control: true
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:07:12.219434
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

Project Delegation to Intern (Action 1) → Intern Assigned To Project (Event 3)
type: CausalChain
type: NamedIndividual
causal language: As a direct result of Engineer W's delegation decision, Engineer Intern D became the responsible designer for the highway reconstruction project
cause: Project Delegation to Intern (Action 1)
counterfactual: Without Engineer W's delegation decision, Engineer Intern D would not have become the responsible designer; a qualified licensed engineer would likely have been assigned instead
effect: Intern Assigned To Project (Event 3)
necessary factors: Engineer Intern D's availability and pending departure status
necessary factors: Engineer W's authority to assign project work
necessary factors: Existence of the DOT Highway Project requiring a designer
responsibility type: direct
responsible agent: Engineer W (Senior/Supervising Engineer)
sufficient factors: Engineer W's unilateral delegation decision combined with institutional authority over intern assignments
within agent control: true
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:07:12.219226
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

Public-Infrastructure-Cost-Allocation-Standard
type: PublicInfrastructureCostAllocationStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.85
createdby: Professional engineering norms and DOT administrative practice
discoveredincase: 58
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: Public Infrastructure Cost Allocation Standard
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T21:46:17.448016+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 58
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T21:46:17.448016+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Public Infrastructure Cost Allocation Standard
sourcetext: Engineer W conveys to Engineer Intern D in an indirect way that the design should be revised so that the old water main is impacted
textreferences: Engineer W conveys to Engineer Intern D in an indirect way that the design should be revised so that the old water main is impacted
textreferences: the cost to Shadyvale would be only the difference in price between the existing size of the water main and the proposed larger size, rather than the entire water main replacement cost
usedby: Engineer W and Engineer Intern D in evaluating the ethical permissibility of the proposed design revision
usedincontext: Establishes the professional norm prohibiting engineers from deliberately designing projects to artificially create utility conflicts in order to circumvent cost-allocation policies, grounding the ethical analysis of Engineer W's instruction to revise the design to impact the water main
version: Current professional norms
wasattributedto: Case 58 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:07:12.194713
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

Public-Official-Conflict-of-Interest-Standard
type: PublicOfficialConflictofInterestStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.8
createdby: Professional engineering ethics norms and state regulatory standards
discoveredincase: 58
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: Public Official Conflict of Interest Standard
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T21:46:17.448016+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 58
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T21:46:17.448016+00:00
importance: medium
resourceclass: Public Official Conflict of Interest Standard
sourcetext: Engineer W is the senior DOT engineer responsible for this project
textreferences: Engineer W conveys to Engineer Intern D in an indirect way that the design should be revised so that the old water main is impacted
textreferences: Engineer W is the senior DOT engineer responsible for this project
usedby: Engineer W in discharging duties as senior DOT engineer
usedincontext: Governs Engineer W's obligations as a senior DOT engineer to act impartially and in the public interest rather than directing design decisions to benefit a particular municipality at the expense of DOT policy integrity
version: Current professional norms
wasattributedto: Case 58 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:07:12.194401
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

Public Fund Diversion Design Manipulation Prohibition — Engineer W — Shadyvale DOT Project
type: PublicFundDiversionDesignManipulationProhibitionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer W's directive would result in approximately $700,000 in DOT public funds being covertly diverted to fund Shadyvale's water main upgrade, which DOT policy unambiguously designates as a local betterment to be paid by the municipality.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.93
constrainedentity: Engineer W
constraintclass: Public Fund Diversion Design Manipulation Prohibition Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer W is absolutely prohibited from directing Engineer Intern D to artificially manipulate the highway design geometry to create a fictitious utility conflict with the Shadyvale water main for the purpose of causing DOT funds to be expended on a betterment that DOT policy assigns to the local municipality.
discoveredincase: 58
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T21:53:48.105500+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 58
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T21:53:48.105500+00:00
importance: high
severity: critical
source: State DOT Utility Betterment Policy; NSPE Code of Ethics Canons 3, 4, 5, 6; Public Infrastructure Cost Allocation Standard; BER Case 98-5
sourcetext: State DOT policy unambiguously requires that only unavoidable utility conflicts will be paid for as part of highway projects, and that other utility work is to be considered as a betterment that must be paid for by the local municipality.
temporalscope: Throughout the design development phase of the Shadyvale DOT highway reconstruction project
textreferences: Engineer W conveys to Engineer Intern D in an indirect way that the design should be revised so that the old water main is impacted.
textreferences: In that case, the cost to Shadyvale would be only the difference in price between the existing size of the water main and the proposed larger size, rather than the entire water main replacement cost.
textreferences: State DOT policy unambiguously requires that only unavoidable utility conflicts will be paid for as part of highway projects, and that other utility work is to be considered as a betterment that must be paid for by the local municipality.
wasattributedto: Case 58 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:07:12.205210
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_1
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:22:51.685687
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_10
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:22:51.685975
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_11
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:22:51.686005
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_12
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:22:51.686038
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_13
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:22:51.686068
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_14
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:22:51.686100
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_15
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:22:51.686131
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_16
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:22:51.686159
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_17
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:22:51.686189
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_18
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:22:51.686216
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_2
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:22:51.685715
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_3
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:22:51.685744
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_4
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:22:51.685773
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_5
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:22:51.685803
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_6
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:22:51.685849
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_7
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:22:51.685883
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_8
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:22:51.685914
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_9
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:22:51.685944
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

Question_1
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 1
question text: Would it be ethical for Engineer Intern D to revise the design so that the old water main is impacted by the DOT project?
question type: board_explicit
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:22:51.681725
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

Question_101
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 101
question text: Does Engineer W's use of indirect, veiled language to convey the design redirection directive — rather than issuing a direct written order — itself constitute a deceptive act under the NSPE Code, and does that indirection impose a heightened ethical burden on Engineer Intern D to recognize and resist the directive?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:22:51.681842
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

Question_102
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 102
question text: Given that Engineer W explicitly offers to personally sign off on the revised design, does that promise transfer ethical and professional responsibility from Engineer Intern D to Engineer W, or does Engineer Intern D retain independent ethical culpability for executing a design revision he knows to be policy-violating?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:22:51.681899
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

Question_103
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 103
question text: What affirmative obligation, if any, does Engineer Intern D have to escalate Engineer W's policy-circumventing directive to higher DOT authority, and does the fact that Engineer Intern D is unlicensed and about to sit for the PE exam affect the standard of professional courage expected of him?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:22:51.681960
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

Question_104
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 104
question text: Beyond the immediate ethical violations, does Engineer W's conduct in directing Engineer Intern D — a pre-licensure engineer on the verge of taking the PE exam — to execute a policy-circumventing design constitute a distinct ethical failure in professional mentorship and formative modeling, separate from the faithful agent and deception violations?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:22:51.682017
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

Question_2
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 2
question text: Would it be unethical for Engineer W to sign off on the design where the old water main is impacted by the DOT project?
question type: board_explicit
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:22:51.681783
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

Question_201
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 201
question text: Does the Public Welfare Paramount principle — which might be invoked to justify helping Shadyvale obtain an affordable water main upgrade that serves public health — conflict with the Faithful Agent Obligation and Procurement Integrity principles that prohibit Engineer W from diverting DOT funds through design manipulation, and how should that tension be resolved when the public benefit is real but the means are deceptive?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:22:51.682072
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

Question_202
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 202
question text: Does the Loyal Principle Tension between Engineer W's sympathy for Shadyvale's financial constraints and his DOT employer obligations conflict with the Transparent Advocacy as Ethical Alternative principle — and if Engineer W had openly advocated to DOT leadership for a policy exception on Shadyvale's behalf, would that have resolved the tension without ethical violation?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:22:51.682125
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

Question_203
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 203
question text: Does the Subordinate Complicity Prohibition — which bars Engineer Intern D from executing a policy-violating design revision — conflict with the Intern Epistemic Humility Escalation Obligation, which counsels deference to supervisory judgment, and how should an unlicensed intern calibrate between these competing demands when a senior engineer issues an indirect but clearly policy-violating directive?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:22:51.682197
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

Question_204
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 204
question text: Does the Responsible Charge Engagement principle — which requires Engineer W to actively review and ensure policy compliance in work he supervises — conflict with the Honesty in Professional Representations principle when Engineer W's offer to sign off on the revised design functions simultaneously as an abdication of genuine responsible charge review and as a mechanism to obscure the policy violation from DOT institutional oversight?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:22:51.682257
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

Question_301
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 301
question text: From a deontological perspective, does Engineer Intern D's duty to act as a faithful agent of the DOT hold unconditionally, even when compliance with that duty produces a worse outcome for Shadyvale's public welfare — and does the categorical nature of that duty mean that benevolent motive cannot serve as a moral justification for revising the design to artificially impact the old water main?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:22:51.682317
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

Question_302
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 302
question text: From a consequentialist perspective, does the aggregate benefit to Shadyvale residents of a $700,000 cost reduction in water main replacement — representing genuine public welfare improvement — outweigh the harms of covert DOT fund diversion, policy circumvention, and the corrupting precedent set for Engineer Intern D's professional formation, such that the revised design could be justified on net-outcome grounds?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:22:51.682804
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

Question_303
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 303
question text: From a virtue ethics perspective, does Engineer W's indirect communication of a policy-circumventing directive — rather than transparent advocacy through proper institutional channels — reveal a deficiency in the virtues of honesty, integrity, and practical wisdom that a senior public engineer ought to embody, and does this deficiency compound the ethical violation beyond mere rule-breaking?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:22:51.682907
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

Question_304
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 304
question text: From a deontological perspective, does Engineer Intern D bear independent ethical responsibility for refusing the policy-violating directive regardless of Engineer W's sign-off promise — and does the Kantian universalizability test reveal that a maxim permitting interns to comply with supervisor directives that covertly divert public funds, whenever a supervisor accepts personal responsibility, would be self-defeating as a universal professional norm?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:22:51.682969
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

Question_401
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 401
question text: If Engineer W had instead pursued transparent institutional advocacy — formally petitioning the DOT or state legislature to amend the betterment policy or create a hardship exception for municipalities like Shadyvale — would the ethical violations identified by the Board have been avoided entirely, and would this pathway have been both practically available and professionally obligatory?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:22:51.683025
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

Question_402
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 402
question text: If Engineer Intern D had immediately escalated Engineer W's indirect directive to a higher DOT authority rather than either complying or simply refusing in silence, would this escalation have satisfied all of Engineer Intern D's ethical obligations — and would it have created institutional accountability that Engineer W's indirect communication was specifically designed to avoid?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:22:51.683080
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

Question_403
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 403
question text: If the water main had been genuinely unavoidable — that is, if the highway alignment truly could not have been designed to avoid impacting it — would the same design outcome have been ethically permissible under DOT policy, and does this counterfactual illuminate precisely why the artificial manufacture of a utility conflict is the core ethical violation rather than the cost outcome itself?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:22:51.683134
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

Question_404
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 404
question text: If Engineer W had explicitly and directly ordered Engineer Intern D to revise the design — rather than conveying the directive indirectly — would the ethical analysis for Engineer Intern D change, and does the indirectness of the communication itself impose a heightened obligation on Engineer Intern D to name the policy conflict explicitly rather than treating the ambiguity as cover for compliance?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:22:51.683189
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_1
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:22:51.686244
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_10
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:22:51.686523
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_11
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:22:51.686552
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_12
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:22:51.686581
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_13
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:22:51.686623
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_14
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:22:51.686663
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_15
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:22:51.686703
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_16
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:22:51.686745
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_17
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:22:51.686784
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_18
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:22:51.686826
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_19
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:22:51.686859
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_2
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:22:51.686273
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_20
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:22:51.686889
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_21
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:22:51.686919
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_22
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:22:51.686949
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_23
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:22:51.686990
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_24
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:22:51.687032
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_25
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:22:51.687065
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_26
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:22:51.687097
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_27
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:22:51.687128
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_28
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:22:51.687158
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_29
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:22:51.687187
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_3
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:22:51.686301
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_4
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:22:51.686347
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_5
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:22:51.686376
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_6
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:22:51.686405
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_7
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:22:51.686435
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_8
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:22:51.686466
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_9
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:22:51.686495
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

Responsibility-Shifting Sign-Off Offer
type: Action
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
event role context: Senior DOT Engineer
foreseen unintended effects: Creation of a coercive dynamic where refusal to comply implies distrust of a senior supervisor's judgment and willingness to protect the intern
foreseen unintended effects: Deepening of Engineer Intern D's ethical compromise if the intern relies on the sign-off offer as moral cover for compliance
foreseen unintended effects: False impression that Engineer Intern D bears no ethical responsibility for complying with the directive
foreseen unintended effects: Further corruption of Engineer Intern D's understanding of professional ethics by modeling that seniority can transfer ethical accountability
guided by principle text: BER 86-6 analogy: engineers cannot delegate away ethical responsibility through supervisory sign-off arrangements
guided by principle text: NSPE Code Canon 3: Engineers shall issue only truthful and objective professional statements
guided by principle text: NSPE Code Canon 4: Faithful agency: sign-off authority must be used to certify legitimate work, not to legitimize policy violations
guided by principle text: Professional responsibility is personal and non-transferable, a senior engineer's sign-off does not relieve a subordinate of independent ethical obligation
guided by principle text: Protection of pre-licensure engineers from coercive supervisory dynamics is an affirmative professional obligation
has agent: Engineer W
has mental state: deliberate and strategically calculated
intended outcome: Reduce Engineer Intern D's reluctance to comply with the unethical design revision by offering to bear formal sign-off responsibility, thereby making compliance feel professionally safe for the intern
requires capability text: Awareness of the coercive potential of supervisory authority over pre-licensure engineers
requires capability text: Senior engineering sign-off authority under DOT project protocols
requires capability text: Understanding of supervisory responsibility and its limits in transferring ethical accountability
temporal marker: During or immediately following the design development review directive, concurrent with the redirection order
temporal sequence: 9
violates obligation text: Canon 1: Public welfare, facilitating a design that misallocates public funds under the cover of senior authority
violates obligation text: Canon 3: Objectivity and truthfulness, the sign-off offer perpetuates the deception that the revised design is professionally legitimate
violates obligation text: Canon 4: Faithful agency to DOT employer, using sign-off authority to facilitate policy circumvention rather than enforce compliance
violates obligation text: Mentorship obligation to model ethical conduct for pre-licensure engineers rather than model circumvention of ethical obligations through hierarchical authority
violates obligation text: Obligation not to create false impressions about the distribution of ethical and professional responsibility
violates obligation text: Supervisory ethics obligation: exploiting the power differential with a pre-licensure engineer through a false offer of protection
within competence: true
comment: Engineer W explicitly told Engineer Intern D 'I'll sign off on it,' offering to assume formal responsibility for the revised design that intentionally impacts the water main. This was a deliberate act of pressure and inducement designed to lower Engineer Intern D's resistance to the unethical directive by transferring apparent accountability to the senior engineer.
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:07:12.218824
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

Responsibility-Shifting Sign-Off Offer (Action 4) → Compliance Decision by Intern (Action 5)
type: CausalChain
type: NamedIndividual
causal language: Engineer W explicitly told Engineer Intern D 'I'll sign off on it,' offering to assume formal responsibility, directly precipitating the unresolved volitional decision Engineer Intern D faced of whether to comply
cause: Responsibility-Shifting Sign-Off Offer (Action 4)
counterfactual: Without the sign-off offer, the ethical dilemma would still exist from the redirection alone, but the offer added a false legitimizing mechanism that intensified the intern's decision burden by appearing to resolve the accountability question while actually compounding it
effect: Compliance Decision by Intern (Action 5)
necessary factors: Absence of a clear institutional mechanism for the intern to safely refuse
necessary factors: Engineer Intern D's subordinate position creating real or perceived coercive pressure
necessary factors: Engineer W's explicit verbal offer to assume formal sign-off responsibility
necessary factors: The pre-existing ethical compromise situation created by the redirection order
responsibility type: direct
responsible agent: Engineer W (Senior/Supervising Engineer)
sufficient factors: The sign-off offer combined with supervisory authority and the intern's vulnerable transitional status created sufficient pressure to force a compliance decision point
within agent control: true
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:07:12.219381
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

Shadyvale Municipality Water Utility Stakeholder
type: StakeholderRole
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'financial_constraint': 'Cannot afford $750,000 full replacement', 'affordable_cost': '$50,000 betterment contribution', 'infrastructure_need': 'Water main replacement and upsizing'}
caseinvolvement: Local municipality whose aging and undersized water main is the subject of the cost-allocation dispute. Shadyvale cannot afford the full $750,000 replacement cost but could afford the $50,000 betterment cost if the DOT project is manipulated to create an artificial utility conflict, making it the indirect financial beneficiary of the proposed improper design revision.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.85
discoveredincase: 58
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T21:46:30.415971+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 58
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T21:46:30.415971+00:00
importance: medium
relationships: {'type': 'affected_by', 'target': 'State DOT Highway Reconstruction Project'}
relationships: {'type': 'indirect_beneficiary_of', 'target': 'Engineer W DOT Highway Project Senior Engineer'}
rolecategory: public_responsibility
roleclass: Stakeholder Role
sourcetext: The cost to replace is an unaffordable $750,000
textreferences: Shadyvale would pay an affordable $50,000 for the water main upgrade, an amount they can afford
textreferences: The cost to replace is an unaffordable $750,000
textreferences: the cost to Shadyvale would be only the difference in price between the existing size of the water main and the proposed larger size
wasattributedto: Case 58 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:07:12.196305
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

State-DOT-Utility-Betterment-Policy
type: DOTUtilityBettermentPolicy
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.95
createdby: State Department of Transportation
discoveredincase: 58
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: State DOT Policy on Utility Conflicts and Betterments in Highway Projects
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T21:46:17.448016+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 58
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T21:46:17.448016+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: DOT Utility Betterment Policy
sourcetext: State DOT policy unambiguously requires that only unavoidable utility conflicts will be paid for as part of highway projects, and that other utility work is to be considered as a betterment that must be paid for by the local municipality
textreferences: State DOT policy unambiguously requires that only unavoidable utility conflicts will be paid for as part of highway projects, and that other utility work is to be considered as a betterment that must be paid for by the local municipality
usedby: Engineer W and Engineer Intern D in determining design obligations and cost allocation
usedincontext: Establishes the unambiguous rule that only unavoidable utility conflicts are DOT-funded and that betterments must be paid by the local municipality; defines the policy that Engineer W's instruction would circumvent and that Engineer Intern D must navigate
version: Current administrative policy
wasattributedto: Case 58 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:07:12.193914
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

State DOT Public Infrastructure Client
type: StakeholderRole
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'policy': 'Only unavoidable utility conflicts paid for as part of highway projects; other utility work is betterment paid by local municipality', 'role_type': 'Public agency employer and project owner'}
caseinvolvement: The state Department of Transportation as the public agency client and employer for the Shadyvale highway reconstruction project, whose explicit cost-allocation policy prohibits payment for utility betterments and whose public resources would be improperly expended if Engineer W's proposed design manipulation proceeds.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.85
discoveredincase: 58
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T21:46:30.415971+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 58
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T21:46:30.415971+00:00
importance: medium
relationships: {'type': 'employer_of', 'target': 'Engineer Intern D DOT Highway Project Engineer Intern'}
relationships: {'type': 'employer_of', 'target': 'Engineer W DOT Highway Project Senior Engineer'}
relationships: {'type': 'policy_authority_over', 'target': 'Shadyvale Highway Reconstruction Project'}
rolecategory: public_responsibility
roleclass: Stakeholder Role
sourcetext: State DOT policy unambiguously requires that only unavoidable utility conflicts will be paid for as part of highway projects
textreferences: State DOT policy unambiguously requires that only unavoidable utility conflicts will be paid for as part of highway projects
textreferences: other utility work is to be considered as a betterment that must be paid for by the local municipality
wasattributedto: Case 58 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:07:12.196493
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

Transparent Alternative Pathway Obligation — Engineer W — Shadyvale Public Benefit
type: AltruisticMotivePolicyCircumventionProhibitionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Multiple transparent authorized pathways existed for Engineer W to advocate for Shadyvale's water main upgrade — including formal DOT policy exception requests and intergovernmental funding channels — making the covert design manipulation approach ethically unjustifiable.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.85
constrainedentity: Engineer W
constraintclass: Altruistic Motive Policy Circumvention Prohibition Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer W is constrained to pursue only transparent, authorized pathways to achieve the public benefit of Shadyvale's water main upgrade — such as formal DOT policy exception requests or intergovernmental funding advocacy — and is prohibited from treating the unavailability of an easy authorized pathway as justification for covert design manipulation.
discoveredincase: 58
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T21:53:48.105500+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 58
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T21:53:48.105500+00:00
importance: medium
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Canons 4, 5; State DOT Utility Betterment Policy; BER Case 98-5
sourcetext: State DOT policy unambiguously requires that only unavoidable utility conflicts will be paid for as part of highway projects.
temporalscope: Prior to and during the design development phase of the Shadyvale DOT highway reconstruction project
textreferences: Engineer W conveys to Engineer Intern D in an indirect way that the design should be revised so that the old water main is impacted.
textreferences: State DOT policy unambiguously requires that only unavoidable utility conflicts will be paid for as part of highway projects.
wasattributedto: Case 58 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:07:12.205891
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

Utility-Avoidance Compliant Design
type: Action
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
event role context: Engineer Intern, DOT
foreseen unintended effects: Design compliance would leave Shadyvale's $750,000 water main replacement cost unaddressed
foreseen unintended effects: The compliant design would later be challenged by Engineer W's redirection
fulfills obligation text: Canon 1: Protection of public safety and welfare through compliant infrastructure design
fulfills obligation text: Canon 3: Objectivity and honesty in design, reflecting actual project requirements rather than financially motivated manipulation
fulfills obligation text: Canon 4: Faithful agency to DOT employer by adhering to DOT utility conflict policy
fulfills obligation text: Professional obligation to comply with applicable regulations and policies governing engineering practice
guided by principle text: DOT policy compliance as a baseline professional obligation
guided by principle text: NSPE Code Canon 1: Engineers shall hold public safety, health, and welfare paramount
guided by principle text: NSPE Code Canon 4: Engineers shall act as faithful agents of their employer
guided by principle text: Objectivity in design decisions uncorrupted by external financial pressures
has agent: Engineer Intern D
has mental state: deliberate and principled
intended outcome: Produce a DOT-compliant highway design that avoids non-unavoidable utility conflicts, fulfilling both technical and policy requirements
requires capability text: Engineering judgment regarding design scope and constraints
requires capability text: Highway design and utility conflict analysis
requires capability text: Interpretation and application of DOT utility conflict policy
temporal marker: Initial design phase, prior to design development review
temporal sequence: 5
within competence: true
comment: Engineer Intern D independently chose to design the highway reconstruction project to avoid conflicts with existing utilities, including the aging water main, in full compliance with DOT policy on unavoidable conflicts. This was a volitional professional judgment to follow established policy.
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:07:12.218746
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

Utility-Avoidance Compliant Design (Action 2) → Compliant Design Produced (Event 4)
type: CausalChain
type: NamedIndividual
causal language: Engineer Intern D independently chose to design the highway reconstruction project to avoid conflicts, resulting in Engineer Intern D completing an initial highway reconstruction design that successfully avoided conflicts
cause: Utility-Avoidance Compliant Design (Action 2)
counterfactual: Had Engineer Intern D chosen to incorporate the utility conflict at this stage, or had Engineer W intervened earlier with redirection, the compliant design would not have been produced
effect: Compliant Design Produced (Event 4)
necessary factors: Absence of supervisory interference at the design production stage
necessary factors: Engineer Intern D's independent ethical judgment to prioritize compliance
necessary factors: Intern's awareness of the water main deficiency and utility conflict risk
necessary factors: Intern's technical competence sufficient to produce an avoidance-based design
responsibility type: direct
responsible agent: Engineer Intern D
sufficient factors: Intern's volitional ethical choice combined with technical capability and unsupervised design authority
within agent control: true
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:07:12.219278
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

Water Main Deficiency Confirmed
type: Event
type: NamedIndividual
activates constraint: Engineer_Honest_Reporting_Constraint
activates constraint: Municipal_Fiscal_Constraint
activates constraint: Public_Infrastructure_Safety_Obligation
causes state change: Infrastructure deficiency enters public record; cost burden formally quantified at $750,000; Shadyvale placed in position of seeking alternative funding mechanisms
concept category: Event
creates obligation: Disclosure_Of_Infrastructure_Risk_To_Stakeholders
creates obligation: Identification_Of_Funding_Alternatives
creates obligation: Municipality_Must_Plan_Remediation
emergency status: high
event type: exogenous
temporal marker: Prior to DOT project initiation; background/precondition phase
temporal sequence: 1
urgency level: high
comment: A professional consultant formally assessed Shadyvale's existing water main as aging and undersized, producing a documented finding that full replacement would cost $750,000, an amount deemed unaffordable for the municipality. This assessment established the factual predicate for all subsequent engineering and financial maneuvering.
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:07:12.218915
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

consultant assessment of water main before DOT highway reconstruction project planning
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: A consultant recently determined the existing water main in Shadyvale is generally in good condition but extremely old... The State DOT is planning a highway reconstruction project in Shadyvale.
from entity text: consultant assessment of water main
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: DOT highway reconstruction project planning
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: DOT highway reconstruction project planning
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:07:12.219495
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.93
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:14:42.014568+00:00
value: The honesty obligation is not overridden by the engineer's interest in moving negotiations forward; the Board finds Engineer Adam's conduct merits rebuke regardless of his commercial motivation

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.72
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:14:42.016941+00:00
value: The Board does not find a direct public safety conflict in the present case but identifies truthfulness and objectivity as the core ethical values at risk, situating the case within the broader public welfare framework while emphasizing the specific value implicated

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.93
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:14:42.017261+00:00
value: The honesty obligation is not overridden by the engineer's interest in moving negotiations forward; the Board finds Engineer Adam's conduct merits rebuke regardless of his commercial motivation

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.93
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:14:42.015263+00:00
value: The honesty obligation is not overridden by the engineer's interest in moving negotiations forward; the Board finds Engineer Adam's conduct merits rebuke regardless of his commercial motivation

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.82
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:14:42.014490+00:00
value: The Board rejected the 'trade-off' rationalization, concluding that Engineer Charlie had a responsibility to make plain that compromising code enforcement was not an acceptable concession regardless of the benefit offered in return

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.88
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:14:42.015333+00:00
value: The Board rejected the 'trade-off' rationalization, concluding that Engineer Charlie had a responsibility to make plain that compromising code enforcement was not an acceptable concession regardless of the benefit offered in return

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.83
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:14:42.017415+00:00
value: The intern should escalate the policy conflict to appropriate authority above Engineer W rather than either complying with the improper directive or unilaterally refusing without seeking guidance

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.85
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:14:42.014410+00:00
value: The intern should escalate the policy conflict to appropriate authority above Engineer W rather than either complying with the improper directive or unilaterally refusing without seeking guidance

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.85
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:14:42.015549+00:00
value: The intern should escalate the policy conflict to appropriate authority above Engineer W rather than either complying with the improper directive or unilaterally refusing without seeking guidance

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.88
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:14:42.014328+00:00
value: The faithful agent obligation to DOT as institution requires compliance with DOT's mandatory cost-allocation policy, which overrides the general deference obligation to Engineer W as immediate supervisor when Engineer W's directive conflicts with that policy

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.92
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:14:42.015188+00:00
value: The intern's independent ethical obligation to refuse policy-violating directives overrides the general deference obligation to supervisory authority when the supervisor is directing the intern toward clearly policy-violating conduct

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.88
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:14:42.017005+00:00
value: The intern should escalate the policy conflict to appropriate authority above Engineer W rather than either complying with the improper directive or unilaterally refusing without seeking guidance

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.83
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:14:42.014849+00:00
value: The intern should escalate the policy conflict to appropriate authority above Engineer W rather than either complying with the improper directive or unilaterally refusing without seeking guidance

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.87
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:14:42.016684+00:00
value: The subordinate complicity prohibition overrides any deference obligation the intern might otherwise owe to the supervisor's direction, because the direction itself violates applicable professional standards and employer policy

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.88
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:14:42.017106+00:00
value: The faithful agent obligation to DOT as institution requires compliance with DOT's mandatory cost-allocation policy, which overrides the general deference obligation to Engineer W as immediate supervisor when Engineer W's directive conflicts with that policy

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.9
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:14:42.016744+00:00
value: The intern's independent ethical obligation to refuse policy-violating directives overrides the general deference obligation to supervisory authority when the supervisor is directing the intern toward clearly policy-violating conduct

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.92
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:14:42.015111+00:00
value: The subordinate complicity prohibition overrides any deference obligation the intern might otherwise owe to the supervisor's direction, because the direction itself violates applicable professional standards and employer policy

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.85
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:14:42.017158+00:00
value: The intern should escalate the policy conflict to appropriate authority above Engineer W rather than either complying with the improper directive or unilaterally refusing without seeking guidance

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.92
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:14:42.016044+00:00
value: The intern's independent ethical obligation to refuse policy-violating directives overrides the general deference obligation to supervisory authority when the supervisor is directing the intern toward clearly policy-violating conduct

Defeasibility edge from constraintstatement
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=constraintstatement; confidence=0.93
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:14:42.016108+00:00
value: Engineer W's explicit offer to 'sign off on it' does not relieve Engineer Intern D of independent ethical culpability for knowingly implementing the policy-violating design revision; Engineer Intern D remains obligated to refuse and escalate regardless of the sign-off offer.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.9
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:14:42.014692+00:00
value: Altruistic motivation is recognized as praiseworthy and may inform the nature of any sanction, but does not constitute a defense to the underlying ethical violations of Canons 3, 4, 5, and 6

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.9
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:14:42.015979+00:00
value: Altruistic motivation is recognized as praiseworthy and may inform the nature of any sanction, but does not constitute a defense to the underlying ethical violations of Canons 3, 4, 5, and 6

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.95
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:14:42.014226+00:00
value: Engineer W's loyalty to DOT as employer and to the public interest in proper resource stewardship overrides any sympathy-based inclination to benefit Shadyvale through policy circumvention

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.88
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:14:42.016228+00:00
value: The faithful agent obligation to the DOT employer is not overridden by altruistic motivation to benefit Shadyvale; the Board finds Engineer W violated this obligation by placing Shadyvale's interests above the DOT's policy

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.95
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:14:42.014958+00:00
value: The faithful agent obligation to the DOT employer is not overridden by altruistic motivation to benefit Shadyvale; the Board finds Engineer W violated this obligation by placing Shadyvale's interests above the DOT's policy

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.87
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:14:42.016824+00:00
value: The formative mentorship obligation reinforces rather than conflicts with the subordinate complicity prohibition — both principles converge on the conclusion that Engineer W's direction to the intern is ethically impermissible and that the intern should not cooperate

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.88
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:14:42.016529+00:00
value: Honesty requires Engineer W to either explicitly acknowledge the policy conflict and seek proper authorization for an exception, or to withdraw the directive; indirect communication that obscures the policy-violating nature of the directive is not ethically permissible

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.87
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:14:42.017364+00:00
value: The Board offers support — not censure — for transparent advocacy approaches, indicating that the ethical violation lies not in the goal of helping Shadyvale but in the covert means chosen when transparent alternatives were available

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.9
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:14:42.016289+00:00
value: The mandatory nature of DOT cost-allocation policy and the public interest in proper stewardship of public infrastructure funds override the sympathetic financial circumstances of Shadyvale; Engineer W must not direct design manipulation to circumvent the policy

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.82
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:14:42.017212+00:00
value: The Board rejected the 'trade-off' rationalization, concluding that Engineer Charlie had a responsibility to make plain that compromising code enforcement was not an acceptable concession regardless of the benefit offered in return

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.95
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:14:42.017056+00:00
value: Engineer W's loyalty to DOT as employer and to the public interest in proper resource stewardship overrides any sympathy-based inclination to benefit Shadyvale through policy circumvention

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.9
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:14:42.015726+00:00
value: Altruistic motivation is recognized as praiseworthy and may inform the nature of any sanction, but does not constitute a defense to the underlying ethical violations of Canons 3, 4, 5, and 6

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.92
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:14:42.015799+00:00
value: Engineer W's loyalty to DOT as employer and to the public interest in proper resource stewardship overrides any sympathy-based inclination to benefit Shadyvale through policy circumvention

Defeasibility edge from constraintstatement
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=constraintstatement; confidence=0.88
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:14:42.015913+00:00
value: Shadyvale's inability to afford the $750,000 full water main replacement cost constitutes a resource constraint that limits the municipality's options for addressing the aging and undersized water main, but does not authorize circumvention of DOT utility betterment policy to shift costs to the DOT.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.92
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:14:42.016346+00:00
value: Procurement integrity and faithful agent obligations both require compliance with DOT policy; neither is overridden by Engineer W's altruistic motivation to benefit Shadyvale

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.93
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:14:42.015407+00:00
value: The mandatory nature of DOT cost-allocation policy and the public interest in proper stewardship of public infrastructure funds override any sympathy for Shadyvale's financial hardship; Engineer W must not direct design manipulation to circumvent the policy

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.9
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:14:42.017314+00:00
value: Altruistic motivation is recognized as praiseworthy and may inform the nature of any sanction, but does not constitute a defense to the underlying ethical violations of Canons 3, 4, 5, and 6

Defeasibility edge from constraintstatement
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=constraintstatement; confidence=0.88
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:14:42.016407+00:00
value: Engineer W is constrained by conflict of interest avoidance provisions from directing design decisions that benefit Shadyvale at the DOT's financial expense while serving as the senior DOT engineer responsible for the project, as this dual obligation creates an unmitigated conflict between Engineer W's role as DOT faithful agent and the directive to benefit Shadyvale.

Defeasibility edge from constraintstatement
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=constraintstatement; confidence=0.9
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:14:42.016468+00:00
value: Engineer W is constrained by the State DOT's unambiguous utility betterment policy from directing any design revision that would cause DOT funds to be expended on water main work that policy designates as a Shadyvale betterment, regardless of Shadyvale's financial hardship or Engineer W's altruistic intent.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.95
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:14:42.015034+00:00
value: Altruistic motivation is recognized as praiseworthy and may inform the nature of any sanction, but does not constitute a defense to the underlying ethical violations of Canons 3, 4, 5, and 6

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.9
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:14:42.015620+00:00
value: Engineer W must refuse to sign off on a design revision that violates applicable mandatory DOT policy, regardless of the sympathetic financial circumstances of Shadyvale; the responsible charge obligation requires substantive rather than nominal oversight

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.9
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:14:42.016171+00:00
value: Engineer W must refuse to sign off on a design revision that violates applicable mandatory DOT policy, regardless of the sympathetic financial circumstances of Shadyvale; the responsible charge obligation requires substantive rather than nominal oversight

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.88
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:14:42.016624+00:00
value: Honesty requires Engineer W to either explicitly acknowledge the policy conflict and seek proper authorization for an exception, or to withdraw the directive; indirect communication that obscures the policy-violating nature of the directive is not ethically permissible

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.87
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:14:42.014773+00:00
value: The Board offers support — not censure — for transparent advocacy approaches, indicating that the ethical violation lies not in the goal of helping Shadyvale but in the covert means chosen when transparent alternatives were available

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.9
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:14:42.016882+00:00
value: The Board offers support — not censure — for transparent advocacy approaches, indicating that the ethical violation lies not in the goal of helping Shadyvale but in the covert means chosen when transparent alternatives were available

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.88
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:14:42.015478+00:00
value: The Board offers support — not censure — for transparent advocacy approaches, indicating that the ethical violation lies not in the goal of helping Shadyvale but in the covert means chosen when transparent alternatives were available

design development review before Engineer W direction to revise design
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: During design development review, Engineer W conveys to Engineer Intern D in an indirect way that the design should be revised so that the old water main is impacted.
from entity text: design development review
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: Engineer W direction to revise design
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: Engineer W direction to revise design
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:07:12.219627
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer Adam's statement to Engineer Baker that 'another company has expressed an interest in buying our subsidiary' — when Engineer Mary had definitively declined interest — constituted an artfully misleading representation designed to ob

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer Charlie's agreement to allow specified buildings under construction to be grandfathered under older, less rigorous code enforcement requirements in exchange for the city council chairman's order permitting additional code official

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer Intern D's adherence to DOT policy in designing the project to avoid the old water main reflects the Canon 3 requirements of objectivity and truthfulness, producing a policy-compliant design rather than one shaped by political or s

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer Intern D's initial design decision to avoid conflicts with existing utilities — including separation of the new closed drainage system from the old water main — reflects the paramount obligation to protect public resources and ensu

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer Intern D's obligation to serve the State DOT faithfully is bounded by the ethical and policy limits imposed by mandatory DOT cost-allocation policy; faithful agency to DOT requires maintaining the policy-compliant design and escala

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: If Engineer Intern D decides to cooperate with Engineer W's direction to redesign the project in violation of DOT policy, the intern becomes complicit in the covert diversion of $700,000 of DOT funds, treating Engineer W's supervisory autho

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer W's promise to 'sign off' on the revised design does not relieve Engineer Intern D of independent ethical obligation to refuse to implement a policy-violating design revision; the intern cannot treat the supervisor's sign-off promi

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer Intern D, upon receiving Engineer W's indirect directive to revise the policy-compliant design, bears an obligation to escalate the conflict between the directive and DOT policy to appropriate supervisory or ethics channels above E

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer W's indirect directive to Engineer Intern D — designed to achieve a policy-circumventing outcome while maintaining plausible deniability — constitutes deceptive conduct inconsistent with Canon 5's requirement to avoid deception, an

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer W's direction to Engineer Intern D to redesign the project in violation of DOT policy is particularly ethically harmful because it teaches the intern — at a formative stage of professional development — that secretly diverting publ

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer W's indirect directive to revise the policy-compliant design to artificially impact the old water main — motivated by sympathy for Shadyvale's financial hardship — constitutes a violation of the principle prohibiting engineers from

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer W's directive to revise the design to artificially impact the old water main — thereby triggering the DOT's 'unavoidable utility conflict' cost-allocation exception contrary to the actual design situation — constitutes a manipulati

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer W's direction to redesign the Shadyvale project to incorporate the old water main constitutes a manipulation of technical design decisions to circumvent DOT cost-allocation policy, effectively diverting $700,000 of state DOT funds

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The Board distinguishes the present case from BER Case 98-5 by noting that in the Shadyvale situation, the ethical value directly at risk is not public safety, health and welfare, but rather the truth — indicating that while public welfare

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer W's willingness to overlook DOT policy and direct Engineer Intern D to redesign the project to incorporate the old water main violated his Canon 4 obligation to act as faithful agent or trustee of his employer, the State DOT, by pl

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer W's use of indirect communication to convey the policy-violating design revision directive — rather than explicitly acknowledging the policy conflict and the intent to circumvent it — constitutes a form of professional dishonesty t

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer W's promise to 'sign off' on the revised design — after having directed the revision through indirect communication designed to avoid explicit acknowledgment of the policy conflict — constitutes a nominal rather than substantive ex

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The Board identifies multiple transparent, institutionally sanctioned alternatives available to Engineer W — requesting a joint meeting, escalating through the DOT chain of command, exploring construction efficiency benefits for Shadyvale,

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer W's altruistic motivation to help the impoverished residents of Shadyvale upgrade their water main does not render ethically permissible his covert direction to divert $700,000 of DOT funds in violation of DOT policy; the Board eva

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer W's apparent sympathy for Shadyvale's financial hardship creates a loyalty tension between serving Shadyvale's interests (as a project stakeholder) and maintaining loyalty to DOT's mandatory cost-allocation policy and the public in

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer Adam was obligated to disclose to Engineer Baker the full and accurate circumstances of Engineer Mary's interest in the subsidiary — specifically that Engineer Mary had definitively declined further interest — rather than referenci

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer Adam was obligated to refrain from telling Engineer Baker that 'another company has expressed an interest in buying our subsidiary' when Engineer Mary had definitively declined further interest — recognizing that this statement, wh

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer Charlie's agreement to allow specified buildings under construction to be grandfathered under older, less rigorous code enforcement requirements in exchange for the city council chairman's order permitting additional code official

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer Intern D, upon receiving Engineer W's indirect directive to revise the policy-compliant design, bears an obligation to escalate the conflict between the directive and DOT policy to appropriate supervisory or ethics channels above E

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer Intern D, upon receiving Engineer W's indirect directive to revise the policy-compliant design, bears an obligation to escalate the conflict between the directive and DOT policy to appropriate supervisory or ethics channels above E

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer Intern D's initial design decision to avoid conflicts with existing utilities — including separation of the new closed drainage system from the old water main — reflects the paramount obligation to protect public resources and ensu

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: If Engineer Intern D decides to cooperate with Engineer W's direction to redesign the project in violation of DOT policy, the intern becomes complicit in the covert diversion of $700,000 of DOT funds, treating Engineer W's supervisory autho

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer W's promise to 'sign off' on the revised design does not relieve Engineer Intern D of independent ethical obligation to refuse to implement a policy-violating design revision; the intern cannot treat the supervisor's sign-off promi

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer Intern D's obligation to serve the State DOT faithfully is bounded by the ethical and policy limits imposed by mandatory DOT cost-allocation policy; faithful agency to DOT requires maintaining the policy-compliant design and escala

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer Intern D's adherence to DOT policy in designing the project to avoid the old water main reflects the Canon 3 requirements of objectivity and truthfulness, producing a policy-compliant design rather than one shaped by political or s

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer Intern D, upon receiving Engineer W's indirect directive to revise the policy-compliant design, bears an obligation to escalate the conflict between the directive and DOT policy to appropriate supervisory or ethics channels above E

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer W's direction to Engineer Intern D to redesign the project in violation of DOT policy is particularly ethically harmful because it teaches the intern — at a formative stage of professional development — that secretly diverting publ

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer W's use of indirect communication to convey the policy-violating design revision directive — rather than explicitly acknowledging the policy conflict and the intent to circumvent it — constitutes a form of professional dishonesty t

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer W's indirect directive to Engineer Intern D — designed to achieve a policy-circumventing outcome while maintaining plausible deniability — constitutes deceptive conduct inconsistent with Canon 5's requirement to avoid deception, an

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer W's indirect directive to revise the policy-compliant design to artificially impact the old water main — motivated by sympathy for Shadyvale's financial hardship — constitutes a violation of the principle prohibiting engineers from

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer W's direction to redesign the Shadyvale project to incorporate the old water main constitutes a manipulation of technical design decisions to circumvent DOT cost-allocation policy, effectively diverting $700,000 of state DOT funds

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer W's directive to revise the design to artificially impact the old water main — thereby triggering the DOT's 'unavoidable utility conflict' cost-allocation exception contrary to the actual design situation — constitutes a manipulati

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer W's promise to 'sign off' on the revised design — after having directed the revision through indirect communication designed to avoid explicit acknowledgment of the policy conflict — constitutes a nominal rather than substantive ex

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer W's promise to 'sign off' on the revised design — after having directed the revision through indirect communication designed to avoid explicit acknowledgment of the policy conflict — constitutes a nominal rather than substantive ex

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer W's willingness to overlook DOT policy and direct Engineer Intern D to redesign the project to incorporate the old water main violated his Canon 4 obligation to act as faithful agent or trustee of his employer, the State DOT, by pl

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The Board identifies multiple transparent, institutionally sanctioned alternatives available to Engineer W — requesting a joint meeting, escalating through the DOT chain of command, exploring construction efficiency benefits for Shadyvale,

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer W's altruistic motivation to help the impoverished residents of Shadyvale upgrade their water main does not render ethically permissible his covert direction to divert $700,000 of DOT funds in violation of DOT policy; the Board eva

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer W's directive to revise the design to artificially impact the old water main — thereby triggering the DOT's 'unavoidable utility conflict' cost-allocation exception contrary to the actual design situation — constitutes a manipulati

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer W's indirect directive to revise the policy-compliant design to artificially impact the old water main — motivated by sympathy for Shadyvale's financial hardship — constitutes a violation of the principle prohibiting engineers from

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer Adam was obligated to disclose to Engineer Baker the full and accurate circumstances of Engineer Mary's interest in the subsidiary — specifically that Engineer Mary had definitively declined further interest — rather than referenci

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer Adam was obligated to refrain from telling Engineer Baker that 'another company has expressed an interest in buying our subsidiary' when Engineer Mary had definitively declined further interest — recognizing that this statement, wh

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer Intern D was obligated to recognize that Engineer W's promise to 'sign off' on the revised design does not relieve Engineer Intern D of independent ethical responsibility to refuse to implement a policy-violating design revision —

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer Intern D was obligated to refuse to implement Engineer W's indirect directive to revise the policy-compliant design to artificially incorporate the old Shadyvale water main, notwithstanding Engineer W's promise to 'sign off' on the

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer Intern D was obligated, upon receiving Engineer W's indirect directive to revise the design in a manner that would violate DOT cost-allocation policy, to escalate the directive and the policy conflict to appropriate supervisory or

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer W was obligated, as a senior DOT engineer supervising Engineer Intern D at the outset of the intern's professional career, to model ethical compliance with DOT policy and to refrain from directing the intern to participate in a cov

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer W was obligated to refrain from communicating the design revision directive indirectly — in a manner designed to avoid explicit acknowledgment of the DOT cost-allocation policy conflict — and instead to communicate any directive cl

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer W was obligated to preserve the integrity of the DOT's explicit cost-allocation policy — requiring that only unavoidable utility conflicts be funded as part of highway projects — by refraining from directing Engineer Intern D to re

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer W was obligated, as the licensed senior engineer in responsible charge of the Shadyvale DOT project, to conduct an active, substantive review of the design's compliance with DOT cost-allocation policy before directing any revision

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer W was obligated to refrain from communicating the policy-violating design revision directive to Engineer Intern D indirectly or ambiguously as a means of avoiding explicit acknowledgment of the DOT policy conflict, recognizing that

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer W was obligated to ensure that the Shadyvale DOT highway reconstruction project design complied with the DOT's cost-allocation policy — which unambiguously requires that only genuinely unavoidable utility conflicts be funded as par

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer W was obligated to refrain from using a promise to 'sign off' on the revised design as a substitute for his own independent determination that the revision complied with DOT cost-allocation policy — recognizing that responsible cha

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer Charlie was obligated to refuse the city council chairman's bargain — concurrence on a grandfathering ordinance permitting specified buildings to be inspected under less rigorous code requirements in exchange for authorization to h

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer W was obligated to act as a faithful agent and trustee of the State DOT — his employer — by adhering to the DOT's explicit cost-allocation policy requiring that only unavoidable utility conflicts be funded as part of highway projec

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer W was obligated, as a licensed senior DOT engineer, to preserve the integrity of the DOT's cost-allocation policy by refraining from directing a design revision whose primary purpose was to artificially create an 'unavoidable' util

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer W was obligated to pursue the beneficial outcome of upgrading Shadyvale's water main exclusively through transparent, institutionally sanctioned channels — including requesting a joint meeting, escalating through the DOT chain of c

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer W was obligated to recognize that his altruistic motivation to help the impoverished residents of Shadyvale did not render ethically permissible his direction to Engineer Intern D to redesign the project in violation of DOT cost-al

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer W was obligated to refrain from directing, facilitating, or aiding the artificial manipulation of a highway design to create a fictitious 'unavoidable' utility conflict — recognizing that such manipulation constitutes an improper u

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer W was obligated to refrain from subordinating the DOT's unambiguous cost-allocation policy to sympathy for Shadyvale's financial hardship — recognizing that the policy exists to protect the integrity of public procurement and the e

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer Intern D was obligated, upon receiving Engineer W's indirect directive to revise the policy-compliant design in a manner that would violate DOT cost-allocation policy, to escalate the directive and the policy conflict to appropriat

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer Intern D was obligated to refuse to revise the policy-compliant design — which avoided conflicts with the existing water main — in response to Engineer W's indirect directive, notwithstanding Engineer W's promise to 'sign off' on t

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer Intern D was obligated to refuse to implement Engineer W's indirect directive to revise the policy-compliant design to artificially incorporate the old Shadyvale water main, notwithstanding Engineer W's promise to 'sign off' on the

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer Intern D was obligated to serve the State DOT faithfully as the client and employer — including by preserving the integrity of the DOT's cost-allocation policy — and to recognize that faithful service to the DOT required adherence

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer Intern D was obligated, upon receiving Engineer W's indirect directive to revise the design in a manner that would violate DOT cost-allocation policy, to escalate the directive and the policy conflict to appropriate supervisory or

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer Intern D was obligated, when escalating the policy conflict created by Engineer W's directive, to communicate all material facts to the appropriate authority — including the indirectness of Engineer W's communication, the specific

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer Intern D was obligated, when escalating the policy conflict to appropriate agency authority, to refrain from independently filtering or withholding any facts about Engineer W's directive — including the indirectness of the communic

BER Case 05-5
type: BERCasePrecedent
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.97
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
discoveredincase: 58
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case 05-5 (Engineer Adam and Artfully Misleading Negotiation)
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T21:46:54.272435+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 58
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T21:46:54.272435+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: BER Case Precedent
sourcetext: BER Case 05-5 relates how Engineer Adam, while acting as the chief negotiator in the sale of a small engineering subsidiary to Engineer Baker, wanted to move the negotiations forward to finalize the deal
textreferences: 'This Board strongly believes that honesty and truthfulness are hallmark qualities of a practicing engineer.'
textreferences: BER Case 05-5 relates how Engineer Adam, while acting as the chief negotiator in the sale of a small engineering subsidiary to Engineer Baker, wanted to move the negotiations forward to finalize the deal
textreferences: the Board found Engineer Adam's words 'artfully misleading' or, in the words of prior BER Case 86-6, 'intentionally designed to mislead… by obscuring the truth.'
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review in analogical reasoning about Engineer W's deceptive conduct
usedincontext: Cited as precedent establishing that artfully misleading or deceptive statements, even when serving self-interest or strategic goals, violate the engineer's obligation of honesty and truthfulness
version: 2005
wasattributedto: Case 58 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:07:12.197564
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

BER Case 98-5
type: BERCasePrecedent
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.97
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
discoveredincase: 58
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case 98-5 (Engineer Charlie and Building Inspection Trade-offs)
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T21:46:54.272435+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 58
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T21:46:54.272435+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: BER Case Precedent
sourcetext: In BER Case 98-5, Engineer Charlie served as director of a building department in a major city where, as a result of a series of budget cutbacks and more rigid code enforcement requirements, he became concerned that his staff would be unable to perform adequate and timely building inspections.
textreferences: In BER Case 98-5, Engineer Charlie served as director of a building department in a major city where, as a result of a series of budget cutbacks and more rigid code enforcement requirements, he became concerned that his staff would be unable to perform adequate and timely building inspections.
textreferences: the Board rejected the logic of compromise for Case 98-5, concluding that Engineer Charlie had a responsibility to make it plain and clear to the chairman that 'righting a wrong with another wrong,' increases risk of grave damage to the public health and safety.
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review in analogical reasoning for the present case
usedincontext: Cited as precedent for the principle that benevolent motives and political trade-offs do not justify compromising ethical obligations, particularly when righting a wrong with another wrong increases public safety risk
version: 1998
wasattributedto: Case 58 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:07:12.197413
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

Conflict of Interest Avoidance — Engineer W — DOT vs Shadyvale Dual Obligation
type: ConflictofInterestAvoidanceConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer W holds a position of trust as a senior DOT engineer bound by DOT cost-allocation policy while simultaneously directing a design outcome that benefits Shadyvale municipality at the DOT's expense of approximately $700,000.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.91
constrainedentity: Engineer W
constraintclass: Conflict of Interest Avoidance (Constraint)
constraintstatement: Engineer W is constrained by conflict of interest avoidance provisions from directing design decisions that benefit Shadyvale at the DOT's financial expense while serving as the senior DOT engineer responsible for the project, as this dual obligation creates an unmitigated conflict between Engineer W's role as DOT faithful agent and the directive to benefit Shadyvale.
discoveredincase: 58
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T21:53:48.105500+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 58
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T21:53:48.105500+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section III.4; Public Official Conflict of Interest Standard
sourcetext: Engineer W is the senior DOT engineer responsible for this project.
temporalscope: Throughout Engineer W's tenure as senior DOT engineer responsible for the Shadyvale highway reconstruction project
textreferences: As a result, Shadyvale would pay an affordable $50,000 for the water main upgrade, an amount they can afford.
textreferences: Engineer W conveys to Engineer Intern D in an indirect way that the design should be revised so that the old water main is impacted.
textreferences: Engineer W is the senior DOT engineer responsible for this project.
wasattributedto: Case 58 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:07:12.205494
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

DOT Utility Betterment Policy Compliance — Engineer W — Shadyvale DOT Project
type: DOTUtilityBettermentPolicyComplianceEngineerWShadyvaleDOTProject
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer W directed Engineer Intern D to revise the design to artificially impact the existing water main, which would cause approximately $700,000 in DOT funds to be spent on a Shadyvale water main upgrade that DOT policy designates as a local betterment.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.93
constrainedentity: Engineer W
constraintclass: Public Agency Cost-Allocation Policy Integrity Preservation Obligation
constraintstatement: Engineer W is constrained by the State DOT's unambiguous utility betterment policy from directing any design revision that would cause DOT funds to be expended on water main work that policy designates as a Shadyvale betterment, regardless of Shadyvale's financial hardship or Engineer W's altruistic intent.
discoveredincase: 58
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T21:53:48.105500+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 58
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T21:53:48.105500+00:00
importance: high
severity: critical
source: State DOT Utility Betterment Policy; NSPE Code of Ethics Canon 4 (faithful agent); NSPE Code of Ethics Canon 5 (non-deception)
sourcetext: State DOT policy unambiguously requires that only unavoidable utility conflicts will be paid for as part of highway projects, and that other utility work is to be considered as a betterment that must be paid for by the local municipality.
temporalscope: Throughout the design development phase of the Shadyvale DOT highway reconstruction project
textreferences: Engineer W conveys to Engineer Intern D in an indirect way that the design should be revised so that the old water main is impacted.
textreferences: State DOT policy unambiguously requires that only unavoidable utility conflicts will be paid for as part of highway projects, and that other utility work is to be considered as a betterment that must be paid for by the local municipality.
wasattributedto: Case 58 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:07:12.204712
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

Resource Constraint — Shadyvale Water Main Replacement Cost
type: ResourceConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The $750,000 replacement cost is described as unaffordable for Shadyvale, creating the financial pressure that motivated Engineer W's policy-circumventing directive; the resource constraint is real but does not justify the ethical violation.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.87
constrainedentity: Shadyvale municipality
constraintclass: Resource Constraint
constraintstatement: Shadyvale's inability to afford the $750,000 full water main replacement cost constitutes a resource constraint that limits the municipality's options for addressing the aging and undersized water main, but does not authorize circumvention of DOT utility betterment policy to shift costs to the DOT.
discoveredincase: 58
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T21:53:48.105500+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 58
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T21:53:48.105500+00:00
importance: medium
severity: medium
source: Case facts; DOT Utility Betterment Policy
sourcetext: The cost to replace is an unaffordable $750,000.
temporalscope: At the time of the Shadyvale DOT highway reconstruction project planning and design
textreferences: As a result, Shadyvale would pay an affordable $50,000 for the water main upgrade, an amount they can afford.
textreferences: The cost to replace is an unaffordable $750,000.
wasattributedto: Case 58 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:07:12.206105
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

Supervisor Sign-Off Non-Exculpation — Engineer Intern D — Shadyvale DOT Project
type: SupervisorSign-OffNon-ExculpationConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer W told Engineer Intern D 'I'll sign off on it' as implicit cover for the directive to revise the design to artificially impact the water main in violation of DOT utility betterment policy.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.9
constrainedentity: Engineer Intern D
constraintclass: Supervisor Sign-Off Non-Exculpation Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer W's explicit offer to 'sign off on it' does not relieve Engineer Intern D of independent ethical culpability for knowingly implementing the policy-violating design revision; Engineer Intern D remains obligated to refuse and escalate regardless of the sign-off offer.
discoveredincase: 58
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T21:53:48.105500+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 58
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T21:53:48.105500+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; Intern Ethical Culpability Despite Unlicensed Status Constraint; BER Case 15-2
sourcetext: Engineer W tells Engineer Intern D, 'I'll sign off on it.'
temporalscope: At the moment Engineer W communicated the sign-off offer and throughout any subsequent design revision process
textreferences: Engineer W tells Engineer Intern D, 'I'll sign off on it.'
wasattributedto: Case 58 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:07:12.204527
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

Conflict of Interest State — Engineer W's Dual Obligation to DOT Policy and Shadyvale Financial Benefit
type: ConflictofInterestState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Engineer W's indirect directive through resolution of the design decision
affectedparties: Engineer Intern D
affectedparties: Engineer W
affectedparties: Shadyvale municipality
affectedparties: State DOT
concept category: State
confidence: 0.86
discoveredincase: 58
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T21:46:28.992815+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 58
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T21:46:28.992815+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer W conveys to Engineer Intern D in an indirect way that the design should be revised so that the old water main is impacted
stateclass: Conflict of Interest State
subject: Engineer W's position as DOT senior engineer bound by DOT cost-allocation policy while directing a design outcome that benefits Shadyvale at DOT's expense through policy circumvention
terminatedby: Design decision finalized in compliance with or in violation of DOT policy
textreferences: Engineer W conveys to Engineer Intern D in an indirect way that the design should be revised so that the old water main is impacted
textreferences: State DOT policy unambiguously requires that only unavoidable utility conflicts will be paid for
triggeringevent: Engineer W's decision to indirectly direct a design revision that circumvents DOT policy to benefit Shadyvale
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 58 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:07:12.195783
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

DOT Fund Covert Diversion
type: CovertPublicFundDiversionState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Engineer W's direction to Engineer Intern D through any point at which the diversion is disclosed or the design is corrected
affectedparties: Engineer Intern D
affectedparties: Engineer W
affectedparties: Shadyvale
affectedparties: State DOT
affectedparties: state taxpayers
affectedparties: travelling public
concept category: State
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 58
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T21:47:49.187443+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 58
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T21:47:49.187443+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: it is likely that no one else would ever know that $700,000 of DOT money had been diverted for the benefit of Shadyvale
stateclass: Covert Public Fund Diversion State
subject: Engineer W's direction resulting in covert diversion of approximately $700,000 of DOT funds to benefit Shadyvale's water main upgrade
terminatedby: Not yet terminated — diversion has not been disclosed or corrected
textreferences: it is likely that no one else would ever know that $700,000 of DOT money had been diverted for the benefit of Shadyvale
textreferences: secretly diverting $700,000 of state DOT funds is not an ethical solution
textreferences: secretly diverting $700,000 of state DOT funds to benefit an impoverished village
triggeringevent: Engineer W's instruction to design around the old water main, which would cause DOT to fund Shadyvale's water main upgrade without authorization
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 58 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:07:12.199169
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

Engineer Charlie Building Inspection Program PE Under Political Pressure
type: BuildingInspectionProgramPEUnderPoliticalPressure
type: NamedIndividual
adheres to principle: Non-Subordination of Public Safety to Political Bargaining Applied to Engineer Charlie
has obligation: Engineer Charlie Political Trade-Off Safety Non-Compromise Building Inspection
attributes: {'license': 'Professional Engineer', 'role_title': 'Director of Building Department', 'case_reference': 'BER Case 98-5', 'ethical_finding': 'Impermissible compromise of code enforcement integrity'}
caseinvolvement: Director of a city building department who, facing budget cutbacks and inability to perform adequate inspections, agreed with a city council chairman to concur on a grandfathering ordinance allowing certain buildings to be inspected under older, less rigorous code requirements in exchange for authorization to hire additional code officials, thereby trading one public good against another in a manner the BER found ethically impermissible.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 58
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T21:47:15.090058+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 58
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T21:47:15.090058+00:00
importance: medium
relationships: {'type': 'political_negotiation', 'target': 'City Council Chairman'}
relationships: {'type': 'public_responsibility', 'target': 'General Public'}
rolecategory: public_responsibility
roleclass: Building Inspection Program PE Under Political Pressure
sourcetext: Engineer Charlie served as director of a building department in a major city
textreferences: Engineer Charlie agreed
textreferences: Engineer Charlie had a responsibility to make it plain and clear to the chairman that 'righting a wrong with another wrong,' increases risk of grave damage to the public health and safety
textreferences: Engineer Charlie served as director of a building department in a major city
textreferences: the chairman sought Engineer Charlie's concurrence on a city ordinance that would permit certain specified buildings under construction to be 'grandfathered' under the older existing enforcement requirements
wasattributedto: Case 58 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:07:12.198267
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

Engineer Intern D Professional Formation
type: InternProfessionalFormationState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Engineer W's initial direction through Engineer Intern D's decision to comply or refuse
affectedparties: Engineer Intern D
affectedparties: Engineer W
affectedparties: future clients and public served by Engineer Intern D
concept category: State
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 58
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T21:47:49.187443+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 58
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T21:47:49.187443+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: The matter is particularly poignant when it is realized how formational the lesson will be to Engineer Intern D, a young engineer about to begin a professional career.
stateclass: Intern Professional Formation State
subject: Engineer Intern D's early-career professional formation through direct exposure to Engineer W's ethically questionable direction
terminatedby: Engineer Intern D's decision to adhere to DOT policy (as noted in the discussion) or to comply with Engineer W's direction
textreferences: Is secretly diverting $700,000 of state DOT funds to benefit an impoverished village the best version of how projects are done?
textreferences: The matter is particularly poignant when it is realized how formational the lesson will be to Engineer Intern D, a young engineer about to begin a professional career.
triggeringevent: Engineer W's direction to Engineer Intern D to revise the design in a policy-violating manner
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 58 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:07:12.199322
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

Engineer Intern D Supervisor Sign-Off Ethical Shield
type: SupervisorSign-OffasEthicalShieldState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Engineer W's direction to Engineer Intern D through Engineer Intern D's decision
affectedparties: Engineer Intern D
affectedparties: Engineer W
concept category: State
confidence: 0.85
discoveredincase: 58
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T21:47:49.187443+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 58
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T21:47:49.187443+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer Intern D's adherence to DOT policy (avoiding the old water main) is in accord with the Canon 3 requirements of objectivity and truthfulness.
stateclass: Supervisor Sign-Off as Ethical Shield State
subject: Engineer W's implicit offer of supervisory authority and sign-off as a mechanism to pressure Engineer Intern D into compliance with the policy-violating direction
terminatedby: Engineer Intern D's adherence to DOT policy as noted in the discussion
textreferences: Engineer Intern D's adherence to DOT policy (avoiding the old water main) is in accord with the Canon 3 requirements of objectivity and truthfulness.
textreferences: If Engineer Intern D decides to cooperate with Engineer W, it is likely that no one else would ever know
triggeringevent: Engineer W's direction to Engineer Intern D to revise the design, implying supervisory authority will cover the action
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 58 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:07:12.200173
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

Engineer W Competing Duties — Shadyvale vs DOT
type: CompetingDutiesState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Engineer W's identification of the Shadyvale water main opportunity through resolution
affectedparties: Engineer Intern D
affectedparties: Engineer W
affectedparties: Shadyvale residents
affectedparties: State DOT
concept category: State
confidence: 0.86
discoveredincase: 58
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T21:47:49.187443+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 58
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T21:47:49.187443+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Is it the interests of the travelling public? Or is it the residents of Shadyvale interest in their water system? Or perhaps it is the engineer's own interests?
stateclass: Competing Duties State
subject: Engineer W's competing obligations between DOT employer policy and the perceived public benefit of assisting Shadyvale's impoverished community
terminatedby: Not yet terminated
textreferences: All four of Canons 3, 4, 5, and 6 have been attacked.
textreferences: Is it the interests of the travelling public? Or is it the residents of Shadyvale interest in their water system? Or perhaps it is the engineer's own interests?
triggeringevent: Discovery that DOT road project creates an opportunity to upgrade Shadyvale's water main at DOT expense, in tension with DOT policy prohibiting such use of funds
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 58 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:07:12.199994
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

Engineer W Faithful Agent Boundary Violation
type: FaithfulAgentBoundaryState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Engineer W's direction to Engineer Intern D through any point at which Engineer W returns to acting within DOT policy
affectedparties: Engineer Intern D
affectedparties: Engineer W
affectedparties: Shadyvale
affectedparties: State DOT
concept category: State
confidence: 0.87
discoveredincase: 58
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T21:47:49.187443+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 58
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T21:47:49.187443+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer W's direction to Engineer Intern D has placed the interests of Shadyvale above the interests of the DOT in violation of the clear policy of the DOT
stateclass: Faithful Agent Boundary State
subject: Engineer W's departure from the faithful agent role by placing Shadyvale's interests above the DOT's interests and policy
terminatedby: Not yet terminated
textreferences: Engineer W's direction to Engineer Intern D has placed the interests of Shadyvale above the interests of the DOT in violation of the clear policy of the DOT
textreferences: Engineer W's willingness to overlook DOT policy is inconsistent with Canon 4, the engineer's obligation to act as faithful agent or trustee of one's employer
triggeringevent: Engineer W's direction to Engineer Intern D to design in a manner that violates DOT policy and diverts DOT funds to Shadyvale
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 58 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:07:12.199806
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

Engineer W Transparent Alternatives Available
type: TransparentAlternativePathwayAvailableState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From the point at which Engineer W identified the opportunity to benefit Shadyvale through the present unresolved state
affectedparties: Engineer Intern D
affectedparties: Engineer W
affectedparties: Shadyvale residents
affectedparties: State DOT
concept category: State
confidence: 0.89
discoveredincase: 58
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T21:47:49.187443+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 58
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T21:47:49.187443+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Were Engineer W willing to try an open and transparent way, an ethical way, to help the residents of Shadyvale, this Board would offer our support, not our censure.
stateclass: Transparent Alternative Pathway Available State
subject: Engineer W's situation in which multiple transparent, authorized pathways exist to achieve the same public benefit for Shadyvale without policy violation
terminatedby: Not yet terminated — Engineer W has not pursued transparent alternatives
textreferences: Better approaches are available.
textreferences: Engineer W could request a joint meeting to discuss the situation.
textreferences: Engineer W could run this up the chain of command with the State DOT.
textreferences: Perhaps the DOT could assist Shadyvale with grant applications
textreferences: Were Engineer W willing to try an open and transparent way, an ethical way, to help the residents of Shadyvale, this Board would offer our support, not our censure.
triggeringevent: Engineer W's identification of the opportunity to benefit Shadyvale residents, combined with the existence of authorized alternative pathways not yet pursued
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 58 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:07:12.199605
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

Public Safety at Risk — Undersized Aging Water Main
type: PublicSafetyatRisk
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From consultant determination of water main condition through replacement or upgrade
affectedparties: Properties served by the water main
affectedparties: Public health and safety
affectedparties: Shadyvale municipality
concept category: State
confidence: 0.83
discoveredincase: 58
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T21:46:28.992815+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 58
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T21:46:28.992815+00:00
importance: medium
sourcetext: A consultant recently determined the existing water main in Shadyvale is generally in good condition but extremely old
stateclass: Public Safety at Risk
subject: The existing Shadyvale water main, which is extremely old and no longer large enough for all properties served
terminatedby: Water main replaced or upgraded to adequate capacity
textreferences: A consultant recently determined the existing water main in Shadyvale is generally in good condition but extremely old
textreferences: The water main is no longer large enough for all the properties served
triggeringevent: Consultant determination that the water main is extremely old and undersized for current demand
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 58 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:07:12.196113
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

Regulatory Compliance State — DOT Cost-Allocation Policy
type: RegulatoryComplianceState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: Throughout the Shadyvale DOT highway reconstruction project design and execution
affectedparties: Engineer Intern D
affectedparties: Engineer W
affectedparties: Shadyvale municipality
affectedparties: State DOT
concept category: State
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 58
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T21:46:28.992815+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 58
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T21:46:28.992815+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: State DOT policy unambiguously requires that only unavoidable utility conflicts will be paid for as part of highway projects, and that other utility work is to be considered as a betterment that must be paid for by the local municipality
stateclass: Regulatory Compliance State
subject: State DOT policy governing payment for utility conflicts in highway projects
terminatedby: Project completion or policy change
textreferences: State DOT policy unambiguously requires that only unavoidable utility conflicts will be paid for as part of highway projects, and that other utility work is to be considered as a betterment that must be paid for by the local municipality
triggeringevent: Initiation of the Shadyvale DOT highway reconstruction project under existing DOT policy
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 58 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:07:12.195444
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

Resource Constrained State — Shadyvale Water Main Replacement Cost
type: ResourceConstrained
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: Throughout the project planning and design period
affectedparties: Engineer Intern D
affectedparties: Engineer W
affectedparties: Properties served by the water main
affectedparties: Shadyvale municipality
concept category: State
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 58
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T21:46:28.992815+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 58
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T21:46:28.992815+00:00
importance: medium
sourcetext: The cost to replace is an unaffordable $750,000
stateclass: Resource Constrained
subject: Shadyvale municipality's inability to afford the full $750,000 water main replacement cost
terminatedby: Shadyvale secures funding, or a cost-sharing mechanism is formally established
textreferences: Shadyvale would pay an affordable $50,000 for the water main upgrade, an amount they can afford
textreferences: The cost to replace is an unaffordable $750,000
triggeringevent: Consultant determination that water main replacement would cost $750,000, which Shadyvale cannot afford
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 58 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:07:12.195942
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

Engineer Adam Engineering Firm Sale Negotiator Engineer
type: EngineeringFirmSaleNegotiatorEngineer
type: NamedIndividual
adheres to principle: Honesty Invoked in Engineer Adam Artfully Misleading Negotiation
has obligation: Engineer Adam Artfully Misleading Statement Prohibition Firm Sale Negotiation
has obligation: Engineer Adam Full Circumstance Disclosure Firm Sale Negotiation Engineer Mary Status
attributes: {'license': 'Professional Engineer', 'case_reference': 'BER Case 05-5', 'ethical_finding': 'Artfully misleading statement; intentionally designed to mislead by obscuring the truth'}
caseinvolvement: Chief negotiator in the sale of a small engineering subsidiary who, in an effort to accelerate stalled negotiations with Engineer Baker, made an artfully misleading statement implying another company had expressed current interest in purchasing the subsidiary when in fact Engineer Mary had definitively declined interest, thereby obscuring the truth in violation of professional ethics obligations.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.85
discoveredincase: 58
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T21:47:15.090058+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 58
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T21:47:15.090058+00:00
importance: medium
relationships: {'type': 'misrepresented_interest', 'target': 'Engineer Mary'}
relationships: {'type': 'negotiation_counterpart', 'target': 'Engineer Baker'}
rolecategory: provider_client
roleclass: Engineering Firm Sale Negotiator Engineer
sourcetext: Engineer Adam, while acting as the chief negotiator in the sale of a small engineering subsidiary to Engineer Baker
textreferences: Engineer Adam told Engineer Baker, 'Another company has expressed an interest in buying our subsidiary, so you had better move quickly if you are interested.'
textreferences: Engineer Adam, while acting as the chief negotiator in the sale of a small engineering subsidiary to Engineer Baker
textreferences: The Board found Engineer Adam's words 'artfully misleading' or, in the words of prior BER Case 86-6, 'intentionally designed to mislead… by obscuring the truth.'
wasattributedto: Case 58 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:07:12.198511
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

Public Welfare Paramount Distinguished from Truthfulness in Present Case
type: PublicWelfareParamount
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Shadyvale DOT highway reconstruction project ethical analysis
balancingwith: Honesty in Professional Representations
balancingwith: Objectivity
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The Board distinguishes the present case from BER Case 98-5 by noting that in the Shadyvale situation, the ethical value directly at risk is not public safety, health and welfare, but rather the truth — indicating that while public welfare is the paramount principle in cases like Engineer Charlie's, the present case primarily implicates objectivity and truthfulness as the core ethical values at stake
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 58
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T21:56:04.012080+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 58
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T21:56:04.012080+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: In this context, the Board applies public welfare analysis to distinguish between cases where the primary ethical risk is public safety (BER Case 98-5) and cases where the primary ethical risk is institutional truthfulness and policy integrity (present case), demonstrating that the public welfare principle requires contextual calibration to identify which specific value is most directly threatened
invokedby: Engineer W DOT Highway Project Senior Engineer
principleclass: Public Welfare Paramount
sourcetext: the ethical value directly at risk is not the public safety, health and welfare, but rather, the truth. The Board consistently upholds objectivity and truthfulness as a core ethical value of the engineering profession.
tensionresolution: The Board does not find a direct public safety conflict in the present case but identifies truthfulness and objectivity as the core ethical values at risk, situating the case within the broader public welfare framework while emphasizing the specific value implicated
textreferences: As regards the present case, clearly the situation with the State DOT and Shadyvale is a political one, but the ethical value directly at risk is not the public safety, health and welfare, but rather, the truth.
textreferences: The Board consistently upholds objectivity and truthfulness as a core ethical value of the engineering profession.
wasattributedto: Case 58 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:07:12.211672
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

Engineer Intern D Indirect Policy Violating Directive Escalation Shadyvale
type: IndirectPolicy-ViolatingDirectiveEscalationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
defeasible under: DOT Policy Circumvention Design Manipulation — Engineer W to Engineer Intern D
casecontext: Engineer Intern D received an indirectly communicated directive from Engineer W to revise a DOT policy-compliant design to incorporate the old Shadyvale water main — a revision that would divert $700,000 of DOT funds in violation of explicit agency policy.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.88
derived from principle: Intern Epistemic Humility Escalation Obligation Invoked By Engineer Intern D Policy Conflict
discoveredincase: 58
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T21:58:16.305408+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 58
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T21:58:16.305408+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer Intern D
obligationclass: Indirect Policy-Violating Directive Escalation Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer Intern D was obligated, upon receiving Engineer W's indirect directive to revise the policy-compliant design in a manner that would violate DOT cost-allocation policy, to escalate the directive and the policy conflict to appropriate supervisory, legal, or administrative authorities within the DOT before taking any action on the directive, so that the policy violation could be surfaced through proper institutional channels.
sourcetext: Engineer Intern D's adherence to DOT policy (avoiding the old water main) is in accord with the Canon 3 requirements of objectivity and truthfulness.
temporalscope: Upon receiving and recognizing the policy-violating nature of Engineer W's indirect directive
textreferences: Engineer Intern D's adherence to DOT policy (avoiding the old water main) is in accord with the Canon 3 requirements of objectivity and truthfulness.
textreferences: If Engineer Intern D decides to cooperate with Engineer W, it is likely that no one else would ever know that $700,000 of DOT money had been diverted for the benefit of Shadyvale.
wasattributedto: Case 58 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:07:12.213235
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

Engineer W Altruistic Policy Violation
type: AltruisticMotivePolicyViolationState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Engineer W's initial direction to Engineer Intern D through the present unresolved state of the case
affectedparties: Engineer Intern D
affectedparties: Engineer W
affectedparties: Shadyvale residents
affectedparties: State DOT
affectedparties: travelling public
concept category: State
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 58
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T21:47:49.187443+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 58
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T21:47:49.187443+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: benevolent motives do not make unethical conduct ethical
stateclass: Altruistic Motive Policy Violation State
subject: Engineer W's direction to Engineer Intern D to design around the old water main in a manner that violates DOT policy
terminatedby: Not yet terminated — Engineer W has not pursued transparent alternatives or disclosed the situation
textreferences: benevolent motives do not make unethical conduct ethical
textreferences: helping the residents of Shadyvale cannot be accomplished at the expense of the truth
textreferences: the Board is not concerned about Engineer W's competence, his intention, or his motivation; these appear meritorious and praiseworthy
triggeringevent: Engineer W's direction to Engineer Intern D to revise the design to avoid the old water main, motivated by desire to benefit Shadyvale residents
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 58 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:07:12.198997
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

Engineer W Formative Mentorship Ethical Integrity Shadyvale Intern D
type: FormativeMentorshipEthicalIntegrityObligation
type: NamedIndividual
defeasible under: Engineer Intern D Professional Formation
casecontext: Engineer W directed Engineer Intern D — a young engineer at the beginning of a professional career — to revise a policy-compliant design in a manner that would covertly divert $700,000 of DOT funds, thereby imparting a formatively harmful lesson about professional ethics.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.88
derived from principle: Formative Professional Mentorship Integrity Obligation Applied to Engineer W and Intern D
discoveredincase: 58
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T21:58:16.305408+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 58
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T21:58:16.305408+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer W
obligationclass: Formative Mentorship Ethical Integrity Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer W was obligated, as a senior DOT engineer supervising Engineer Intern D at the outset of the intern's professional career, to model ethical compliance with DOT policy and to refrain from directing the intern to participate in a covert policy-violating design revision — recognizing that such direction would teach the intern that secretly diverting public funds is an acceptable professional practice.
sourcetext: The matter is particularly poignant when it is realized how formational the lesson will be to Engineer Intern D, a young engineer about to begin a professional career.
temporalscope: Throughout the supervisory relationship and specifically at the time of the policy-violating directive
textreferences: Is secretly diverting $700,000 of state DOT funds to benefit an impoverished village the best version of how projects are done? No.
textreferences: The matter is particularly poignant when it is realized how formational the lesson will be to Engineer Intern D, a young engineer about to begin a professional career.
wasattributedto: Case 58 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:07:12.212465
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

Engineer W Indirect Communication Policy Evasion Prohibition Obligation
type: SupervisorIndirectCommunicationPolicyEvasionProhibitionObligation
type: NamedIndividual
defeasible under: DOT Policy Circumvention Design Manipulation — Engineer W to Engineer Intern D
casecontext: Engineer W chose to convey the policy-violating design revision directive 'in an indirect way,' which appears designed to avoid creating a documented record of explicit policy violation and to place the implementation burden on Engineer Intern D while maintaining plausible deniability. This indirect communication style is itself a violation of the honesty obligation.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.89
derived from principle: Honesty in Professional Representations Violated By Engineer W Indirect Communication
discoveredincase: 58
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T21:52:11.308597+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 58
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T21:52:11.308597+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer W
obligationclass: Supervisor Indirect Communication Policy Evasion Prohibition Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer W was obligated to refrain from communicating the design revision directive indirectly — in a manner designed to avoid explicit acknowledgment of the DOT cost-allocation policy conflict — and instead to communicate any directive clearly and explicitly, including acknowledging the policy conflict and the agency's authority to resolve it, rather than placing Engineer Intern D in the position of implementing a policy-violating revision without explicit supervisory acknowledgment of the violation.
sourcetext: Engineer W conveys to Engineer Intern D in an indirect way that the design should be revised so that the old water main is impacted.
temporalscope: At the time of communicating the design revision directive during design development review
textreferences: Engineer W conveys to Engineer Intern D in an indirect way that the design should be revised so that the old water main is impacted.
textreferences: State DOT policy unambiguously requires that only unavoidable utility conflicts will be paid for as part of highway projects.
wasattributedto: Case 58 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:07:12.203444
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

Engineer W Public Agency Cost Allocation Policy Integrity Preservation Shadyvale
type: PublicAgencyCost-AllocationPolicyIntegrityPreservationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
defeasible under: Regulatory Compliance State — DOT Cost-Allocation Policy
casecontext: Engineer W directed Engineer Intern D to revise a policy-compliant design to incorporate the old Shadyvale water main, which would have the effect of artificially triggering the DOT's unavoidable utility conflict policy and diverting $700,000 of public DOT funds to benefit the municipality.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.93
derived from principle: Non-Subordination of Public Safety Obligation Violated By Engineer W Indirect Directive
discoveredincase: 58
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T21:58:16.305408+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 58
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T21:58:16.305408+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer W
obligationclass: Public Agency Cost-Allocation Policy Integrity Preservation Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer W was obligated to preserve the integrity of the DOT's explicit cost-allocation policy — requiring that only unavoidable utility conflicts be funded as part of highway projects — by refraining from directing Engineer Intern D to redesign the project to artificially create an 'unavoidable' conflict with the old Shadyvale water main in order to shift approximately $700,000 of costs from Shadyvale to the DOT.
sourcetext: Engineer W's willingness to overlook DOT policy is inconsistent with Canon 4, the engineer's obligation to act as faithful agent or trustee of one's employer.
temporalscope: Throughout the Shadyvale highway reconstruction project design phase
textreferences: Engineer W's willingness to overlook DOT policy is inconsistent with Canon 4, the engineer's obligation to act as faithful agent or trustee of one's employer.
textreferences: If Engineer Intern D decides to cooperate with Engineer W, it is likely that no one else would ever know that $700,000 of DOT money had been diverted for the benefit of Shadyvale.
textreferences: secretly diverting $700,000 of state DOT funds is not an ethical solution.
wasattributedto: Case 58 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:07:12.214025
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

Engineer W Responsible Charge Active Policy Compliance Review Obligation
type: ResponsibleChargeActiveReviewObligation
type: NamedIndividual
prevails over: Engineer W Responsible Charge Non-Delegation Policy Compliance Sign Off Promise
casecontext: Engineer W directed Engineer Intern D to revise a policy-compliant design and promised to 'sign off' on the revised version, without independently verifying that the revision would comply with the DOT's unambiguous cost-allocation policy. The 'sign off' promise was used as a mechanism to authorize a pre-determined policy-violating outcome rather than as the product of responsible charge review.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.91
derived from principle: Responsible Charge Engagement Violated By Engineer W Sign Off Promise
discoveredincase: 58
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T21:52:11.308597+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 58
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T21:52:11.308597+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer W
obligationclass: Responsible Charge Active Review Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer W was obligated, as the licensed senior engineer in responsible charge of the Shadyvale DOT project, to conduct an active, substantive review of the design's compliance with DOT cost-allocation policy before directing any revision — and to refrain from using a promise to 'sign off' as a substitute for independent determination that the revised design would comply with applicable agency policy.
sourcetext: Engineer W tells Engineer Intern D, 'I'll sign off on it.'
temporalscope: Before directing the design revision and before any promise to seal the revised design
textreferences: Engineer W conveys to Engineer Intern D in an indirect way that the design should be revised so that the old water main is impacted.
textreferences: Engineer W tells Engineer Intern D, 'I'll sign off on it.'
textreferences: State DOT policy unambiguously requires that only unavoidable utility conflicts will be paid for as part of highway projects.
wasattributedto: Case 58 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:07:12.203067
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

Engineer W Supervisor Indirect Communication Policy Evasion Prohibition Shadyvale
type: SupervisorIndirectCommunicationPolicyEvasionProhibitionObligation
type: NamedIndividual
defeasible under: DOT Policy Circumvention Design Manipulation — Engineer W to Engineer Intern D
casecontext: Engineer W communicated the directive to revise the design to incorporate the old water main indirectly, in a manner that appeared designed to avoid explicit acknowledgment that the revision would violate DOT cost-allocation policy.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.87
derived from principle: Honesty in Professional Representations Violated by Engineer W Deceptive Direction
discoveredincase: 58
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T21:58:16.305408+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 58
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T21:58:16.305408+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer W
obligationclass: Supervisor Indirect Communication Policy Evasion Prohibition Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer W was obligated to refrain from communicating the policy-violating design revision directive to Engineer Intern D indirectly or ambiguously as a means of avoiding explicit acknowledgment of the DOT policy conflict, recognizing that indirect communication designed to obscure a policy violation is itself a form of dishonesty that compounds the underlying ethical violation and places the intern in an untenable professional position.
sourcetext: Engineer W's willingness to overlook DOT policy is inconsistent with Canon 4, the engineer's obligation to act as faithful agent or trustee of one's employer and with Canon 5, to avoid deception.
temporalscope: At the time Engineer W communicated the design revision directive to Engineer Intern D
textreferences: Engineer W's willingness to overlook DOT policy is inconsistent with Canon 4, the engineer's obligation to act as faithful agent or trustee of one's employer and with Canon 5, to avoid deception.
textreferences: Honesty in Professional Representations -- Engineer W's use of indirect communication to convey the policy-violating design revision directive — rather than explicitly acknowledging the policy conflict...
wasattributedto: Case 58 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:07:12.212880
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

Honesty in Professional Representations Violated by Engineer W Deceptive Direction
type: HonestyinProfessionalRepresentations
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Direction to Engineer Intern D regarding Shadyvale project redesign
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
balancingwith: Procurement Integrity in Public Engineering
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer W's indirect directive to Engineer Intern D — designed to achieve a policy-circumventing outcome while maintaining plausible deniability — constitutes deceptive conduct inconsistent with Canon 5's requirement to avoid deception, analogous to the 'artfully misleading' conduct condemned in BER Case 05-5
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 58
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T21:56:04.012080+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 58
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T21:56:04.012080+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: In this context, the honesty principle requires that Engineer W's direction to the intern be transparent about its policy implications rather than structured to obscure the diversion of DOT funds; covert redirection of public resources through indirect supervisory direction constitutes a form of deception toward the employer
invokedby: Engineer W DOT Highway Project Senior Engineer
principleclass: Honesty in Professional Representations
sourcetext: Engineer W's willingness to overlook DOT policy is inconsistent with Canon 4, the engineer's obligation to act as faithful agent or trustee of one's employer and with Canon 5, to avoid deception, which, of course, challenges Canon 6, protecting the honor, reputation, and usefulness of the profession.
tensionresolution: Honesty and the prohibition on deception are not overridden by altruistic motivation; the Board analogizes Engineer W's conduct to Engineer Adam's 'artfully misleading' negotiation tactic in BER Case 05-5
textreferences: Engineer W's willingness to overlook DOT policy is inconsistent with Canon 4, the engineer's obligation to act as faithful agent or trustee of one's employer and with Canon 5, to avoid deception
textreferences: In an effort to move the negotiations off 'dead center,' and referring to Engineer Mary's earlier interest, Engineer Adam told Engineer Baker, 'Another company has expressed an interest in buying our subsidiary, so you had better move quickly if you are interested.'
textreferences: the Board found Engineer Adam's words 'artfully misleading' or, in the words of prior BER Case 86-6, 'intentionally designed to mislead… by obscuring the truth.'
wasattributedto: Case 58 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:07:12.210040
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

Objectivity and Truthfulness Invoked by Engineer Intern D
type: Objectivity
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Shadyvale DOT highway reconstruction project design
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
balancingwith: Non-Subordination of Public Safety Obligation to Political or Budgetary Bargaining
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer Intern D's adherence to DOT policy in designing the project to avoid the old water main reflects the Canon 3 requirements of objectivity and truthfulness, producing a policy-compliant design rather than one shaped by political or stakeholder pressure
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 58
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T21:56:04.012080+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 58
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T21:56:04.012080+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: In this context, objectivity and truthfulness require the intern to produce a design that accurately reflects applicable DOT policy constraints rather than one manipulated to achieve a politically convenient outcome for a favored stakeholder
invokedby: Engineer Intern D DOT Highway Project Engineer Intern
principleclass: Objectivity
sourcetext: Engineer Intern D's adherence to DOT policy (avoiding the old water main) is in accord with the Canon 3 requirements of objectivity and truthfulness.
tensionresolution: Objectivity and truthfulness align with the intern's faithful agent obligation to the DOT employer, and both support compliance with DOT policy over accommodation of Shadyvale's interests
textreferences: Engineer Intern D's adherence to DOT policy (avoiding the old water main) is in accord with the Canon 3 requirements of objectivity and truthfulness.
wasattributedto: Case 58 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:07:12.209619
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

Public Welfare Paramount Invoked By Engineer Intern D Policy Compliant Design
type: PublicWelfareParamount
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: DOT cost-allocation policy compliance
appliedto: Shadyvale DOT highway reconstruction project design layout
balancingwith: Client Loyalty
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
balancingwith: Loyalty
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer Intern D's initial design decision to avoid conflicts with existing utilities — including separation of the new closed drainage system from the old water main — reflects the paramount obligation to protect public resources and ensure that DOT highway project funds are used in accordance with mandatory policy, thereby protecting the public interest in proper stewardship of public infrastructure funds
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 58
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T21:50:17.420916+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 58
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T21:50:17.420916+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: In this context, public welfare encompasses not only physical safety but also the integrity of public resource allocation; a design that artificially creates a utility conflict to shift costs contrary to mandatory DOT policy harms the public interest even if no physical safety risk is immediately apparent
invokedby: Engineer Intern D DOT Highway Project Engineer Intern
principleclass: Public Welfare Paramount
sourcetext: Engineer Intern D initiates the design layout for the Shadyvale DOT project to avoid conflicts with the existing utilities, including separation of a new closed drainage system from the old water main.
tensionresolution: Public welfare obligation requires Engineer Intern D to maintain the policy-compliant design and escalate Engineer W's improper directive rather than complying with it
textreferences: Engineer Intern D initiates the design layout for the Shadyvale DOT project to avoid conflicts with the existing utilities, including separation of a new closed drainage system from the old water main.
textreferences: State DOT policy unambiguously requires that only unavoidable utility conflicts will be paid for as part of highway projects, and that other utility work is to be considered as a betterment that must be paid for by the local municipality.
wasattributedto: Case 58 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:07:12.200346
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

Supervisor Sign-Off as Ethical Shield — Engineer W to Engineer Intern D
type: SupervisorSign-OffasEthicalShieldState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Engineer W's statement 'I'll sign off on it' through resolution of Engineer Intern D's compliance decision
affectedparties: Engineer Intern D
affectedparties: Engineer W
affectedparties: Shadyvale municipality
affectedparties: State DOT
concept category: State
confidence: 0.89
discoveredincase: 58
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T21:46:28.992815+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 58
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T21:46:28.992815+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer W tells Engineer Intern D, 'I'll sign off on it.'
stateclass: Supervisor Sign-Off as Ethical Shield State
subject: Engineer W's explicit offer to personally sign off on the revised design as cover for the policy-circumventing directive
terminatedby: Not yet terminated — active pending Engineer Intern D's response
textreferences: Engineer W tells Engineer Intern D, 'I'll sign off on it.'
triggeringevent: Engineer W's explicit statement offering personal sign-off to Engineer Intern D following the indirect directive to revise the design
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 58 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:07:12.195238
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

Unlicensed Intern Responsible Charge Delegation — Engineer W to Engineer Intern D
type: UnlicensedInternResponsibleChargeDelegationState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Engineer W's delegation of the project through project completion or Engineer W's reassumption of direct control
affectedparties: Engineer Intern D
affectedparties: Engineer W
affectedparties: Public
affectedparties: Shadyvale municipality
affectedparties: State DOT
concept category: State
confidence: 0.82
discoveredincase: 58
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T21:46:28.992815+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 58
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T21:46:28.992815+00:00
importance: medium
sourcetext: Engineer W is the senior DOT engineer responsible for this project
stateclass: Unlicensed Intern Responsible Charge Delegation State
subject: Engineer W's delegation of the Shadyvale DOT project to Engineer Intern D, who is not yet licensed
terminatedby: Engineer Intern D passes PE exam and obtains licensure, or Engineer W reassumes direct project control
textreferences: Engineer W delegates the project to Engineer Intern D, who is about to sit for the PE exam
textreferences: Engineer W is the senior DOT engineer responsible for this project
triggeringevent: Engineer W delegates the project to Engineer Intern D, who is about to sit for the PE exam but is not yet licensed
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 58 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:07:12.195622
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

Engineer W Procurement Integrity Violation DOT Cost Allocation Policy
type: ProcurementLawComplianceObligation
type: NamedIndividual
defeasible under: DOT Fund Covert Diversion
prevails over: Engineer W Non-Subordination of DOT Policy to Shadyvale Financial Sympathy Obligation
casecontext: The DOT's cost-allocation policy functions as a procurement law constraint governing the allocation of public funds between the DOT and local municipalities. Engineer W's directive to artificially create a utility conflict to circumvent this policy constitutes a violation of the procurement integrity obligation analogous to circumventing QBS requirements.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.86
derived from principle: Procurement Integrity Violated By Engineer W Design Manipulation
discoveredincase: 58
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T21:52:11.308597+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 58
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T21:52:11.308597+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer W
obligationclass: Procurement Law Compliance Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer W was obligated to ensure that the Shadyvale DOT highway reconstruction project design complied with the DOT's cost-allocation policy — which unambiguously requires that only genuinely unavoidable utility conflicts be funded as part of highway projects — and to refrain from directing design modifications whose purpose was to artificially trigger the 'unavoidable conflict' provision to shift costs from Shadyvale to the DOT.
sourcetext: State DOT policy unambiguously requires that only unavoidable utility conflicts will be paid for as part of highway projects, and that other utility work is to be considered as a betterment that must be paid for by the local municipality.
temporalscope: Throughout the design development and review process
textreferences: Engineer W conveys to Engineer Intern D in an indirect way that the design should be revised so that the old water main is impacted.
textreferences: State DOT policy unambiguously requires that only unavoidable utility conflicts will be paid for as part of highway projects, and that other utility work is to be considered as a betterment that must be paid for by the local municipality.
wasattributedto: Case 58 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:07:12.204384
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

Formative Professional Mentorship Integrity Obligation Applied to Engineer W and Intern D
type: FormativeProfessionalMentorshipIntegrityObligation
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer Intern D DOT Highway Project Engineer Intern Under Improper Direction
balancingwith: Intern Epistemic Humility and Materiality Deference Obligation
balancingwith: Subordinate Complicity Prohibition in Unlicensed or Incapacitated Supervision
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer W's direction to Engineer Intern D to redesign the project in violation of DOT policy is particularly ethically harmful because it teaches the intern — at a formative stage of professional development — that secretly diverting public funds is an acceptable professional practice, compounding the immediate ethical violation with long-term harm to the intern's professional character formation
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 58
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T21:56:04.012080+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 58
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T21:56:04.012080+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: In this context, the principle heightens the ethical gravity of Engineer W's conduct by recognizing that the intern's early-career professional formation is at stake; the Board treats the formative impact on the intern as a reason for heightened concern beyond the immediate policy violation
invokedby: Engineer W DOT Highway Project Senior Engineer
principleclass: Formative Professional Mentorship Integrity Obligation
sourcetext: The matter is particularly poignant when it is realized how formational the lesson will be to Engineer Intern D, a young engineer about to begin a professional career.
tensionresolution: The formative mentorship obligation reinforces rather than conflicts with the subordinate complicity prohibition — both principles converge on the conclusion that Engineer W's direction to the intern is ethically impermissible and that the intern should not cooperate
textreferences: Is secretly diverting $700,000 of state DOT funds to benefit an impoverished village the best version of how projects are done? No.
textreferences: The matter is particularly poignant when it is realized how formational the lesson will be to Engineer Intern D, a young engineer about to begin a professional career.
wasattributedto: Case 58 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:07:12.210871
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

Loyalty Principle Tension Engineer W Shadyvale Sympathy vs DOT Policy
type: Loyalty
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer W's relationship with Shadyvale as project stakeholder
appliedto: Engineer W's relationship with State DOT as employer
balancingwith: Non-Subordination of Public Safety Obligation to Political or Budgetary Bargaining
balancingwith: Procurement Integrity in Public Engineering
balancingwith: Public Welfare Paramount
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer W's apparent sympathy for Shadyvale's financial hardship creates a loyalty tension between serving Shadyvale's interests (as a project stakeholder) and maintaining loyalty to DOT's mandatory cost-allocation policy and the public interest in proper stewardship of public infrastructure funds; this tension does not justify policy circumvention
confidence: 0.85
discoveredincase: 58
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T21:50:17.420916+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 58
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T21:50:17.420916+00:00
importance: medium
interpretation: Engineer W's loyalty obligation runs primarily to DOT as employer and to the public interest in proper resource stewardship; sympathy for Shadyvale's financial hardship does not create a loyalty obligation that overrides mandatory DOT policy
invokedby: Engineer W DOT Highway Project Senior Engineer
principleclass: Loyalty
sourcetext: The cost to replace is an unaffordable $750,000.
tensionresolution: Engineer W's loyalty to DOT as employer and to the public interest in proper resource stewardship overrides any sympathy-based inclination to benefit Shadyvale through policy circumvention
textreferences: As a result, Shadyvale would pay an affordable $50,000 for the water main upgrade, an amount they can afford.
textreferences: Engineer W conveys to Engineer Intern D in an indirect way that the design should be revised so that the old water main is impacted.
textreferences: The cost to replace is an unaffordable $750,000.
wasattributedto: Case 58 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:07:12.201847
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

Procurement Integrity in Public Engineering Applied to DOT Fund Diversion
type: ProcurementIntegrityinPublicEngineering
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Shadyvale DOT highway reconstruction project design and cost allocation
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
balancingwith: Public Welfare Paramount
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer W's direction to redesign the Shadyvale project to incorporate the old water main constitutes a manipulation of technical design decisions to circumvent DOT cost-allocation policy, effectively diverting $700,000 of state DOT funds to benefit Shadyvale in violation of the DOT's clear policy and the lawful allocation of public infrastructure costs
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 58
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T21:56:04.012080+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 58
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T21:56:04.012080+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: In this context, procurement integrity requires that DOT infrastructure decisions be made in accordance with DOT policy governing cost allocation between state and municipal infrastructure, prohibiting manipulation of technical design choices to achieve financial outcomes that circumvent that policy
invokedby: Engineer W DOT Highway Project Senior Engineer
principleclass: Procurement Integrity in Public Engineering
sourcetext: Engineer W's direction to Engineer Intern D has placed the interests of Shadyvale above the interests of the DOT in violation of the clear policy of the DOT.
tensionresolution: Procurement integrity and faithful agent obligations both require compliance with DOT policy; neither is overridden by Engineer W's altruistic motivation to benefit Shadyvale
textreferences: Engineer W's direction to Engineer Intern D has placed the interests of Shadyvale above the interests of the DOT in violation of the clear policy of the DOT.
textreferences: secretly diverting $700,000 of state DOT funds is not an ethical solution
textreferences: secretly diverting $700,000 of state DOT funds to benefit an impoverished village
wasattributedto: Case 58 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:07:12.211274
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

Engineer Intern D Complete and Unfiltered Upward Reporting of Policy Conflict
type: CompleteandUnfilteredUpwardReportingObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer Intern D Intern Materiality Judgment Restraint Full Reporting Obligation
casecontext: Engineer Intern D, as an unlicensed subordinate, lacks the authority to independently determine which facts about Engineer W's directive are material to the agency's response. All facts — including the indirect communication style, the policy violation, and the sign-off promise — must be reported completely.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.87
derived from principle: Objectivity and Truthfulness Invoked by Engineer Intern D
discoveredincase: 58
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T21:52:11.308597+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 58
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T21:52:11.308597+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer Intern D
obligationclass: Complete and Unfiltered Upward Reporting Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer Intern D was obligated, when escalating the policy conflict created by Engineer W's directive, to communicate all material facts to the appropriate authority — including the indirectness of Engineer W's communication, the specific policy provision violated, the financial magnitude of the cost shift ($700,000 vs. $50,000), and the fact that Engineer W promised to 'sign off' on the revised design — without filtering or minimizing any fact that would bear on the authority's understanding of the situation.
sourcetext: Engineer W conveys to Engineer Intern D in an indirect way that the design should be revised so that the old water main is impacted.
temporalscope: At the time of escalation to appropriate agency authority
textreferences: Engineer W conveys to Engineer Intern D in an indirect way that the design should be revised so that the old water main is impacted.
textreferences: Engineer W tells Engineer Intern D, 'I'll sign off on it.'
textreferences: State DOT policy unambiguously requires that only unavoidable utility conflicts will be paid for as part of highway projects.
wasattributedto: Case 58 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:07:12.202546
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

Engineer Intern D DOT Highway Project Engineer Intern Under Improper Direction
type: DOTHighwayProjectEngineerInternUnderImproperDirection
type: NamedIndividual
adheres to principle: Intern Epistemic Humility Escalation Obligation Invoked By Engineer Intern D Policy Conflict
adheres to principle: Subordinate Complicity Prohibition Applied to Engineer Intern D Cooperation Decision
adheres to principle: Subordinate Complicity Prohibition Invoked By Engineer Intern D Sign Off Promise
has obligation: Engineer Intern D Escalation of Policy Conflict to Agency Authority Obligation
has obligation: Engineer Intern D Policy Violating Design Revision Refusal Shadyvale
has obligation: Engineer Intern D Subordinate Complicity Refusal Sign Off Promise Obligation
attributes: {'license': 'Engineer Intern (unlicensed)', 'employer': 'State Department of Transportation', 'ethical_compliance': 'Canon 3 - objectivity and truthfulness'}
caseinvolvement: Engineer intern who independently produced a DOT policy-compliant design avoiding the old water main and was subsequently subjected to supervisory pressure from Engineer W to revise the design in a manner that would violate DOT cost-allocation policy, bearing obligations to resist improper direction and uphold objectivity and truthfulness consistent with Canon 3.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 58
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T21:47:15.090058+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 58
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T21:47:15.090058+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'employer_agent', 'target': 'State DOT'}
relationships: {'type': 'supervised_by', 'target': 'Engineer W'}
rolecategory: employer_relationship
roleclass: DOT Highway Project Engineer Intern Under Improper Direction
sourcetext: Engineer Intern D's adherence to DOT policy (avoiding the old water main) is in accord with the Canon 3 requirements of objectivity and truthfulness
textreferences: Engineer Intern D's adherence to DOT policy (avoiding the old water main) is in accord with the Canon 3 requirements of objectivity and truthfulness
textreferences: If Engineer Intern D decides to cooperate with Engineer W, it is likely that no one else would ever know that $700,000 of DOT money had been diverted
textreferences: The matter is particularly poignant when it is realized how formational the lesson will be to Engineer Intern D, a young engineer about to begin a professional career
wasattributedto: Case 58 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:07:12.198074
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

Engineer Intern D Intern Materiality Judgment Restraint Full Reporting Obligation
type: InternMaterialityJudgmentRestraintObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer Intern D Complete and Unfiltered Upward Reporting of Policy Conflict
casecontext: Engineer Intern D, as an engineer intern about to sit for the PE exam, may be tempted to minimize or filter certain facts about Engineer W's directive when escalating — for example, to protect Engineer W or to avoid appearing to accuse a supervisor. The intern materiality judgment restraint obligation requires full, unfiltered reporting of all relevant facts.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.84
derived from principle: Intern Epistemic Humility Escalation Obligation Invoked By Engineer Intern D Policy Conflict
discoveredincase: 58
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T21:52:11.308597+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 58
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T21:52:11.308597+00:00
importance: medium
obligatedparty: Engineer Intern D
obligationclass: Intern Materiality Judgment Restraint Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer Intern D was obligated, when escalating the policy conflict to appropriate agency authority, to refrain from independently filtering or withholding any facts about Engineer W's directive — including the indirectness of the communication, the financial magnitude of the cost shift, and the sign-off promise — based on Engineer Intern D's own assessment of their materiality, recognizing that as an unlicensed intern, Engineer Intern D is not yet qualified to make independent determinations about what information is material to the agency's response.
sourcetext: Engineer W conveys to Engineer Intern D in an indirect way that the design should be revised so that the old water main is impacted.
temporalscope: At the time of escalation to appropriate agency authority
textreferences: Engineer Intern D initiates the design layout for the Shadyvale DOT project to avoid conflicts with the existing utilities.
textreferences: Engineer W conveys to Engineer Intern D in an indirect way that the design should be revised so that the old water main is impacted.
textreferences: Engineer W tells Engineer Intern D, 'I'll sign off on it.'
wasattributedto: Case 58 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:07:12.204247
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

Engineer Intern D Policy Compliant Design Preservation Obligation
type: Policy-ViolatingDesignRevisionRefusalObligation
type: NamedIndividual
defeasible under: Unlicensed Intern Responsible Charge Delegation — Engineer W to Engineer Intern D
casecontext: Engineer Intern D independently produced a DOT policy-compliant design separating the new closed drainage system from the old water main. Engineer W then indirectly directed revision of the design to impact the water main, promising to sign off on it, which would have shifted $700,000 in water main replacement costs from Shadyvale to the DOT in violation of explicit agency policy.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.9
derived from principle: Public Welfare Paramount Invoked By Engineer Intern D Policy Compliant Design
discoveredincase: 58
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T21:52:11.308597+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 58
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T21:52:11.308597+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer Intern D
obligationclass: Policy-Violating Design Revision Refusal Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer Intern D was obligated to refuse to revise the policy-compliant design — which avoided conflicts with the existing water main — in response to Engineer W's indirect directive, notwithstanding Engineer W's promise to 'sign off' on the revised design, because the revision would have artificially created a utility conflict to circumvent the DOT's cost-allocation policy.
sourcetext: Engineer Intern D initiates the design layout for the Shadyvale DOT project to avoid conflicts with the existing utilities, including separation of a new closed drainage system from the old water main.
temporalscope: Upon receipt of Engineer W's indirect directive during design development review
textreferences: Engineer Intern D initiates the design layout for the Shadyvale DOT project to avoid conflicts with the existing utilities, including separation of a new closed drainage system from the old water main.
textreferences: Engineer W conveys to Engineer Intern D in an indirect way that the design should be revised so that the old water main is impacted.
textreferences: Engineer W tells Engineer Intern D, 'I'll sign off on it.'
wasattributedto: Case 58 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:07:12.202233
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

Engineer W Responsible Charge Non-Delegation Policy Compliance Sign Off Promise
type: ResponsibleChargeNon-DelegationofPolicyComplianceObligation
type: NamedIndividual
defeasible under: Supervisor Sign-Off as Ethical Shield — Engineer W to Engineer Intern D
casecontext: Engineer W promised to 'sign off' on the revised design after directing Engineer Intern D to implement a policy-violating revision, apparently treating the promise of his seal as a mechanism to relieve the intern of ethical concern while avoiding his own independent policy compliance determination.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.88
derived from principle: Responsible Charge Engagement Violated By Engineer W Sign Off Promise
discoveredincase: 58
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T21:58:16.305408+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 58
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T21:58:16.305408+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer W
obligationclass: Responsible Charge Non-Delegation of Policy Compliance Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer W was obligated to refrain from using a promise to 'sign off' on the revised design as a substitute for his own independent determination that the revision complied with DOT cost-allocation policy — recognizing that responsible charge required active, substantive engagement with the policy compliance of the design decision, and that a promise to seal a policy-violating design compounded rather than discharged the responsible charge obligation.
sourcetext: Engineer W's willingness to overlook DOT policy is inconsistent with Canon 4, the engineer's obligation to act as faithful agent or trustee of one's employer.
temporalscope: At the time Engineer W promised to sign off on the revised design
textreferences: Engineer W's willingness to overlook DOT policy is inconsistent with Canon 4, the engineer's obligation to act as faithful agent or trustee of one's employer.
textreferences: Responsible Charge Engagement -- Engineer W's promise to 'sign off' on the revised design — after having directed the revision through indirect communication designed to avoid explicit acknowledgment of the policy conflict...
wasattributedto: Case 58 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:07:12.214266
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

Faithful Agent Obligation Invoked By Engineer Intern D DOT Service
type: FaithfulAgentObligationWithinEthicalLimits
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer Intern D's service relationship with State DOT as employer
balancingwith: Intern Epistemic Humility and Materiality Deference Obligation
balancingwith: Subordinate Complicity Prohibition in Unlicensed or Incapacitated Supervision
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer Intern D's obligation to serve the State DOT faithfully is bounded by the ethical and policy limits imposed by mandatory DOT cost-allocation policy; faithful agency to DOT requires maintaining the policy-compliant design and escalating Engineer W's improper directive, not complying with a directive that would misappropriate DOT funds contrary to mandatory policy
confidence: 0.87
discoveredincase: 58
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T21:50:17.420916+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 58
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T21:50:17.420916+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Faithful agency to DOT paradoxically requires Engineer Intern D to resist Engineer W's directive, because complying with the directive would harm DOT's institutional interest in policy compliance and proper resource stewardship; the faithful agent obligation runs to the institution and its lawful policies, not merely to the immediate supervisor
invokedby: Engineer Intern D DOT Highway Project Engineer Intern
principleclass: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
sourcetext: Engineer Intern D initiates the design layout for the Shadyvale DOT project to avoid conflicts with the existing utilities, including separation of a new closed drainage system from the old water main.
tensionresolution: The faithful agent obligation to DOT as institution requires compliance with DOT's mandatory cost-allocation policy, which overrides the general deference obligation to Engineer W as immediate supervisor when Engineer W's directive conflicts with that policy
textreferences: Engineer Intern D initiates the design layout for the Shadyvale DOT project to avoid conflicts with the existing utilities.
textreferences: Engineer W conveys to Engineer Intern D in an indirect way that the design should be revised so that the old water main is impacted.
textreferences: State DOT policy unambiguously requires that only unavoidable utility conflicts will be paid for as part of highway projects, and that other utility work is to be considered as a betterment that must be paid for by the local municipality.
wasattributedto: Case 58 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:07:12.201663
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

Faithful Agent Obligation Violated by Engineer W
type: FaithfulAgentObligationWithinEthicalLimits
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Shadyvale DOT highway reconstruction project design direction
balancingwith: Non-Self-Serving Advisory Obligation
balancingwith: Public Welfare Paramount
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer W's willingness to overlook DOT policy and direct Engineer Intern D to redesign the project to incorporate the old water main violated his Canon 4 obligation to act as faithful agent or trustee of his employer, the State DOT, by placing Shadyvale's interests above the DOT's clear policy
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 58
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T21:56:04.012080+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 58
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T21:56:04.012080+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: In this context, the faithful agent obligation requires Engineer W to execute the DOT's project in accordance with DOT policy, not to redirect DOT resources to benefit a third-party municipality in violation of that policy, regardless of the efficiency or altruistic appeal of doing so
invokedby: Engineer W DOT Highway Project Senior Engineer
principleclass: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
sourcetext: Engineer W's willingness to overlook DOT policy is inconsistent with Canon 4, the engineer's obligation to act as faithful agent or trustee of one's employer and with Canon 5, to avoid deception.
tensionresolution: The faithful agent obligation to the DOT employer is not overridden by altruistic motivation to benefit Shadyvale; the Board finds Engineer W violated this obligation by placing Shadyvale's interests above the DOT's policy
textreferences: Engineer W's direction to Engineer Intern D has placed the interests of Shadyvale above the interests of the DOT in violation of the clear policy of the DOT.
textreferences: Engineer W's willingness to overlook DOT policy is inconsistent with Canon 4, the engineer's obligation to act as faithful agent or trustee of one's employer
wasattributedto: Case 58 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:07:12.209834
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

Honesty in Professional Representations Violated By Engineer W Indirect Communication
type: HonestyinProfessionalRepresentations
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Communication of design revision directive to Engineer Intern D
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer W's use of indirect communication to convey the policy-violating design revision directive — rather than explicitly acknowledging the policy conflict and the intent to circumvent it — constitutes a form of professional dishonesty that obscures the improper nature of the directive and places the ethical burden on Engineer Intern D without transparent acknowledgment of what is being asked
confidence: 0.87
discoveredincase: 58
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T21:50:17.420916+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 58
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T21:50:17.420916+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Professional honesty requires that engineers communicate directly and transparently about the basis for their professional directives; Engineer W's use of indirect communication to avoid explicit acknowledgment of the policy conflict is a form of professional dishonesty that undermines the integrity of the supervisory relationship
invokedby: Engineer W DOT Highway Project Senior Engineer
principleclass: Honesty in Professional Representations
sourcetext: Engineer W conveys to Engineer Intern D in an indirect way that the design should be revised so that the old water main is impacted.
tensionresolution: Honesty requires Engineer W to either explicitly acknowledge the policy conflict and seek proper authorization for an exception, or to withdraw the directive; indirect communication that obscures the policy-violating nature of the directive is not ethically permissible
textreferences: Engineer W conveys to Engineer Intern D in an indirect way that the design should be revised so that the old water main is impacted.
textreferences: Engineer W tells Engineer Intern D, 'I'll sign off on it.'
wasattributedto: Case 58 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:07:12.201240
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

Subordinate Complicity Prohibition Applied to Engineer Intern D Cooperation Decision
type: SubordinateComplicityProhibitioninUnlicensedorIncapacitatedSupervision
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Decision whether to cooperate with Engineer W's direction to redesign the Shadyvale project
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
balancingwith: Intern Epistemic Humility and Materiality Deference Obligation
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: If Engineer Intern D decides to cooperate with Engineer W's direction to redesign the project in violation of DOT policy, the intern becomes complicit in the covert diversion of $700,000 of DOT funds, treating Engineer W's supervisory authority as an ethical shield that absolves the intern of responsibility for participating in the improper arrangement
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 58
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T21:56:04.012080+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 58
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T21:56:04.012080+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: In this context, the principle requires Engineer Intern D to refuse cooperation with Engineer W's direction to violate DOT policy, recognizing that supervisory direction to engage in unethical conduct does not create an ethical obligation to comply and that the intern bears independent ethical responsibility for the arrangement
invokedby: Engineer Intern D DOT Highway Project Engineer Intern Under Improper Direction
principleclass: Subordinate Complicity Prohibition in Unlicensed or Incapacitated Supervision
sourcetext: If Engineer Intern D decides to cooperate with Engineer W, it is likely that no one else would ever know that $700,000 of DOT money had been diverted for the benefit of Shadyvale.
tensionresolution: The subordinate complicity prohibition overrides any deference obligation the intern might otherwise owe to the supervisor's direction, because the direction itself violates applicable professional standards and employer policy
textreferences: All four of Canons 3, 4, 5, and 6 have been attacked.
textreferences: If Engineer Intern D decides to cooperate with Engineer W, it is likely that no one else would ever know that $700,000 of DOT money had been diverted for the benefit of Shadyvale.
wasattributedto: Case 58 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:07:12.211068
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

Engineer Adam Full Circumstance Disclosure Firm Sale Negotiation Engineer Mary Status
type: FullCircumstanceDisclosureinProfessionalNegotiationsObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer Adam Artfully Misleading Statement Prohibition Firm Sale Negotiation
prevails over: Engineer Adam Artfully Misleading Statement Prohibition Firm Sale Negotiation
casecontext: Engineer Adam referenced Engineer Mary's earlier interest in purchasing the subsidiary without disclosing that Engineer Mary had subsequently and definitively declined, thereby creating a misleading impression of current competitive interest to pressure Engineer Baker in negotiations.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.9
derived from principle: Honesty Invoked in Engineer Adam Artfully Misleading Negotiation
discoveredincase: 58
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T21:58:16.305408+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 58
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T21:58:16.305408+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer Adam
obligationclass: Full Circumstance Disclosure in Professional Negotiations Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer Adam was obligated to disclose to Engineer Baker the full and accurate circumstances of Engineer Mary's interest in the subsidiary — specifically that Engineer Mary had definitively declined further interest — rather than referencing her earlier expression of interest in a manner that created a false impression of current competitive bidding pressure.
sourcetext: Engineer Mary had expressed some initial interest in buying the subsidiary, but after further consideration, Engineer Mary decided she was definitely not interested in purchasing the subsidiary.
temporalscope: At the time of making the statement to Engineer Baker about 'another company's' interest
textreferences: 'This Board strongly believes that honesty and truthfulness are hallmark qualities of a practicing engineer.'
textreferences: Engineer Mary had expressed some initial interest in buying the subsidiary, but after further consideration, Engineer Mary decided she was definitely not interested in purchasing the subsidiary.
textreferences: Had Engineer Adam disclosed the full circumstances relating to his conversation with Engineer Mary, the Board's conclusion for Engineer Adam would have been different.
wasattributedto: Case 58 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:07:12.213858
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

Engineer Charlie Political Trade-Off Safety Non-Compromise Building Inspection
type: PoliticalTrade-OffSafetyNon-CompromiseObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer W Non-Subordination of DOT Policy to Shadyvale Financial Sympathy Obligation
prevails over: Engineer W Non-Subordination of DOT Policy to Shadyvale Financial Sympathy Obligation
casecontext: Engineer Charlie, as director of a city building department facing budget cutbacks, agreed with the city council chairman to concur on a grandfathering ordinance for buildings under construction in exchange for authorization to hire additional inspection staff — a political trade-off the Board found ethically impermissible.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.9
derived from principle: Non-Subordination of Public Safety to Political Bargaining Applied to Engineer Charlie
discoveredincase: 58
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T21:58:16.305408+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 58
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T21:58:16.305408+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer Charlie
obligationclass: Political Trade-Off Safety Non-Compromise Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer Charlie was obligated to refuse the city council chairman's bargain — concurrence on a grandfathering ordinance permitting specified buildings to be inspected under less rigorous code requirements in exchange for authorization to hire additional code officials — and to make plain to the chairman that 'righting a wrong with another wrong' increases risk of grave damage to public health and safety.
sourcetext: Engineer Charlie agreed.
temporalscope: At the time of the meeting with the city council chairman and before agreeing to the grandfathering ordinance
textreferences: Engineer Charlie agreed.
textreferences: However, the Board rejected the logic of compromise for Case 98-5, concluding that Engineer Charlie had a responsibility to make it plain and clear to the chairman that 'righting a wrong with another wrong,' increases risk of grave damage to the public health and safety.
textreferences: The Board acknowledged that Engineer Charlie might interpret the situation as one involving 'trade-offs' in which one must weigh one 'public good' (a better building inspection process) against a competing or concurrent 'public good' (a consistent code enforcement process).
wasattributedto: Case 58 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:07:12.213435
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

Engineer Intern D Faithful Agent DOT Policy Compliance Obligation
type: FaithfulAgentObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer Intern D Policy Violating Design Revision Refusal Shadyvale
prevails over: Engineer Intern D Subordinate Complicity Refusal Sign Off Promise Obligation
casecontext: Engineer Intern D's faithful agent obligation runs to the State DOT as employer and client. The DOT's explicit cost-allocation policy is a binding institutional constraint that defines the scope of faithful service. Implementing a design revision that circumvents that policy would constitute a breach of the faithful agent duty to the DOT, notwithstanding the supervisor's directive.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.88
derived from principle: Faithful Agent Obligation Invoked By Engineer Intern D DOT Service
discoveredincase: 58
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T21:52:11.308597+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 58
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T21:52:11.308597+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer Intern D
obligationclass: Faithful Agent Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer Intern D was obligated to serve the State DOT faithfully as the client and employer — including by preserving the integrity of the DOT's cost-allocation policy — and to recognize that faithful service to the DOT required adherence to the agency's explicit policy rather than compliance with a supervisor's directive that would circumvent that policy.
sourcetext: State DOT policy unambiguously requires that only unavoidable utility conflicts will be paid for as part of highway projects.
temporalscope: Throughout the design development process
textreferences: Engineer Intern D initiates the design layout for the Shadyvale DOT project to avoid conflicts with the existing utilities.
textreferences: State DOT policy unambiguously requires that only unavoidable utility conflicts will be paid for as part of highway projects.
wasattributedto: Case 58 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:07:12.203788
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

Non-Subordination of Public Safety Obligation Violated By Engineer W Indirect Directive
type: Non-SubordinationofPublicSafetyObligationtoPoliticalorBudgetaryBargaining
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: DOT cost-allocation policy
appliedto: Shadyvale water main replacement cost allocation decision
balancingwith: Client Loyalty
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer W's indirect directive to revise the policy-compliant design to artificially impact the old water main — motivated by sympathy for Shadyvale's financial hardship — constitutes a violation of the principle prohibiting engineers from compromising mandatory policy standards as consideration for budgetary or stakeholder concessions
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 58
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T21:50:17.420916+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 58
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T21:50:17.420916+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Shadyvale's genuine financial hardship ($750,000 replacement cost vs. $50,000 betterment cost) does not authorize Engineer W to direct design manipulation that circumvents mandatory DOT cost-allocation policy; sympathy for a stakeholder's financial situation cannot override the engineer's obligation to comply with applicable mandatory standards
invokedby: Engineer W DOT Highway Project Senior Engineer
principleclass: Non-Subordination of Public Safety Obligation to Political or Budgetary Bargaining
sourcetext: Engineer W conveys to Engineer Intern D in an indirect way that the design should be revised so that the old water main is impacted.
tensionresolution: The mandatory nature of DOT cost-allocation policy and the public interest in proper stewardship of public infrastructure funds override the sympathetic financial circumstances of Shadyvale; Engineer W must not direct design manipulation to circumvent the policy
textreferences: As a result, Shadyvale would pay an affordable $50,000 for the water main upgrade, an amount they can afford.
textreferences: Engineer W conveys to Engineer Intern D in an indirect way that the design should be revised so that the old water main is impacted.
textreferences: State DOT policy unambiguously requires that only unavoidable utility conflicts will be paid for as part of highway projects, and that other utility work is to be considered as a betterment that must be paid for by the local municipality.
textreferences: The cost to replace is an unaffordable $750,000.
wasattributedto: Case 58 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:07:12.200512
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

Non-Subordination of Public Safety to Political Bargaining Applied to Engineer Charlie
type: Non-SubordinationofPublicSafetyObligationtoPoliticalorBudgetaryBargaining
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Building code enforcement grandfathering agreement with city council chairman
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
balancingwith: Public Welfare Paramount
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer Charlie's agreement to allow specified buildings under construction to be grandfathered under older, less rigorous code enforcement requirements in exchange for the city council chairman's order permitting additional code official hiring constituted an impermissible political trade-off that compromised public safety standards
confidence: 0.94
discoveredincase: 58
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T21:56:04.012080+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 58
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T21:56:04.012080+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: In this context, the principle prohibits Engineer Charlie from treating public safety code enforcement as a bargaining chip in a political negotiation, even when the concession sought (additional inspection staff) would itself benefit public safety — righting a wrong with another wrong increases risk of grave damage to public health and safety
invokedby: Engineer Charlie Building Inspection Program PE Under Political Pressure
principleclass: Non-Subordination of Public Safety Obligation to Political or Budgetary Bargaining
sourcetext: the Board rejected the logic of compromise for Case 98-5, concluding that Engineer Charlie had a responsibility to make it plain and clear to the chairman that 'righting a wrong with another wrong,' increases risk of grave damage to the public health and safety.
tensionresolution: The Board rejected the 'trade-off' rationalization, concluding that Engineer Charlie had a responsibility to make plain that compromising code enforcement was not an acceptable concession regardless of the benefit offered in return
textreferences: Engineer Charlie agreed.
textreferences: The Board acknowledged that Engineer Charlie might interpret the situation as one involving 'trade-offs' in which one must weigh one 'public good' (a better building inspection process) against a competing or concurrent 'public good' (a consistent code enforcement process).
textreferences: the Board rejected the logic of compromise for Case 98-5, concluding that Engineer Charlie had a responsibility to make it plain and clear to the chairman that 'righting a wrong with another wrong,' increases risk of grave damage to the public health and safety.
wasattributedto: Case 58 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:07:12.210248
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

Procurement Integrity Violated By Engineer W Design Manipulation
type: ProcurementIntegrityinPublicEngineering
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: DOT highway reconstruction project cost-allocation decision
appliedto: Shadyvale water main replacement cost allocation
balancingwith: Client Loyalty
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer W's directive to revise the design to artificially impact the old water main — thereby triggering the DOT's 'unavoidable utility conflict' cost-allocation exception contrary to the actual design situation — constitutes a manipulation of technical design decisions to circumvent mandatory cost-allocation policy, misappropriating public DOT infrastructure funds for costs that properly belong to Shadyvale under applicable policy
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 58
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T21:50:17.420916+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 58
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T21:50:17.420916+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The mandatory DOT cost-allocation policy exists to protect public resources and ensure that betterment costs are borne by the benefiting municipality; Engineer W's directive to manipulate the design to circumvent this policy misappropriates public funds and undermines the integrity of the public infrastructure program
invokedby: Engineer W DOT Highway Project Senior Engineer
principleclass: Procurement Integrity in Public Engineering
sourcetext: State DOT policy unambiguously requires that only unavoidable utility conflicts will be paid for as part of highway projects, and that other utility work is to be considered as a betterment that must be paid for by the local municipality.
tensionresolution: The mandatory nature of DOT cost-allocation policy and the public interest in proper stewardship of public infrastructure funds override any sympathy for Shadyvale's financial hardship; Engineer W must not direct design manipulation to circumvent the policy
textreferences: Engineer W conveys to Engineer Intern D in an indirect way that the design should be revised so that the old water main is impacted.
textreferences: In that case, the cost to Shadyvale would be only the difference in price between the existing size of the water main and the proposed larger size, rather than the entire water main replacement cost.
textreferences: State DOT policy unambiguously requires that only unavoidable utility conflicts will be paid for as part of highway projects, and that other utility work is to be considered as a betterment that must be paid for by the local municipality.
wasattributedto: Case 58 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:07:12.201091
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

Subordinate Complicity Prohibition Invoked By Engineer Intern D Sign Off Promise
type: SubordinateComplicityProhibitioninUnlicensedorIncapacitatedSupervision
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer W's indirect directive to revise policy-compliant design
appliedto: Engineer W's promise to sign off on revised design
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
balancingwith: Intern Epistemic Humility and Materiality Deference Obligation
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer W's promise to 'sign off' on the revised design does not relieve Engineer Intern D of independent ethical obligation to refuse to implement a policy-violating design revision; the intern cannot treat the supervisor's sign-off promise as an ethical shield that absolves the intern of responsibility for participating in the policy circumvention
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 58
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T21:50:17.420916+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 58
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T21:50:17.420916+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Engineer Intern D bears an independent ethical obligation to refuse to implement the policy-violating design revision, regardless of Engineer W's promise to assume formal responsibility by signing off; the sign-off promise does not transfer or extinguish the intern's ethical obligation
invokedby: Engineer Intern D DOT Highway Project Engineer Intern Under Improper Direction
principleclass: Subordinate Complicity Prohibition in Unlicensed or Incapacitated Supervision
sourcetext: Engineer W tells Engineer Intern D, 'I'll sign off on it.'
tensionresolution: The intern's independent ethical obligation to refuse policy-violating directives overrides the general deference obligation to supervisory authority when the supervisor is directing the intern toward clearly policy-violating conduct
textreferences: Engineer W conveys to Engineer Intern D in an indirect way that the design should be revised so that the old water main is impacted.
textreferences: Engineer W tells Engineer Intern D, 'I'll sign off on it.'
textreferences: State DOT policy unambiguously requires that only unavoidable utility conflicts will be paid for as part of highway projects.
wasattributedto: Case 58 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:07:12.200690
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

DOT Policy Circumvention Design Manipulation — Engineer W to Engineer Intern D
type: Policy-CircumventionDesignManipulationState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Engineer W's indirect communication during design development review through resolution of whether Engineer Intern D complies or refuses
affectedparties: Engineer Intern D
affectedparties: Engineer W
affectedparties: Public served by the water main
affectedparties: Shadyvale municipality
affectedparties: State DOT
concept category: State
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 58
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T21:46:28.992815+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 58
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T21:46:28.992815+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer W conveys to Engineer Intern D in an indirect way that the design should be revised so that the old water main is impacted
stateclass: Policy-Circumvention Design Manipulation State
subject: Engineer W's indirect directive to Engineer Intern D to revise the highway design to artificially impact the existing water main
terminatedby: Not yet terminated — active pending Engineer Intern D's response and design decision
textreferences: Engineer Intern D initiates the design layout for the Shadyvale DOT project to avoid conflicts with the existing utilities
textreferences: Engineer W conveys to Engineer Intern D in an indirect way that the design should be revised so that the old water main is impacted
textreferences: State DOT policy unambiguously requires that only unavoidable utility conflicts will be paid for as part of highway projects
triggeringevent: Engineer W indirectly conveys to Engineer Intern D that the design should be revised so that the old water main is impacted, despite DOT policy limiting payment to unavoidable conflicts
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 58 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:07:12.195057
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

Engineer W Faithful Agent Obligation Violated DOT Policy Shadyvale
type: FaithfulAgentObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer W Non-Subordination of DOT Policy to Shadyvale Financial Sympathy Obligation
defeasible under: Engineer W Faithful Agent Boundary Violation
prevails over: Engineer W Non-Subordination of DOT Policy to Shadyvale Financial Sympathy Obligation
casecontext: Engineer W is a DOT engineer with no contractual relationship with Shadyvale, whose direction to Engineer Intern D placed Shadyvale's interests above the DOT's interests in violation of the DOT's clear cost-allocation policy.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.93
derived from principle: Faithful Agent Obligation Violated by Engineer W
discoveredincase: 58
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T21:58:16.305408+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 58
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T21:58:16.305408+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer W
obligationclass: Faithful Agent Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer W was obligated to act as a faithful agent and trustee of the State DOT — his employer — by adhering to the DOT's explicit cost-allocation policy requiring that only unavoidable utility conflicts be funded as part of highway projects, and by refraining from directing a design revision whose purpose was to artificially create a policy-qualifying condition to divert DOT funds to Shadyvale.
sourcetext: Engineer W's willingness to overlook DOT policy is inconsistent with Canon 4, the engineer's obligation to act as faithful agent or trustee of one's employer.
temporalscope: Throughout the Shadyvale highway reconstruction project
textreferences: Engineer W's willingness to overlook DOT policy is inconsistent with Canon 4, the engineer's obligation to act as faithful agent or trustee of one's employer.
textreferences: However, Engineer W's direction to Engineer Intern D has placed the interests of Shadyvale above the interests of the DOT in violation of the clear policy of the DOT.
textreferences: In the present case, clearly Engineer W is a DOT engineer and does not have a contractual relationship with Shadyvale.
wasattributedto: Case 58 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:07:12.212680
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

Engineer W Public Agency Cost Allocation Policy Integrity Preservation Obligation
type: PublicAgencyCost-AllocationPolicyIntegrityPreservationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer W Benevolent Motive Non-Justification Shadyvale Policy Violation
defeasible under: Conflict of Interest State — Engineer W's Dual Obligation to DOT Policy and Shadyvale Financial Benefit
prevails over: Engineer W Benevolent Motive Non-Justification Shadyvale Policy Violation
casecontext: Engineer W, motivated by sympathy for Shadyvale's financial hardship, directed Engineer Intern D to revise a policy-compliant design to artificially impact the old water main. This would have caused the DOT to fund the bulk of Shadyvale's water main replacement as an 'unavoidable' conflict, in direct violation of the DOT's unambiguous policy that only genuinely unavoidable utility conflicts are to be funded as part of highway projects.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.92
derived from principle: Procurement Integrity in Public Engineering Applied to DOT Fund Diversion
discoveredincase: 58
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T21:52:11.308597+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 58
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T21:52:11.308597+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer W
obligationclass: Public Agency Cost-Allocation Policy Integrity Preservation Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer W was obligated, as a licensed senior DOT engineer, to preserve the integrity of the DOT's cost-allocation policy by refraining from directing a design revision whose primary purpose was to artificially create an 'unavoidable' utility conflict with the old water main — thereby shifting approximately $700,000 in water main replacement costs from Shadyvale to the DOT in circumvention of the agency's explicit policy.
sourcetext: State DOT policy unambiguously requires that only unavoidable utility conflicts will be paid for as part of highway projects, and that other utility work is to be considered as a betterment that must be paid for by the local municipality.
temporalscope: Throughout the design development review process
textreferences: Engineer W conveys to Engineer Intern D in an indirect way that the design should be revised so that the old water main is impacted.
textreferences: In that case, the cost to Shadyvale would be only the difference in price between the existing size of the water main and the proposed larger size, rather than the entire water main replacement cost. As a result, Shadyvale would pay an affordable $50,000 for the water main upgrade.
textreferences: State DOT policy unambiguously requires that only unavoidable utility conflicts will be paid for as part of highway projects, and that other utility work is to be considered as a betterment that must be paid for by the local municipality.
wasattributedto: Case 58 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:07:12.203278
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

Engineer W Transparent Advocacy Substitution Shadyvale DOT Project
type: TransparentAdvocacySubstitutionforPolicyCircumventionObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer W Non-Aiding Policy Circumvention Through Design Manipulation Obligation
defeasible under: Engineer W Transparent Alternatives Available
prevails over: Engineer W Non-Aiding Policy Circumvention Through Design Manipulation Obligation
casecontext: Engineer W, a senior DOT engineer, directed Engineer Intern D to revise a policy-compliant design to incorporate the old Shadyvale water main, which would divert approximately $700,000 of DOT funds to benefit the impoverished municipality — a result achievable only through covert policy circumvention rather than authorized channels.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.92
derived from principle: Transparent Advocacy as Ethical Alternative Applied to Engineer W Situation
discoveredincase: 58
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T21:58:16.305408+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 58
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T21:58:16.305408+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer W
obligationclass: Transparent Advocacy Substitution for Policy Circumvention Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer W was obligated to pursue the beneficial outcome of upgrading Shadyvale's water main exclusively through transparent, institutionally sanctioned channels — including requesting a joint meeting, escalating through the DOT chain of command, exploring construction efficiency sharing, or assisting Shadyvale with grant applications — rather than covertly directing Engineer Intern D to redesign the project to artificially trigger the DOT's unavoidable utility conflict policy.
sourcetext: Were Engineer W willing to try an open and transparent way, an ethical way, to help the residents of Shadyvale, this Board would offer our support, not our censure.
temporalscope: Upon identifying the opportunity to benefit Shadyvale and before directing any design revision
textreferences: Better approaches are available. For example, Engineer W could request a joint meeting to discuss the situation. Or Engineer W could run this up the chain of command with the State DOT.
textreferences: However, secretly diverting $700,000 of state DOT funds is not an ethical solution.
textreferences: Perhaps Shadyvale could be allowed to benefit from construction activities the DOT was already undertaking.
textreferences: Perhaps the DOT could assist Shadyvale with grant applications so that Shadyvale would be prepared to take advantage of the on-going DOT work.
textreferences: Were Engineer W willing to try an open and transparent way, an ethical way, to help the residents of Shadyvale, this Board would offer our support, not our censure.
wasattributedto: Case 58 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:07:12.211913
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

Responsible Charge Engagement Violated By Engineer W Sign Off Promise
type: ResponsibleChargeEngagement
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer W's supervisory responsibility for the Shadyvale DOT highway reconstruction project design
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer W's promise to 'sign off' on the revised design — after having directed the revision through indirect communication designed to avoid explicit acknowledgment of the policy conflict — constitutes a nominal rather than substantive exercise of responsible charge, because Engineer W cannot genuinely vouch for the technical adequacy and policy compliance of a design that Engineer W has directed to be made contrary to applicable mandatory policy
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 58
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T21:50:17.420916+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 58
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T21:50:17.420916+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Responsible charge requires that the sealing engineer be able to genuinely vouch for both the technical adequacy and the policy compliance of the sealed work; Engineer W's promise to sign off on a policy-violating design revision is a nominal exercise of responsible charge that does not satisfy the substantive engagement requirement
invokedby: Engineer W DOT Highway Project Senior Engineer
principleclass: Responsible Charge Engagement
sourcetext: Engineer W tells Engineer Intern D, 'I'll sign off on it.'
tensionresolution: Engineer W must refuse to sign off on a design revision that violates applicable mandatory DOT policy, regardless of the sympathetic financial circumstances of Shadyvale; the responsible charge obligation requires substantive rather than nominal oversight
textreferences: Engineer W conveys to Engineer Intern D in an indirect way that the design should be revised so that the old water main is impacted.
textreferences: Engineer W tells Engineer Intern D, 'I'll sign off on it.'
textreferences: State DOT policy unambiguously requires that only unavoidable utility conflicts will be paid for as part of highway projects.
wasattributedto: Case 58 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:07:12.201415
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

Transparent Advocacy as Ethical Alternative Applied to Engineer W Situation
type: TransparentAdvocacyasEthicalAlternativetoPolicyCircumvention
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Shadyvale water main upgrade within DOT highway reconstruction project
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
balancingwith: Public Welfare Paramount
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The Board identifies multiple transparent, institutionally sanctioned alternatives available to Engineer W — requesting a joint meeting, escalating through the DOT chain of command, exploring construction efficiency benefits for Shadyvale, or assisting with grant applications — that would have allowed pursuit of the beneficial outcome without covert policy circumvention
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 58
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T21:56:04.012080+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 58
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T21:56:04.012080+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: In this context, the principle establishes that the existence of available ethical alternatives forecloses the justification for covert policy circumvention; Engineer W's failure to pursue transparent channels before directing the intern to violate DOT policy renders his conduct ethically impermissible
invokedby: Engineer W DOT Highway Project Senior Engineer
principleclass: Transparent Advocacy as Ethical Alternative to Policy Circumvention
sourcetext: Were Engineer W willing to try an open and transparent way, an ethical way, to help the residents of Shadyvale, this Board would offer our support, not our censure.
tensionresolution: The Board offers support — not censure — for transparent advocacy approaches, indicating that the ethical violation lies not in the goal of helping Shadyvale but in the covert means chosen when transparent alternatives were available
textreferences: Engineer W could request a joint meeting to discuss the situation. Or Engineer W could run this up the chain of command with the State DOT.
textreferences: However, secretly diverting $700,000 of state DOT funds is not an ethical solution.
textreferences: Perhaps Shadyvale could be allowed to benefit from construction activities the DOT was already undertaking.
textreferences: Perhaps the DOT could assist Shadyvale with grant applications so that Shadyvale would be prepared to take advantage of the on-going DOT work.
textreferences: Were Engineer W willing to try an open and transparent way, an ethical way, to help the residents of Shadyvale, this Board would offer our support, not our censure.
wasattributedto: Case 58 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:07:12.210684
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

Benevolent Motive Does Not Cure Ethical Violation Applied to Engineer W
type: BenevolentMotiveDoesNotCureEthicalViolation
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Shadyvale DOT highway reconstruction project fund diversion direction
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
balancingwith: Procurement Integrity in Public Engineering
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer W's altruistic motivation to help the impoverished residents of Shadyvale upgrade their water main does not render ethically permissible his covert direction to divert $700,000 of DOT funds in violation of DOT policy; the Board evaluates the conduct itself against professional standards, not the actor's praiseworthy intentions
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 58
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T21:56:04.012080+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 58
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T21:56:04.012080+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: In this context, the principle requires the Board to find Engineer W's conduct ethically impermissible despite acknowledging his meritorious and praiseworthy motivation, because the ethical evaluation of professional conduct is determined by the nature of the act and its conformity with professional duties
invokedby: Engineer W DOT Highway Project Senior Engineer
principleclass: Benevolent Motive Does Not Cure Ethical Violation
sourcetext: benevolent motives do not make unethical conduct ethical
tensionresolution: Altruistic motivation is recognized as praiseworthy and may inform the nature of any sanction, but does not constitute a defense to the underlying ethical violations of Canons 3, 4, 5, and 6
textreferences: The facts of the present case do not indicate Engineer W will personally profit by helping the residents of Shadyvale upgrade their water main. If anything, the facts imply both practical awareness of project efficiencies and a strongly altruistic motivation to do all the good he can do. However, benevolent motives do not make unethical conduct ethical.
textreferences: While Engineer W's direct solution in Shadyvale may well be efficient and optimal, helping the residents of Shadyvale cannot be accomplished at the expense of the truth
textreferences: benevolent motives do not make unethical conduct ethical
textreferences: the Board is not concerned about Engineer W's competence, his intention, or his motivation; these appear meritorious and praiseworthy
wasattributedto: Case 58 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:07:12.210450
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

Engineer Adam Artfully Misleading Statement Prohibition Firm Sale Negotiation
type: ArtfullyMisleadingStatementProhibitionObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer Adam Full Circumstance Disclosure Firm Sale Negotiation Engineer Mary Status
defeasible under: Public Safety at Risk — Undersized Aging Water Main
casecontext: Engineer Adam, acting as chief negotiator in the sale of a small engineering subsidiary, made an artfully misleading statement to Engineer Baker referencing Engineer Mary's earlier (but definitively withdrawn) interest in purchasing the subsidiary, in order to create urgency and move stalled negotiations forward.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.92
derived from principle: Honesty Invoked in Engineer Adam Artfully Misleading Negotiation
discoveredincase: 58
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T21:58:16.305408+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 58
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T21:58:16.305408+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer Adam
obligationclass: Artfully Misleading Statement Prohibition Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer Adam was obligated to refrain from telling Engineer Baker that 'another company has expressed an interest in buying our subsidiary' when Engineer Mary had definitively declined further interest — recognizing that this statement, while technically referencing a prior expression of interest, was artfully misleading in that it created a false impression of current competitive interest designed to pressure Engineer Baker into accelerating the negotiation.
sourcetext: Engineer Mary had expressed some initial interest in buying the subsidiary, but after further consideration, Engineer Mary decided she was definitely not interested in purchasing the subsidiary.
temporalscope: During the negotiation with Engineer Baker, after Engineer Mary had definitively declined further interest
textreferences: Engineer Adam told Engineer Baker, 'Another company has expressed an interest in buying our subsidiary, so you had better move quickly if you are interested.'
textreferences: Engineer Mary had expressed some initial interest in buying the subsidiary, but after further consideration, Engineer Mary decided she was definitely not interested in purchasing the subsidiary.
textreferences: the Board found Engineer Adam's words 'artfully misleading' or, in the words of prior BER Case 86-6, 'intentionally designed to mislead… by obscuring the truth.'
wasattributedto: Case 58 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:07:12.213688
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

Engineer Intern D Escalation of Policy Conflict to Agency Authority Obligation
type: IndirectPolicy-ViolatingDirectiveEscalationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer Intern D Subordinate Complicity Refusal Sign Off Promise Obligation
prevails over: Engineer Intern D Policy Compliant Design Preservation Obligation
casecontext: Engineer Intern D received an indirect directive from senior engineer Engineer W to revise a policy-compliant design to artificially impact the old water main, which would circumvent the DOT's unambiguous cost-allocation policy. The indirectness of the communication itself signals Engineer W's awareness of the policy conflict and places Engineer Intern D in an ethically untenable position requiring escalation.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.88
derived from principle: Intern Epistemic Humility Escalation Obligation Invoked By Engineer Intern D Policy Conflict
discoveredincase: 58
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T21:52:11.308597+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 58
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T21:52:11.308597+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer Intern D
obligationclass: Indirect Policy-Violating Directive Escalation Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer Intern D was obligated, upon receiving Engineer W's indirect directive to revise the design in a manner that would violate DOT cost-allocation policy, to escalate the directive and the policy conflict to appropriate supervisory or administrative authorities within the DOT — such as Engineer W's supervisor, the agency's legal counsel, or an ethics officer — before taking any action on the directive.
sourcetext: Engineer W conveys to Engineer Intern D in an indirect way that the design should be revised so that the old water main is impacted.
temporalscope: Immediately upon receiving Engineer W's indirect directive during design development review
textreferences: Engineer W conveys to Engineer Intern D in an indirect way that the design should be revised so that the old water main is impacted.
textreferences: State DOT policy unambiguously requires that only unavoidable utility conflicts will be paid for as part of highway projects.
wasattributedto: Case 58 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:07:12.202381
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

Engineer W Benevolent Motive Non-Justification Shadyvale Policy Violation
type: BenevolentMotiveNon-JustificationforPolicyViolationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer W Public Agency Cost Allocation Policy Integrity Preservation Obligation
defeasible under: Engineer W Altruistic Policy Violation
casecontext: Engineer W's direction to revise the design was motivated by genuine concern for Shadyvale's residents and awareness of project efficiencies, not personal gain — but the Board found that benevolent motives do not cure the ethical violation of covertly diverting $700,000 of DOT funds.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.91
derived from principle: Benevolent Motive Does Not Cure Ethical Violation Applied to Engineer W
discoveredincase: 58
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T21:58:16.305408+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 58
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T21:58:16.305408+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer W
obligationclass: Benevolent Motive Non-Justification for Policy Violation Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer W was obligated to recognize that his altruistic motivation to help the impoverished residents of Shadyvale did not render ethically permissible his direction to Engineer Intern D to redesign the project in violation of DOT cost-allocation policy, and to refrain from using benevolent intent as a justification for proceeding with the policy-violating directive.
sourcetext: The facts of the present case do not indicate Engineer W will personally profit by helping the residents of Shadyvale upgrade their water main.
temporalscope: At the time Engineer W formulated and communicated the directive to Engineer Intern D
textreferences: However, benevolent motives do not make unethical conduct ethical.
textreferences: If anything, the facts imply both practical awareness of project efficiencies and a strongly altruistic motivation to do all the good he can do.
textreferences: In the present case, the Board is not concerned about Engineer W's competence, his intention, or his motivation; these appear meritorious and praiseworthy.
textreferences: The facts of the present case do not indicate Engineer W will personally profit by helping the residents of Shadyvale upgrade their water main.
textreferences: While Engineer W's direct solution in Shadyvale may well be efficient and optimal, helping the residents of Shadyvale cannot be accomplished at the expense of the truth.
wasattributedto: Case 58 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:07:12.212169
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

Engineer W Non-Aiding Policy Circumvention Through Design Manipulation Obligation
type: Non-AidingUnlawfulEngineeringPracticeObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer W Transparent Advocacy Substitution Shadyvale DOT Project
defeasible under: DOT Policy Circumvention Design Manipulation — Engineer W to Engineer Intern D
casecontext: Engineer W's directive to revise the design to artificially impact the old water main — for the purpose of triggering the DOT's 'unavoidable utility conflict' cost-allocation provision — constitutes the use of engineering design authority to circumvent an explicit agency policy, which is analogous to aiding an unlawful or improper practice.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.85
derived from principle: Procurement Integrity Violated By Engineer W Design Manipulation
discoveredincase: 58
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T21:52:11.308597+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 58
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T21:52:11.308597+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer W
obligationclass: Non-Aiding Unlawful Engineering Practice Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer W was obligated to refrain from directing, facilitating, or aiding the artificial manipulation of a highway design to create a fictitious 'unavoidable' utility conflict — recognizing that such manipulation constitutes an improper use of engineering authority to circumvent an explicit agency policy and potentially constitutes a form of procurement fraud against the public agency.
sourcetext: Engineer W conveys to Engineer Intern D in an indirect way that the design should be revised so that the old water main is impacted.
temporalscope: At the time of directing the design revision
textreferences: Engineer W conveys to Engineer Intern D in an indirect way that the design should be revised so that the old water main is impacted.
textreferences: In that case, the cost to Shadyvale would be only the difference in price between the existing size of the water main and the proposed larger size.
textreferences: State DOT policy unambiguously requires that only unavoidable utility conflicts will be paid for as part of highway projects.
wasattributedto: Case 58 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:07:12.204091
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

Honesty Invoked in Engineer Adam Artfully Misleading Negotiation
type: Honesty
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineering subsidiary sale negotiation with Engineer Baker
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer Adam's statement to Engineer Baker that 'another company has expressed an interest in buying our subsidiary' — when Engineer Mary had definitively declined interest — constituted an artfully misleading representation designed to obscure the truth and create false urgency in the negotiation, violating the hallmark quality of honesty required of practicing engineers
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 58
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T21:56:04.012080+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 58
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T21:56:04.012080+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: In this context, honesty requires that Engineer Adam accurately represent the state of competing interest in the subsidiary rather than exploiting Engineer Mary's earlier — and since withdrawn — interest to create false competitive pressure; the Board finds that full disclosure of the circumstances would have changed the ethical evaluation
invokedby: Engineer Adam Engineering Firm Sale Negotiator Engineer
principleclass: Honesty
sourcetext: the Board found Engineer Adam's words 'artfully misleading' or, in the words of prior BER Case 86-6, 'intentionally designed to mislead… by obscuring the truth.'
tensionresolution: The honesty obligation is not overridden by the engineer's interest in moving negotiations forward; the Board finds Engineer Adam's conduct merits rebuke regardless of his commercial motivation
textreferences: 'This Board strongly believes that honesty and truthfulness are hallmark qualities of a practicing engineer.'
textreferences: Engineer Adam told Engineer Baker, 'Another company has expressed an interest in buying our subsidiary, so you had better move quickly if you are interested.'
textreferences: the Board found Engineer Adam's words 'artfully misleading' or, in the words of prior BER Case 86-6, 'intentionally designed to mislead… by obscuring the truth.'
wasattributedto: Case 58 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:07:12.211499
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

Engineer Intern D DOT Highway Project Engineer Intern
type: DOTHighwayProjectEngineerInternUnderImproperDirection
type: NamedIndividual
adheres to principle: Faithful Agent Obligation Invoked By Engineer Intern D DOT Service
adheres to principle: Objectivity and Truthfulness Invoked by Engineer Intern D
adheres to principle: Public Welfare Paramount Invoked By Engineer Intern D Policy Compliant Design
has obligation: Engineer Intern D Complete and Unfiltered Upward Reporting of Policy Conflict
has obligation: Engineer Intern D Escalation of Policy Conflict to Agency Authority Obligation
has obligation: Engineer Intern D Faithful Agent DOT Policy Compliance Obligation
has obligation: Engineer Intern D Indirect Policy Violating Directive Escalation Shadyvale
has obligation: Engineer Intern D Intern Materiality Judgment Restraint Full Reporting Obligation
has obligation: Engineer Intern D Policy Compliant Design Preservation Obligation
has obligation: Engineer Intern D Policy Violating Design Revision Refusal Shadyvale
attributes: {'license': 'Engineer Intern (EI), about to sit for PE exam', 'position': 'Engineer Intern, State DOT', 'design_action': 'Initiated compliant design layout avoiding utility conflicts'}
caseinvolvement: Engineer intern assigned to design the Shadyvale DOT highway reconstruction project who independently produces a policy-compliant design avoiding utility conflicts, and is then subjected to indirect supervisory pressure from Engineer W to revise the design to artificially impact the old water main in violation of DOT cost-allocation policy.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 58
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T21:46:30.415971+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 58
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T21:46:30.415971+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'design_subject', 'target': 'Shadyvale Water Main'}
relationships: {'type': 'employer_agent', 'target': 'State DOT'}
relationships: {'type': 'supervised_by', 'target': 'Engineer W DOT Highway Project Senior Engineer'}
rolecategory: employer_relationship
roleclass: DOT Highway Project Engineer Intern Under Improper Direction
sourcetext: Engineer Intern D, who is about to sit for the PE exam
textreferences: Engineer Intern D initiates the design layout for the Shadyvale DOT project to avoid conflicts with the existing utilities, including separation of a new closed drainage system from the old water main
textreferences: Engineer Intern D, who is about to sit for the PE exam
textreferences: Engineer W conveys to Engineer Intern D in an indirect way that the design should be revised so that the old water main is impacted
textreferences: Engineer W delegates the project to Engineer Intern D
wasattributedto: Case 58 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:07:12.194878
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

Engineer Intern D Policy Violating Design Revision Refusal Shadyvale
type: Policy-ViolatingDesignRevisionRefusalObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer Intern D Faithful Agent DOT Policy Compliance Obligation
defeasible under: Unlicensed Intern Responsible Charge Delegation — Engineer W to Engineer Intern D
prevails over: Engineer Intern D Subordinate Complicity Refusal Sign Off Promise Obligation
casecontext: Engineer Intern D had independently produced a DOT policy-compliant design avoiding the old water main and was subsequently subjected to an indirect supervisory directive to revise the design in a manner that would violate DOT cost-allocation policy and divert approximately $700,000 of DOT funds.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.91
derived from principle: Subordinate Complicity Prohibition Applied to Engineer Intern D Cooperation Decision
discoveredincase: 58
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T21:58:16.305408+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 58
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T21:58:16.305408+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer Intern D
obligationclass: Policy-Violating Design Revision Refusal Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer Intern D was obligated to refuse to implement Engineer W's indirect directive to revise the policy-compliant design to artificially incorporate the old Shadyvale water main, notwithstanding Engineer W's promise to 'sign off' on the revised work, recognizing that the supervisor's willingness to seal the document does not relieve the intern of independent ethical responsibility to decline participation in a policy-violating design.
sourcetext: Engineer Intern D's adherence to DOT policy (avoiding the old water main) is in accord with the Canon 3 requirements of objectivity and truthfulness.
temporalscope: Upon receiving Engineer W's indirect directive to revise the design
textreferences: All four of Canons 3, 4, 5, and 6 have been attacked.
textreferences: Engineer Intern D's adherence to DOT policy (avoiding the old water main) is in accord with the Canon 3 requirements of objectivity and truthfulness.
textreferences: If Engineer Intern D decides to cooperate with Engineer W, it is likely that no one else would ever know that $700,000 of DOT money had been diverted for the benefit of Shadyvale.
wasattributedto: Case 58 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:07:12.213069
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

Engineer Intern D Subordinate Complicity Refusal Sign Off Promise Obligation
type: Policy-ViolatingDesignRevisionRefusalObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer Intern D Escalation of Policy Conflict to Agency Authority Obligation
defeasible under: Engineer Intern D Supervisor Sign-Off Ethical Shield
defeasible under: Supervisor Sign-Off as Ethical Shield — Engineer W to Engineer Intern D
casecontext: Engineer W's promise to 'sign off' on the revised design may have been intended to reassure Engineer Intern D that professional responsibility for the revision would rest with Engineer W. However, the ethics code does not permit a subordinate to implement a known policy violation on the basis of a supervisor's promise to assume responsibility, particularly when the subordinate is aware of the policy conflict.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.9
derived from principle: Subordinate Complicity Prohibition Invoked By Engineer Intern D Sign Off Promise
discoveredincase: 58
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T21:52:11.308597+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 58
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T21:52:11.308597+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer Intern D
obligationclass: Policy-Violating Design Revision Refusal Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer Intern D was obligated to recognize that Engineer W's promise to 'sign off' on the revised design does not relieve Engineer Intern D of independent ethical responsibility to refuse to implement a policy-violating design revision — and that proceeding with the revision in reliance on the sign-off promise would constitute complicity in the policy violation regardless of who ultimately seals the document.
sourcetext: Engineer W tells Engineer Intern D, 'I'll sign off on it.'
temporalscope: Upon receipt of Engineer W's promise to 'sign off' on the revised design
textreferences: Engineer W tells Engineer Intern D, 'I'll sign off on it.'
textreferences: State DOT policy unambiguously requires that only unavoidable utility conflicts will be paid for as part of highway projects.
wasattributedto: Case 58 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:07:12.203945
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

Intern Epistemic Humility Escalation Obligation Invoked By Engineer Intern D Policy Conflict
type: InternEpistemicHumilityandMaterialityDeferenceObligation
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Conflict between Engineer W's directive and DOT cost-allocation policy
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
balancingwith: Subordinate Complicity Prohibition in Unlicensed or Incapacitated Supervision
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer Intern D, upon receiving Engineer W's indirect directive to revise the policy-compliant design, bears an obligation to escalate the conflict between the directive and DOT policy to appropriate supervisory or ethics channels above Engineer W, rather than either silently complying or unilaterally refusing without escalation
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 58
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T21:50:17.420916+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 58
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T21:50:17.420916+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The intern's epistemic humility obligation — which normally requires deference to supervisory judgment on questions of materiality — does not require deference when the supervisor's directive clearly conflicts with an unambiguous mandatory policy; in such cases, the obligation transforms into a duty to escalate the conflict to appropriate authority above the supervisor
invokedby: Engineer Intern D DOT Highway Project Engineer Intern Under Improper Direction
principleclass: Intern Epistemic Humility and Materiality Deference Obligation
sourcetext: Engineer W delegates the project to Engineer Intern D, who is about to sit for the PE exam.
tensionresolution: The intern should escalate the policy conflict to appropriate authority above Engineer W rather than either complying with the improper directive or unilaterally refusing without seeking guidance
textreferences: Engineer W conveys to Engineer Intern D in an indirect way that the design should be revised so that the old water main is impacted.
textreferences: Engineer W delegates the project to Engineer Intern D, who is about to sit for the PE exam.
textreferences: State DOT policy unambiguously requires that only unavoidable utility conflicts will be paid for as part of highway projects.
wasattributedto: Case 58 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:07:12.200925
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

Engineer W Non-Subordination of DOT Policy to Shadyvale Financial Sympathy Obligation
type: Non-SubordinationofSafetyReportingtoPoliticalBargainingObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer Charlie Political Trade-Off Safety Non-Compromise Building Inspection
competes with: Engineer W Faithful Agent Obligation Violated DOT Policy Shadyvale
defeasible under: Engineer W Altruistic Policy Violation
defeasible under: Engineer W Competing Duties — Shadyvale vs DOT
defeasible under: Resource Constrained State — Shadyvale Water Main Replacement Cost
casecontext: Engineer W's directive to revise the design appears motivated by sympathy for Shadyvale's inability to afford the $750,000 water main replacement. While the motivation is understandable, it does not justify circumventing the DOT's explicit cost-allocation policy, which is analogous to the prohibition on subordinating public safety obligations to political or budgetary bargaining.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.83
derived from principle: Non-Subordination of Public Safety Obligation Violated By Engineer W Indirect Directive
discoveredincase: 58
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T21:52:11.308597+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 58
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T21:52:11.308597+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer W
obligationclass: Non-Subordination of Safety Reporting to Political Bargaining Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer W was obligated to refrain from subordinating the DOT's unambiguous cost-allocation policy to sympathy for Shadyvale's financial hardship — recognizing that the policy exists to protect the integrity of public procurement and the equitable allocation of public funds, and that financial sympathy for a municipality does not constitute a legitimate basis for circumventing an explicit agency policy.
sourcetext: The cost to replace is an unaffordable $750,000.
temporalscope: Throughout the design development review process
textreferences: Engineer W conveys to Engineer Intern D in an indirect way that the design should be revised so that the old water main is impacted.
textreferences: State DOT policy unambiguously requires that only unavoidable utility conflicts will be paid for as part of highway projects.
textreferences: The cost to replace is an unaffordable $750,000.
wasattributedto: Case 58 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:07:12.203649
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction

Engineer W DOT Highway Project Senior Engineer
type: DOTHighwayProjectSeniorEngineer
type: NamedIndividual
adheres to principle: Benevolent Motive Does Not Cure Ethical Violation Applied to Engineer W
adheres to principle: Faithful Agent Obligation Violated by Engineer W
adheres to principle: Formative Professional Mentorship Integrity Obligation Applied to Engineer W and Intern D
adheres to principle: Honesty in Professional Representations Violated By Engineer W Indirect Communication
adheres to principle: Honesty in Professional Representations Violated by Engineer W Deceptive Direction
adheres to principle: Loyalty Principle Tension Engineer W Shadyvale Sympathy vs DOT Policy
adheres to principle: Non-Subordination of Public Safety Obligation Violated By Engineer W Indirect Directive
adheres to principle: Procurement Integrity Violated By Engineer W Design Manipulation
adheres to principle: Procurement Integrity in Public Engineering Applied to DOT Fund Diversion
adheres to principle: Public Welfare Paramount Distinguished from Truthfulness in Present Case
adheres to principle: Responsible Charge Engagement Violated By Engineer W Sign Off Promise
adheres to principle: Transparent Advocacy as Ethical Alternative Applied to Engineer W Situation
has obligation: Engineer W Benevolent Motive Non-Justification Shadyvale Policy Violation
has obligation: Engineer W Faithful Agent Obligation Violated DOT Policy Shadyvale
has obligation: Engineer W Formative Mentorship Ethical Integrity Shadyvale Intern D
has obligation: Engineer W Indirect Communication Policy Evasion Prohibition Obligation
has obligation: Engineer W Non-Aiding Policy Circumvention Through Design Manipulation Obligation
has obligation: Engineer W Non-Subordination of DOT Policy to Shadyvale Financial Sympathy Obligation
has obligation: Engineer W Procurement Integrity Violation DOT Cost Allocation Policy
has obligation: Engineer W Public Agency Cost Allocation Policy Integrity Preservation Obligation
has obligation: Engineer W Public Agency Cost Allocation Policy Integrity Preservation Shadyvale
has obligation: Engineer W Responsible Charge Active Policy Compliance Review Obligation
has obligation: Engineer W Responsible Charge Non-Delegation Policy Compliance Sign Off Promise
has obligation: Engineer W Supervisor Indirect Communication Policy Evasion Prohibition Shadyvale
has obligation: Engineer W Transparent Advocacy Substitution Shadyvale DOT Project
attributes: {'license': 'Professional Engineer (implied by senior DOT engineer role)', 'position': 'Senior DOT Engineer', 'authority': 'Project oversight, sign-off authority, supervisory authority over Engineer Intern D'}
caseinvolvement: Senior DOT engineer responsible for the Shadyvale highway reconstruction project who delegates design to Engineer Intern D and then indirectly pressures the intern to revise the design to artificially create a utility conflict with the old water main, contrary to DOT policy, offering to sign off on the revised design.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 58
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T21:46:30.415971+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 58
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T21:46:30.415971+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'employer_agent', 'target': 'State DOT'}
relationships: {'type': 'indirect_benefactor', 'target': 'Shadyvale Municipality'}
relationships: {'type': 'supervisor', 'target': 'Engineer Intern D DOT Highway Project Engineer Intern'}
rolecategory: employer_relationship
roleclass: DOT Highway Project Senior Engineer
sourcetext: Engineer W is the senior DOT engineer responsible for this project
textreferences: Engineer W conveys to Engineer Intern D in an indirect way that the design should be revised so that the old water main is impacted
textreferences: Engineer W delegates the project to Engineer Intern D
textreferences: Engineer W is the senior DOT engineer responsible for this project
textreferences: Engineer W tells Engineer Intern D, 'I'll sign off on it.'
wasattributedto: Case 58 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T22:07:12.197908
was generated by: ProEthica Case 58 Extraction