ProEthica Case 71 Ontology
type: Ontology
created: 2026-02-26T11:37:51.631688
imports: cases
imports: intermediate

30-Day Strength Gain Confirmed
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Event
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:37:51.655282
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

30-day set period before strength gain confirmation
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:37:51.655838
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

90-Pile Foundation Design
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:37:51.654644
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

Adversarial Context Non-Exemption from Professional Standards Applied to Engineer B
type: AdversarialContextNon-ExemptionfromProfessionalStandards
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Municipality's adversarial dispute with Engineer A
appliedto: Test pile driving report
balancingwith: Client Loyalty
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The case discussion explicitly finds that Engineer B's selective use of data to defend the client municipality constitutes an egregious denial of professional duties 'in any setting, legal, quasi-legal or non-legal' — establishing that the adversarial character of the proceeding created no exemption from professional engineering standards.
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 71
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T11:25:04.851822+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 71
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T11:25:04.851822+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The adversarial nature of the municipality's dispute with Engineer A did not create any relaxation of Engineer B's professional obligations; the same standards of completeness and objectivity applied as in any non-adversarial engineering engagement.
invokedby: Engineer B Adversarial Litigation Testing Supervisor
principleclass: Adversarial Context Non-Exemption from Professional Standards
sourcetext: This is an egregious denial of the duties and responsibilities of a professional engineer in any setting, legal, quasi-legal or non-legal.
tensionresolution: Professional standards were found to be context-invariant; the adversarial setting provided no mitigation for Engineer B's selective reporting.
textreferences: Engineer B appears to have assumed a responsibility to defend the client municipality by the selective use of data.
textreferences: It is not evident from the facts of the case that Engineer B's selective use of technical fact was inspired by the adversarial circumstance, nor does it matter.
textreferences: This is an egregious denial of the duties and responsibilities of a professional engineer in any setting, legal, quasi-legal or non-legal.
wasattributedto: Case 71 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:37:51.648079
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

Adversarial Engagement Objectivity Obligation Invoked Against Engineer B
type: AdversarialEngagementObjectivityObligation
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Municipality's adversarial dispute with Engineer A
appliedto: Test pile driving report
balancingwith: Client Loyalty
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer B, retained by the municipality in an adversarial dispute with Engineer A, produced a report that selectively omitted material technical findings — specifically that dynamic test equipment failed and that all 19 reported failing piles were driven to refusal — in a manner that served the municipality's litigation interests while violating the objectivity and completeness obligations of professional engineering reporting.
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 71
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T11:25:04.851822+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 71
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T11:25:04.851822+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Engineer B's adversarial engagement did not authorize selective omission of material technical findings; the same completeness standard applicable in non-adversarial contexts applied to his litigation testing report.
invokedby: Engineer B Adversarial Litigation Testing Supervisor
principleclass: Adversarial Engagement Objectivity Obligation
sourcetext: Material facts, however, were not addressed in Engineer B's report. Among them, that dynamic test equipment failed during the test, and that all 19 test piles reported as failing the test were driven to refusal.
tensionresolution: The objectivity obligation was found to override the client loyalty rationale; Engineer B's selective reporting was characterized as an egregious violation regardless of adversarial context.
textreferences: Among them, that dynamic test equipment failed during the test, and that all 19 test piles reported as failing the test were driven to refusal.
textreferences: Material facts, however, were not addressed in Engineer B's report.
textreferences: the report appears to serve no purpose except to impugn Engineer A, or to support the original testimony of the municipality's expert witness.
textreferences: the select language of the report precludes any interpretation that any or all 90 piles met the factor of safety requirement.
wasattributedto: Case 71 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:37:51.647270
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

Adversarial Objectivity Violated By Engineer B Omitting Wave Equation Results
type: AdversarialEngagementObjectivityObligation
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer B's concluding report on test pile driving program
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
balancingwith: Loyalty
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer B, retained by the municipality in an adversarial litigation context, omitted from the concluding report the material finding that the 19 disputed piles had been driven to essential refusal and that accepted wave equation calculations would show their strength was several multiples over the calculated load requirements — a finding that would have favored Engineer A's position.
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 71
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T11:17:33.458831+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 71
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T11:17:33.458831+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: In adversarial litigation contexts, the obligation to produce complete and objective technical reports is not reduced by the retaining client's litigation interests; omitting material findings that favor the opposing party constitutes a violation of professional objectivity.
invokedby: Engineer B Adversarial Litigation Testing Supervisor
principleclass: Adversarial Engagement Objectivity Obligation
sourcetext: Engineer B did not state anywhere in the report that these 19 piles, according to the pile driving records, had been driven to essential refusal and that, applying accepted wave equation calculations, the piles would have indicated a strength several multiples over the calculated load requirements.
tensionresolution: The adversarial engagement context does not override the engineer's obligation to include all material technical findings; the duty to the profession and to truthful reporting supersedes client litigation interests.
textreferences: Additionally, Engineer B did not report that the dynamic test equipment had failed.
textreferences: Engineer B did not state anywhere in the report that these 19 piles, according to the pile driving records, had been driven to essential refusal and that, applying accepted wave equation calculations, the piles would have indicated a strength several multiples over the calculated load requirements.
wasattributedto: Case 71 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:37:51.639397
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

Available Evidence Consultation Obligation Violated by Engineer B
type: AvailableEvidenceConsultationObligationBeforeAdverseTechnicalOpinion
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Adverse technical conclusions about pile safety factors
appliedto: Test pile driving program
balancingwith: Scope-of-Work Limitation as Incomplete Ethical Defense
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer B failed to communicate with Engineer A's on-site representative, and failed to inquire from the contractor, workers, or others on the job — constituting a failure of fact-gathering diligence before rendering adverse technical conclusions about the pile driving program.
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 71
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T11:25:04.851822+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 71
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T11:25:04.851822+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Engineer B's failure to consult available evidence sources — including the on-site representative, contractor, and workers — before rendering adverse conclusions about pile performance violated the diligent fact-gathering obligation that applies to engineers forming adverse technical opinions.
invokedby: Engineer B Adversarial Litigation Testing Supervisor
principleclass: Available Evidence Consultation Obligation Before Adverse Technical Opinion
sourcetext: Engineer B's failure to inquire from the contractor, workers or others on the job is a failure of fact gathering diligence.
tensionresolution: The fact-gathering diligence obligation was not satisfied by Engineer B's contractual scope; the obligation to consult available evidence sources extended to accessible on-site personnel.
textreferences: Engineer B's failure to inquire from the contractor, workers or others on the job is a failure of fact gathering diligence.
textreferences: It is clear that Engineer B may be criticized for his failure to communicate with Engineer A's on-site representative.
wasattributedto: Case 71 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:37:51.647431
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

Available Evidence Consultation Violated By Engineer B Ignoring On-Site Representatives
type: AvailableEvidenceConsultationObligationBeforeAdverseTechnicalOpinion
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer B's investigation and report on pile adequacy
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer B formed and published adverse technical opinions about the adequacy of Engineer A's pile design without consulting Engineer A's on-site representatives who were available and could have testified about the accuracy of the pile driving records, and without inquiring from contractors or workers about why 19 piles met driving refusal prior to predicted depth.
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 71
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T11:17:33.458831+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 71
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T11:17:33.458831+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Before rendering adverse technical opinions about another engineer's work, particularly in litigation contexts, the engineer must make reasonable efforts to consult available evidence sources; failure to do so when sources are accessible constitutes a breach of professional diligence.
invokedby: Engineer B Adversarial Litigation Testing Supervisor
principleclass: Available Evidence Consultation Obligation Before Adverse Technical Opinion
sourcetext: At no time during the development of Engineer B's report did Engineer B talk to any representative of Engineer A, even though Engineer A's on-site representatives were available to testify as to the accuracy of the pile driving records.
tensionresolution: The obligation to consult available evidence is not overridden by client litigation strategy; the engineer's duty to form opinions on adequate evidentiary bases is independent of client preferences.
textreferences: At no time during the development of Engineer B's report did Engineer B talk to any representative of Engineer A, even though Engineer A's on-site representatives were available to testify as to the accuracy of the pile driving records.
textreferences: No effort was made by Engineer B to inquire from contractors, workers, or others on the job to verify or refute his theories about why the 19 piles met driving refusal prior to predicted depth.
wasattributedto: Case 71 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:37:51.639890
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

Case 71 Timeline
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:37:51.656019
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

CausalLink_90-Pile Foundation Design
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:53:25.292315
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

CausalLink_Contradictory Post-Report Expl
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:53:25.296169
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

CausalLink_Decision to Exclude Stakeholde
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:53:25.296112
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

CausalLink_Engineer A Retains Independent
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:53:25.295998
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

CausalLink_Inconsistent Pile Depth Decisi
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:53:25.296084
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

CausalLink_Mediation Settlement Agreement
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:53:25.295938
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

CausalLink_Municipality Retains Engineer
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:53:25.295968
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

CausalLink_Pre-Count Hammer Drop Decision
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:53:25.296055
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

CausalLink_Selective Omission in Report
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:53:25.296140
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

CausalLink_Vibratory Hammer Substitution
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:53:25.296027
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

Client Disservice Through Incomplete Reporting Invoked Against Engineer B
type: ClientDisserviceThroughIncompleteReportingProhibition
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Municipality Litigation Dispute Client
appliedto: Test pile driving report
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
balancingwith: Loyalty
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer B's omission of pile driving records from his report not only violated professional completeness obligations but also disserved the municipality by potentially misdirecting conclusions and depriving the municipality of the opportunity to present a rational basis for discounting unfavorable evidence.
confidence: 0.87
discoveredincase: 71
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T11:25:04.851822+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 71
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T11:25:04.851822+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: In this context, the principle establishes that Engineer B's selective reporting, intended to serve the municipality's litigation interests, paradoxically disserved those interests by foreclosing the legitimate evidentiary strategy of presenting and then discounting the pile driving records.
invokedby: Engineer B Adversarial Litigation Testing Supervisor
principleclass: Client Disservice Through Incomplete Reporting Prohibition
sourcetext: As an engineering document the report is incomplete and does a disservice to Engineer B's client municipality by potentially misdirecting a conclusion.
tensionresolution: Genuine client service required completeness, not selective advocacy; the municipality's long-term interests were better served by a complete report that addressed and discounted unfavorable evidence than by a report that suppressed it.
textreferences: As an engineering document the report is incomplete and does a disservice to Engineer B's client municipality by potentially misdirecting a conclusion.
textreferences: by excluding the pile driving records, Engineer B has denied himself the opportunity to present a rational for discounting their value, and thereby to serve his client.
wasattributedto: Case 71 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:37:51.647917
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

Completeness Violated By Engineer B Omitting Equipment Failure
type: CompletenessandNon-SelectivityinProfessionalAdvisoryOpinions
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer B's concluding report on test pile driving validity
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer B's concluding report omitted the material fact that dynamic test equipment had failed during the test pile driving program, a fact directly bearing on the validity and reliability of the test results upon which the report's conclusions were based.
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 71
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T11:17:33.458831+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 71
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T11:17:33.458831+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Completeness in professional reports requires disclosure of all material facts affecting the reliability of findings, including equipment failures that compromise test validity, regardless of whether their disclosure would undermine the report's conclusions.
invokedby: Engineer B Adversarial Litigation Testing Supervisor
principleclass: Completeness and Non-Selectivity in Professional Advisory Opinions
sourcetext: Additionally, Engineer B did not report that the dynamic test equipment had failed.
tensionresolution: The obligation to present complete and non-selective technical findings overrides the client's interest in a report that supports their litigation position.
textreferences: Additionally, Engineer B did not report that the dynamic test equipment had failed.
textreferences: The geotechnical consultant testified and showed that dynamic test equipment had failed during the test and that the test piles were not driven to the same depth of penetration that apparently was required for the plug to form in the original piles.
wasattributedto: Case 71 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:37:51.639740
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

Completeness and Non-Selectivity Obligation Invoked via Code Requirement
type: CompletenessandNon-SelectivityinProfessionalAdvisoryOpinions
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Code III.1.f (no longer exists)
appliedto: Test pile driving report
balancingwith: Adversarial Engagement Objectivity Obligation
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The Code of Ethics provision requiring engineers to 'include all relevant and pertinent information in such report, statements or testimony' was directly invoked to establish that Engineer B's selective omission of material pile driving facts violated the completeness obligation applicable to professional engineering reports.
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 71
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T11:25:04.851822+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 71
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T11:25:04.851822+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The completeness obligation required Engineer B to include all relevant and pertinent information — including equipment failure and pile refusal data — regardless of whether those facts supported or undermined the municipality's litigation position.
invokedby: Engineer B Adversarial Litigation Testing Supervisor
principleclass: Completeness and Non-Selectivity in Professional Advisory Opinions
sourcetext: Neither interpretation is tolerated by the Code of Ethics which requires that engineers 'shall include all relevant and pertinent information in such report, statements or testimony.'
tensionresolution: The completeness obligation was non-negotiable; no adversarial or client loyalty rationale could justify selective omission of material technical findings.
textreferences: Neither interpretation is tolerated by the Code of Ethics which requires that engineers 'shall include all relevant and pertinent information in such report, statements or testimony.'
wasattributedto: Case 71 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:37:51.648238
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

Conclusion_1
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 1
conclusion number: 1
conclusion text: It was unethical for Engineer B to issue his report without mentioning the failed operation of the testing equipment.
conclusion type: board_explicit
extraction reasoning: Parsed from imported case text (no LLM)
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:53:25.293382
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

Conclusion_101
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 1
answers question2: 101
cited provision1: II.3.a.
cited provision2: III.3.a.
conclusion number: 101
conclusion text: Beyond the Board's finding that Engineer B's omission of the failed dynamic test equipment was unethical, the omission is compounded by the fact that the equipment failure was not merely a procedural footnote but a foundational validity question for the entire test program. A report that draws adverse conclusions about pile adequacy while suppressing the fact that the primary measurement instrument malfunctioned does not simply lack completeness — it affirmatively misrepresents the evidentiary basis of its conclusions. The reader of Engineer B's report would reasonably assume that the dynamic testing was successfully executed and that the results were technically reliable. That assumption, induced by silence, constitutes a material misrepresentation by omission under Code Section III.3.a, which prohibits statements containing omissions that would create a false impression. The ethical violation is therefore not only one of incompleteness but of constructive deception.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:53:25.293684
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

Conclusion_102
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 2
answers question2: 103
cited provision1: II.3.b.
cited provision2: II.3.a.
conclusion number: 102
conclusion text: The Board's conclusion that Engineer B acted unethically by failing to communicate with Engineer A's representatives should be extended to recognize that this failure was not merely a procedural lapse but a violation of the due diligence standard that underlies any technically credible adverse opinion. Engineer B drew specific adverse conclusions about why 19 piles failed to reach predicted depth — including a theory about pile venting and closure plate air escape — without consulting the people who were physically present during the original pile driving and who could have confirmed or refuted that theory with firsthand observational knowledge. Under Code Section II.3.b, a publicly expressed technical opinion must be founded upon knowledge of the facts. An opinion about pile behavior that deliberately excludes available firsthand testimony about the conditions under which those piles were driven cannot satisfy that standard. The failure to consult is therefore not merely a communication lapse but an evidentiary deficiency that undermines the technical legitimacy of Engineer B's conclusions at their foundation.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:53:25.293762
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

Conclusion_103
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 3
answers question2: 103
cited provision1: II.3.b.
cited provision2: II.3.c.
cited provision3: II.3.a.
conclusion number: 103
conclusion text: The Board's finding that Engineer B failed to communicate with contractor supervisors and workers should be further analyzed in light of Engineer B's own post-report explanation. Engineer B stated that the pile driving records 'look suspicious' and raised a specific theory about pile venting through a closure plate. This means Engineer B had identified a concrete factual hypothesis — one that could have been tested by asking the workers and supervisors who installed those closure plates and drove those piles. The failure to consult available witnesses was therefore not a passive omission but an active choice to advance a theory while deliberately avoiding the most direct means of testing it. This pattern — forming an adverse conclusion, identifying a specific mechanism to explain it, and then declining to consult those who could verify or refute that mechanism — reflects a posture of advocacy rather than investigation, which is precisely the conduct Code Section II.3.c prohibits when it bars technical arguments inspired by self-interest or the interest of other parties rather than by objective analysis.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:53:25.293847
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

Conclusion_104
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 4
answers question2: 202
cited provision1: II.3.a.
cited provision2: III.3.a.
cited provision3: II.3.c.
conclusion number: 104
conclusion text: The Board's conclusion that Engineer B acted unethically by omitting the wave equation analysis and pile refusal data should be extended to address the structural severity of that omission. The omitted information was not merely supplementary context — it was directly exculpatory of Engineer A's design and directly contradicted Engineer B's adverse conclusions. Wave equation analysis applied to the pile driving records would have indicated load capacity several multiples above design requirements for the very 19 piles Engineer B declared inadequate. Omitting this from a report that purports to evaluate pile adequacy is not a matter of scope selection; it is the suppression of the primary counter-evidence to the report's central finding. Under Code Section III.3.a, an omission that would create a false impression of the facts is prohibited. A report concluding that 19 piles are inadequate, written with knowledge that accepted methodology applied to available records would show those same piles to be several times over-capacity, creates precisely such a false impression. The omission is not incidental but constitutive of the report's misleading character.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:53:25.293953
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

Conclusion_105
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 1
answers question2: 2
answers question3: 3
answers question4: 4
answers question5: 101
answers question6: 102
answers question7: 202
answers question8: 203
cited provision1: II.3.a.
cited provision2: II.3.b.
cited provision3: II.3.c.
cited provision4: III.1.a.
cited provision5: III.3.a.
conclusion number: 105
conclusion text: Across all four Board conclusions, a unifying analytical extension is that Engineer B's conduct represents a systematic pattern rather than a collection of isolated lapses. The omission of equipment failure, the refusal to consult available witnesses, the exclusion of wave equation results, and the post-report issuance of contradictory explanations are not independent errors — they form a coherent pattern of client-aligned selective reporting in which every available piece of evidence favorable to Engineer A was either ignored, excluded, or explained away after the fact. This pattern is analytically significant because it shifts the ethical characterization from negligence to something closer to deliberate advocacy dressed as objective engineering analysis. Code Section II.3.c explicitly prohibits technical statements inspired by the interest of other parties, and Code Section III.1.a prohibits distortion or alteration of facts. When the totality of Engineer B's choices is viewed together — the vibratory hammer substitution, the pre-count hammer drops, the non-consultation of witnesses, the wave equation omission, the equipment failure suppression, and the contradictory scope-versus-disbelief explanations — the cumulative picture is of a report engineered to serve the municipality's litigation position rather than to objectively evaluate the piles. This systemic dimension of the violation is more serious than any single omission and warrants recognition as an independent analytical conclusion beyond the Board's item-by-item findings.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:53:25.294081
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

Conclusion_106
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 4
answers question2: 202
cited provision1: II.3.a.
cited provision2: III.3.a.
cited provision3: III.1.a.
conclusion number: 106
conclusion text: The Board's conclusions collectively leave unaddressed the question of whether Engineer B's scope-of-work defense — the claim that pile driving records were outside the contractual scope — could ever constitute a legitimate ethical shield. The analytical answer is that it cannot, for a specific structural reason: the scope-of-work argument might excuse Engineer B from proactively seeking out records that were not provided, but it cannot excuse Engineer B from disclosing records that were available and that directly contradicted the report's adverse conclusions. The pile driving records existed, were accessible, and showed that the 19 questioned piles had been driven to essential refusal. Once Engineer B was aware of those records — as the post-report explanation about 'suspicious' records confirms — the scope-of-work limitation became irrelevant to the disclosure obligation. An engineer cannot contractually agree to ignore exculpatory evidence when drawing adverse professional conclusions, because the obligation of completeness and non-selectivity under Code Section II.3.a runs to the profession and the public, not merely to the client. The scope-of-work defense therefore fails not because scope limitations are never legitimate, but because they cannot override the engineer's independent professional obligation to disclose material facts that bear directly on the validity of adverse conclusions being issued under the engineer's professional seal.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:53:25.294186
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

Conclusion_2
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 2
conclusion number: 2
conclusion text: It was unethical for Engineer B to not communicate with any representative of Engineer A about the project.
conclusion type: board_explicit
extraction reasoning: Parsed from imported case text (no LLM)
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:53:25.293454
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

Conclusion_201
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 101
cited provision1: III.1.a.
cited provision2: II.3.a.
conclusion number: 201
conclusion text: In response to Q101: Engineer B's two contradictory post-report explanations — first claiming the pile driving records were outside his scope of work, then claiming he simply did not believe them — constitute an independent ethical violation distinct from the substantive omissions in the report itself. The scope-of-work explanation, if true, would mean Engineer B never evaluated the records at all; the disbelief explanation, if true, would mean he evaluated them and consciously rejected them without disclosure. These two positions are mutually exclusive, and Engineer B offered both without reconciliation. Under Code Section III.1.a, engineers shall not distort or alter the facts, and the issuance of contradictory professional justifications for a consequential investigative choice — particularly one that affected adverse conclusions about another engineer's work — constitutes a distortion of the factual basis of the report's methodology. The honesty obligation is not limited to the report document itself; it extends to how an engineer accounts for his professional choices when queried. Engineer B's failure to provide a coherent, truthful account of why the pile driving records were excluded independently violates the honesty and non-distortion obligations of the Code, regardless of whether the underlying omissions in the report are separately found to be violations.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:53:25.294282
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

Conclusion_202
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 102
cited provision1: II.3.a.
cited provision2: II.3.b.
cited provision3: III.3.a.
conclusion number: 202
conclusion text: In response to Q102: Engineer B's use of a vibratory hammer in the test pile program — when the original piles were not driven with a vibratory hammer — and his failure to replicate original penetration depth conditions constitute an independent ethical violation that precedes and underlies the written report's omissions. An engineer drawing adverse technical conclusions about a pile design based on test results is ethically obligated to ensure that those tests replicate the conditions of the original work with sufficient fidelity to make the comparison valid. When Engineer B substituted a vibratory hammer, failed to achieve equivalent penetration depth, and allowed pre-count hammer drops that Engineer A's geotechnical consultant credibly testified would have broken the pile bond and undervalued skin friction, he produced test results that were structurally incomparable to the original pile driving program. Issuing adverse conclusions derived from such a compromised test program, without disclosing the methodological departures, violates Code Section II.3.a's requirement that professional reports be objective and truthful, and Code Section II.3.b's requirement that technical opinions be founded upon knowledge of the facts and competent engineering. The methodological inconsistency is not merely a technical imperfection; it is an ethical failure because Engineer B drew definitive adverse conclusions from data he knew or should have known was not a valid basis for comparison with the original work.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:53:25.294381
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

Conclusion_203
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 103
answers question2: 2
cited provision1: II.3.a.
cited provision2: II.3.b.
cited provision3: III.3.a.
conclusion number: 203
conclusion text: In response to Q103: It was unethical for Engineer B to issue adverse conclusions about Engineer A's pile design without first notifying Engineer A that such an evaluation was underway. Engineer A's on-site representatives possessed direct firsthand knowledge of the pile driving conditions, the accuracy of the pile driving records, and the circumstances surrounding the 19 piles that Engineer B concluded were inadequate. This knowledge was material to the very conclusions Engineer B was drawing. The ethical obligation here is not merely procedural courtesy; it is grounded in Code Section II.3.b's requirement that technical opinions be founded upon knowledge of the facts. An engineer who draws adverse conclusions about another engineer's design while deliberately bypassing available witnesses who could confirm or refute the factual premises of those conclusions has not founded his opinion on knowledge of the facts — he has founded it on a selectively assembled subset of facts. Furthermore, Code Section III.3.a prohibits statements containing material omissions that create false impressions. A report that omits the perspective of the engineer whose work is being adversely evaluated, when that engineer's representatives were available and willing to provide relevant testimony, creates a false impression of investigative completeness. The Board's conclusion that Engineer B's failure to communicate with Engineer A's representatives was unethical is correct, and this analysis extends that conclusion by identifying the specific mechanism: the failure to consult available witnesses directly undermined the factual foundation required to support the adverse technical opinion Engineer B issued.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:53:25.294491
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

Conclusion_204
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 104
answers question2: 202
cited provision1: II.3.a.
cited provision2: II.3.c.
cited provision3: III.3.a.
conclusion number: 204
conclusion text: In response to Q104: While the primary ethical burden falls on Engineer B as the licensed professional, the municipality's role in defining Engineer B's scope of work in a manner that may have structurally precluded complete and objective reporting raises a secondary ethical question about institutional responsibility in adversarial engineering engagements. However, under the NSPE Code, the licensed engineer bears non-delegable professional obligations that cannot be contracted away by a client's scope definition. Code Section II.3.c prohibits technical statements inspired by self-interest or the interest of other parties, and Code Section III.3.a prohibits material omissions that create false impressions — neither provision contains an exception for client-defined scope limitations. Engineer B's own post-report statement that the pile driving records were 'not in our scope of work' attempts to transfer ethical responsibility to the municipality's contractual framing, but this transfer is ethically impermissible. A licensed engineer who accepts an engagement to evaluate pile adequacy and issue a professional report cannot discharge his completeness and objectivity obligations by pointing to a scope-of-work document that did not require him to consult material evidence. The scope-of-work limitation is an incomplete ethical defense precisely because professional obligations are imposed by the Code on the engineer, not negotiated away by the client. If Engineer B believed the defined scope was too narrow to permit an objective and complete report, his ethical obligation was to expand the scope, disclose the limitation prominently in the report, or decline the engagement — not to issue adverse conclusions while silently omitting contradictory evidence.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:53:25.294587
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

Conclusion_205
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 201
cited provision1: II.3.a.
cited provision2: II.3.c.
cited provision3: III.3.a.
conclusion number: 205
conclusion text: In response to Q201: The tension between the Faithful Agent Obligation and the Completeness and Non-Selectivity Obligation is real but resolvable under the NSPE Code, and the Code resolves it unambiguously in favor of completeness. The Faithful Agent Obligation requires Engineer B to serve the municipality's legitimate interests, but it does not authorize selective reporting that omits material findings favorable to the opposing party. Code Section II.3.c explicitly prohibits technical statements inspired by the interest of other parties, which means the faithful agent obligation cannot be used to justify omitting wave equation results or equipment failure disclosures simply because those findings would weaken the municipality's litigation position. The resolution the Code demands is that a retained litigation expert serve the client's legitimate interest in obtaining an accurate, complete, and professionally defensible technical assessment — not the client's tactical interest in receiving a selectively favorable report. An engineer who produces a selectively favorable report ultimately disserves even the client, because the report's credibility is undermined when the omissions are exposed, as occurred here when Engineer A's geotechnical consultant testified about the equipment failure and wave equation results. The faithful agent obligation and the completeness obligation are therefore not genuinely in conflict when properly understood: a faithful agent in the professional engineering context is one who provides complete and objective analysis, not one who filters findings to serve litigation strategy.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:53:25.294681
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

Conclusion_206
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 202
cited provision1: II.3.b.
cited provision2: III.3.a.
cited provision3: II.3.a.
conclusion number: 206
conclusion text: In response to Q202: A contractually defined scope of work cannot legitimately excuse an engineer from consulting material evidence that is readily available and directly relevant to the adverse conclusions being drawn. The scope-of-work defense fails on both logical and ethical grounds. Logically, if Engineer B's scope did not include review of pile driving records, then Engineer B lacked the evidentiary foundation to draw adverse conclusions about the 19 piles — because the pile driving records were the primary available evidence about what actually happened during original pile installation. An engineer cannot simultaneously claim that reviewing the pile driving records was outside his scope and that he is competent to conclude that the 19 piles were inadequate, because the adequacy conclusion depends on understanding the original driving conditions that the records document. Ethically, Code Section II.3.b requires that technical opinions be founded upon knowledge of the facts. A scope-of-work limitation that excludes the primary factual record relevant to the opinion being issued does not satisfy this requirement; it defeats it. The Available Evidence Consultation Obligation is not waived by contractual scope definition. If the scope was genuinely too narrow to permit a fact-grounded opinion, Engineer B was obligated to either expand the scope, qualify the opinion prominently, or decline to issue the adverse conclusion. Issuing an unqualified adverse conclusion while hiding behind a scope limitation that excluded the most relevant contradictory evidence is precisely the kind of material omission that Code Section III.3.a prohibits.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:53:25.294779
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

Conclusion_207
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 203
cited provision1: II.3.a.
cited provision2: II.3.c.
cited provision3: III.3.a.
conclusion number: 207
conclusion text: In response to Q203: The tension between the Technical Facts Non-Adversarial Character principle and the Adversarial Engagement Objectivity Obligation reveals a genuine structural problem in how litigation engineering is practiced, but the NSPE Code resolves that tension clearly in favor of objective disclosure over client advocacy. The Technical Facts Non-Adversarial Character principle holds that factual findings — such as wave equation results showing piles driven to essential refusal at several multiples of design load, or the failure of dynamic test equipment — are not legitimately subject to adversarial framing. These are not matters of engineering judgment or interpretive discretion; they are documented facts. The Adversarial Engagement Objectivity Obligation recognizes that engineers retained in litigation contexts face structural pressure to produce client-favorable findings, but it does not relax the objectivity standard — it applies it with heightened vigilance precisely because the adversarial context creates the greatest temptation to depart from it. Code Section II.3.c's prohibition on statements inspired by the interest of other parties is most directly applicable in exactly this context. The internal tension in litigation engineering practice — where engineers are paid by one party to evaluate the work of another — is not resolved by the Code permitting selective reporting; it is resolved by the Code requiring that the engineer's professional obligations to objectivity and completeness override the client's tactical preferences. Engineer B's report illustrates what happens when this tension is resolved in the wrong direction: factual findings that contradict the client's litigation position are omitted, and the resulting report is neither professionally defensible nor ultimately useful to the client whose credibility depends on the report's integrity.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:53:25.294863
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

Conclusion_208
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 204
cited provision1: III.3.a.
cited provision2: II.3.a.
cited provision3: III.1.a.
conclusion number: 208
conclusion text: In response to Q204: The burden of determining materiality of an omission rests with the reporting engineer, not the client, and the professional standard — not the engineer's subjective judgment — defines the threshold. The Omission Materiality Threshold principle requires disclosure when an omission crosses a threshold of significance, but that threshold is not set by what the engineer finds convenient to report or what the client wishes to receive. In this case, the wave equation analysis showing that the 19 questioned piles had been driven to essential refusal at several multiples of design load capacity is unambiguously material: it is the single most important piece of evidence bearing on whether those piles were adequate, and it directly contradicts Engineer B's adverse conclusion. Similarly, the failure of dynamic test equipment is material because it undermines the reliability of the test results on which Engineer B's conclusions were based. No reasonable professional standard could classify either of these omissions as below the materiality threshold. The ethical burden falls on Engineer B as the licensed professional to identify and disclose material findings, including those that contradict his conclusions. Code Section III.3.a's prohibition on statements containing material omissions that create false impressions does not permit the engineer to delegate materiality determinations to the client or to define materiality by reference to what supports the client's position. The materiality standard is objective: would a competent reviewing engineer, or a party relying on the report, consider the omitted information significant to evaluating the report's conclusions? By that standard, both omissions in Engineer B's report were clearly material, and the failure to disclose them violated the Code.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:53:25.294943
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

Conclusion_209
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 301
answers question2: 1
cited provision1: II.3.a.
cited provision2: III.3.a.
cited provision3: III.1.a.
conclusion number: 209
conclusion text: In response to Q301: From a deontological perspective, Engineer B violated a categorical duty of completeness and non-selectivity by omitting the failed dynamic test equipment from his report, and this violation is independent of whether the omission ultimately affected the structural conclusions about the 19 piles. The deontological analysis is straightforward: the duty to report truthfully and completely is not a consequentialist obligation that is discharged if the omitted information would not have changed the outcome. Code Section II.3.a requires that professional reports be objective and truthful, and Code Section III.3.a prohibits material omissions that create false impressions. These are categorical obligations. A report that presents test results without disclosing that the test equipment failed during the test is not a truthful report, regardless of whether the engineer believes the equipment failure did not affect the results. The engineer's subjective belief about the impact of the equipment failure does not discharge the duty to disclose the failure; it is precisely the kind of judgment that the reader of the report — and the parties relying on it — are entitled to make for themselves. By omitting the equipment failure, Engineer B substituted his own undisclosed judgment for the informed evaluation of the report's audience, which is the paradigmatic form of the deontological violation the completeness obligation is designed to prevent.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:53:25.295026
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

Conclusion_210
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 302
answers question2: 101
cited provision1: III.1.a.
cited provision2: II.3.a.
conclusion number: 210
conclusion text: In response to Q302: From a virtue ethics perspective, Engineer B failed to demonstrate the professional integrity expected of a competent and honest engineering expert. The virtue ethics analysis focuses not on whether specific rules were violated but on whether Engineer B exhibited the character traits — honesty, diligence, intellectual courage, and professional integrity — that define a trustworthy engineering expert. The contradictory post-report explanations are particularly revealing from this perspective: a virtuous engineer, when queried about investigative choices, would provide a transparent, coherent, and honest account of those choices, even if that account revealed limitations or errors. Instead, Engineer B offered two mutually exclusive explanations — scope exclusion and disbelief — without acknowledging the contradiction or explaining which was true. This pattern of explanation suggests not an engineer who made a difficult judgment call and can account for it, but an engineer who is constructing post-hoc justifications for choices made on other grounds. The virtue ethics framework also highlights Engineer B's failure of intellectual courage: a virtuous expert retained in an adversarial context would have the professional courage to report findings that contradict the client's position, understanding that his value as an expert depends on his credibility, and his credibility depends on his completeness. Engineer B's selective reporting reflects a failure of the character virtues that the engineering profession depends on its members to exhibit, particularly when retained in high-stakes adversarial proceedings where the temptation to accommodate client preferences is greatest.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:53:25.295125
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

Conclusion_211
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 303
answers question2: 1
answers question3: 2
answers question4: 3
answers question5: 4
cited provision1: II.3.a.
cited provision2: II.3.c.
cited provision3: III.3.a.
conclusion number: 211
conclusion text: In response to Q303: From a consequentialist perspective, Engineer B's selective omissions produced a net harm that substantially outweighed any benefit derived from the narrowly scoped report he delivered. The identifiable harms include: reputational injury to Engineer A, whose pile design was publicly characterized as inadequate based on a report that omitted the most significant evidence of adequacy; distortion of the mediation record, which was corrected only because Engineer A's independent geotechnical consultant testified about the equipment failure and wave equation results — testimony that should not have been necessary if Engineer B had reported completely; potential disservice to the municipality as client, whose litigation position was ultimately undermined by the exposure of the report's omissions and whose credibility as a party relying on expert testimony was damaged; and harm to the integrity of the engineering expert witness process more broadly, as selective reporting by retained experts erodes the reliability of technical testimony in dispute resolution proceedings. The only identifiable benefit of the selective report was a short-term tactical advantage for the municipality in the mediation — an advantage that was negated when the omissions were exposed. A consequentialist analysis therefore confirms what the deontological and virtue ethics analyses independently establish: Engineer B's selective reporting was ethically indefensible from every major normative framework, and the Board's conclusions finding multiple violations are well-supported across all three analytical traditions.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:53:25.295227
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

Conclusion_212
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 304
answers question2: 2
answers question3: 3
cited provision1: II.3.b.
cited provision2: II.3.a.
cited provision3: III.3.a.
conclusion number: 212
conclusion text: In response to Q304: From a deontological perspective, Engineer B breached a duty of due diligence by drawing adverse technical conclusions about Engineer A's pile design without first consulting available on-site representatives, contractor supervisors, and workers who possessed direct firsthand knowledge of the pile driving conditions. The deontological duty of due diligence in technical investigation is grounded in Code Section II.3.b's requirement that technical opinions be founded upon knowledge of the facts. This is not a consequentialist obligation that is satisfied if the engineer happens to reach the correct conclusion without consulting available witnesses; it is a procedural duty that requires the engineer to make reasonable efforts to obtain the relevant facts before issuing an opinion. Engineer B's failure to consult Engineer A's on-site representatives — who were available and willing to testify about the accuracy of the pile driving records — and his failure to inquire of contractors, workers, or others present during construction, meant that his adverse conclusions were issued without the factual foundation the Code requires. The deontological analysis is particularly sharp here because the witnesses Engineer B failed to consult were the primary available sources of firsthand knowledge about the very conditions his adverse conclusions addressed. A duty of due diligence that does not require consultation of available firsthand witnesses before issuing adverse professional conclusions would be a duty without meaningful content. Engineer B's failure to consult these witnesses was therefore not merely a procedural oversight; it was a substantive breach of the investigative diligence obligation that underlies the requirement that technical opinions be fact-grounded.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:53:25.295336
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

Conclusion_213
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 401
answers question2: 1
cited provision1: II.3.a.
cited provision2: III.3.a.
conclusion number: 213
conclusion text: In response to Q401: If Engineer B had disclosed the dynamic test equipment failure in his report, the municipality, the mediating parties, and the reviewing technical community would have been in a position to properly weight the test pile results — and Engineer B's adverse conclusions about the 19 piles would almost certainly not have survived scrutiny under those conditions. The equipment failure is not a peripheral detail; it goes to the reliability of the test data on which Engineer B's conclusions were based. A disclosed equipment failure would have prompted the mediating parties and their technical advisors to ask whether the test results were valid, whether the failure affected the blow count records, and whether the test program should be repeated under controlled conditions. These are exactly the questions that Engineer A's geotechnical consultant raised in testimony — questions that were only necessary because Engineer B had not raised them himself. The counterfactual disclosure would also have interacted with the other methodological departures — the vibratory hammer substitution, the pre-count hammer drops, the failure to replicate penetration depth — to create a picture of a test program whose results were of limited comparability to the original pile driving. Under those conditions of full disclosure, the adverse conclusions about the 19 piles would have been recognized as resting on a compromised evidentiary foundation, and the mediation record would have reflected a more balanced and accurate technical picture.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:53:25.295474
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

Conclusion_214
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 402
answers question2: 2
answers question3: 3
cited provision1: II.3.b.
cited provision2: II.3.a.
conclusion number: 214
conclusion text: In response to Q402: If Engineer B had consulted Engineer A's on-site representatives and the contractor's supervisors and workers before finalizing his report, it is highly probable that he would have obtained information sufficient to either substantiate or abandon his theory that the 19 piles were inadequate — and the report's conclusions would likely have materially differed. The on-site representatives were available to testify as to the accuracy of the pile driving records, which Engineer B's post-report statements reveal he found suspicious. A direct consultation would have allowed Engineer B to either confirm his suspicions with specific factual evidence or discover that the records were accurate and that the 19 piles had in fact been driven to essential refusal. The contractor's supervisors and workers could have provided firsthand accounts of the driving conditions, the behavior of the piles during installation, and any anomalies that might explain why the 19 piles reached refusal before predicted depth. This information was directly relevant to Engineer B's theory about why the piles met driving refusal prior to predicted depth — a theory he advanced in his report without having consulted the people most likely to know the answer. The counterfactual consultation would have either strengthened Engineer B's conclusions with factual support or revealed that his theory was unsupported, in either case producing a more professionally defensible and factually grounded report than the one he issued.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:53:25.295563
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

Conclusion_215
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 403
answers question2: 4
cited provision1: II.3.c.
cited provision2: II.3.a.
cited provision3: III.3.a.
conclusion number: 215
conclusion text: In response to Q403: If Engineer B had applied wave equation analysis to the pile driving records and disclosed that the 19 questioned piles had been driven to essential refusal — indicating load capacity several multiples above design requirements — the municipality's litigation position would have been materially weakened, and this potential outcome provides the most plausible explanation for Engineer B's selective reporting choices. The wave equation analysis was an accepted methodology directly applicable to the pile driving records, and its results would have shown that the 19 piles Engineer B characterized as inadequate were in fact among the strongest piles in the foundation, having been driven to refusal at capacities far exceeding design requirements. This finding would have directly contradicted Engineer B's depth-based adequacy analysis and would have required either a reconciliation of the two methodologies or an acknowledgment that the depth-based analysis was insufficient standing alone. The municipality's litigation position — that Engineer A's pile design was inadequate and that the settlement cost should be borne primarily by Engineer A — would have been substantially undermined by a report that acknowledged the 19 piles met refusal at several multiples of design load. The pattern of omissions in Engineer B's report — excluding wave equation results, excluding equipment failure disclosure, excluding consultation with Engineer A's representatives, excluding consultation with on-site witnesses — is consistent with a systematic effort to produce a report that supported the municipality's litigation position rather than a complete and objective technical assessment. Code Section II.3.c's prohibition on statements inspired by the interest of other parties is precisely targeted at this pattern of conduct.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:53:25.295647
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

Conclusion_3
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 3
conclusion number: 3
conclusion text: It was unethical for Engineer B to not communicate with the contractor’s supervisor and workers who were on the job during construction.
conclusion type: board_explicit
extraction reasoning: Parsed from imported case text (no LLM)
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:53:25.293525
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

Conclusion_301
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 201
answers question2: 205
cited provision1: II.3.a.
cited provision2: II.3.c.
cited provision3: III.3.a.
conclusion number: 301
conclusion text: The tension between the Faithful Agent Obligation — which required Engineer B to serve the municipality's litigation interests — and the Completeness and Non-Selectivity Obligation — which required Engineer B to report all material findings regardless of their effect on the client's position — was resolved by the Board unambiguously in favor of completeness. The case establishes that the Faithful Agent Obligation does not license selective reporting; it is bounded by the engineer's independent duty to be objective and truthful. Engineer B's role as a retained litigation expert did not transform him into an advocate whose report could be shaped by the client's adversarial interests. The NSPE Code provisions requiring objective and truthful professional reports, prohibiting material omissions, and forbidding statements inspired by self-interest or the interests of other parties operate as a ceiling on what client loyalty can demand. This case teaches that when the Faithful Agent Obligation and the Completeness Obligation appear to conflict, the conflict is resolved not by balancing but by subordination: client loyalty is legitimate only within the space defined by the engineer's independent professional obligations, and it cannot occupy that space by displacing them.
conclusion type: principle_synthesis
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:53:25.295731
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

Conclusion_302
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 202
answers question2: 206
cited provision1: II.3.a.
cited provision2: III.1.a.
cited provision3: III.3.a.
conclusion number: 302
conclusion text: The Scope-of-Work Limitation as Incomplete Ethical Defense principle and the Available Evidence Consultation Obligation were placed in direct tension by Engineer B's first post-report explanation — that the pile driving records were outside his scope of work — and the Board's resolution of that tension carries significant doctrinal weight. The case establishes that a contractually defined scope of work cannot function as an ethical shield when the omitted evidence is (a) readily available, (b) directly material to the adverse conclusions being drawn, and (c) of a character that, if disclosed, would have permitted the reviewing community to properly evaluate those conclusions. The scope-of-work defense is legitimate when it defines the boundaries of an engineer's affirmative investigative duties; it is not legitimate when it is invoked to justify the omission of known, available, and dispositive evidence from a report whose conclusions depend on that evidence being absent. This distinction — between a scope limitation that defines what an engineer must do and a scope limitation invoked to conceal what an engineer already knows — is the critical line the Board implicitly drew. Engineer B's second explanation, that the records were simply not believed, inadvertently confirmed that the records were known and considered, which collapsed the scope-of-work defense entirely and revealed the omission as an intentional choice rather than a jurisdictional boundary.
conclusion type: principle_synthesis
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:53:25.295817
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

Conclusion_303
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 203
answers question2: 207
cited provision1: II.3.a.
cited provision2: II.3.b.
cited provision3: II.3.c.
cited provision4: III.3.a.
conclusion number: 303
conclusion text: The Technical Facts Non-Adversarial Character principle — which holds that objective technical findings such as wave equation results, pile driving refusal data, and equipment failure are not legitimately subject to adversarial framing — and the Adversarial Engagement Objectivity Obligation together reveal an internal tension in litigation engineering practice that this case resolves clearly in favor of objective disclosure. The case teaches that the adversarial character of the proceeding in which an engineer is retained does not alter the non-adversarial character of the technical facts the engineer uncovers. Engineer B's report treated factual findings — that the 19 questioned piles had been driven to essential refusal, that wave equation analysis indicated load capacity several multiples above design requirements, and that the dynamic test equipment had failed — as if they were adversarial positions subject to selective deployment. The Board's conclusions reject that framing entirely. Technical facts belong to the record, not to the retaining party, and an engineer who omits them to preserve a client-favorable narrative has not merely failed a completeness obligation but has misrepresented the technical reality of the situation. This principle prioritization — objective technical disclosure over adversarial client service — is the central ethical lesson of the case, and it applies with equal force whether the omitted facts are favorable to the opposing engineer, unfavorable to the client, or merely inconvenient to the theory the report advances.
conclusion type: principle_synthesis
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:53:25.295906
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

Conclusion_4
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 4
conclusion number: 4
conclusion text: It was unethical for Engineer B to issue his report without mentioning that the 19 piles questioned had, according to the driving records, met refusal.
conclusion type: board_explicit
extraction reasoning: Parsed from imported case text (no LLM)
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:53:25.293608
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

Conflicting-Expert-Report-Standard-Pile-Case
type: ConflictingExpertReportStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.91
createdby: Professional engineering ethics consensus
discoveredincase: 71
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: Professional norms governing ethical obligations when expert reports contradict prior engineering findings
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T11:12:38.004872+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 71
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T11:12:38.004872+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Conflicting Expert Report Standard
sourcetext: Engineer B said: 'We just did not believe the driving records'
textreferences: Engineer B said: 'We just did not believe the driving records'
textreferences: Previously, Engineer B had said, 'We didn't look at the pile driving records because it was not in our scope of work.'
usedby: Engineer B (as retained expert for municipality); Engineer A (as subject of the contradicting report)
usedincontext: Governs the ethical obligations of Engineer B as a subsequent expert whose report contradicted Engineer A's design and the pile driving records, including the obligation to engage with contrary evidence rather than dismissing it without investigation
wasattributedto: Case 71 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:37:51.632497
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

Conflicting Expert Report Standard - Adversarial Pile Driving Dispute
type: ConflictingExpertReportStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.9
createdby: Professional engineering community
discoveredincase: 71
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: Professional norms governing completeness and fairness obligations when an expert report contradicts prior engineering work in an adversarial context
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T11:14:10.751902+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 71
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T11:14:10.751902+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Conflicting Expert Report Standard
sourcetext: In this case, an adversarial relationship is established between the municipality and Engineer A to resolve the sharing of a settlement cost between the two.
textreferences: In this case, an adversarial relationship is established between the municipality and Engineer A to resolve the sharing of a settlement cost between the two.
textreferences: It is not evident from the facts of the case that Engineer B's selective use of technical fact was inspired by the adversarial circumstance, nor does it matter.
textreferences: To test the criteria and professional judgment upon which Engineer A's conclusion, and recommendations were based, the municipality arranged for a test pile driving program and retained Engineer B to supervise the program.
textreferences: Whatever rational Engineer B may employ to draw his conclusion, valid or not, the select language of the report precludes any interpretation that any or all 90 piles met the factor of safety requirement.
usedby: Board of Ethical Review in analyzing the adversarial relationship between municipality and Engineer A
usedincontext: Applied to the situation where Engineer B was retained by the municipality to test and effectively challenge Engineer A's prior conclusions about pile adequacy; the standard governs the completeness obligations of the subsequent expert report and the ethical implications of selective fact presentation in adversarial settings
wasattributedto: Case 71 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:37:51.637122
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

Contractor Lawsuit Filed
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Event
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:37:51.655036
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

Contractor Lawsuit Filed → Mediation Settlement Agreement
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:37:51.655415
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

Contradictory Post-Report Explanations
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:37:51.654997
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

DP1
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP1
decision question: When dynamic test equipment fails during a comparative pile driving program that forms the evidentiary basis for adverse conclusions about another engineer's work, what disclosure obligation does the reporting engineer bear?
focus: Engineer B omitted from his report the fact that dynamic test equipment failed during the test pile driving program, despite that failure directly bearing on the reliability of the test data underlying his adverse conclusions about the 19 piles.
option1: Disclose the equipment failure prominently in the report, explain its potential effect on data reliability, and qualify the adverse conclusions accordingly so that readers can independently assess the weight of the test results
option2: Note the equipment failure in the technical appendix as a procedural observation without elevating it to the conclusions section, on the basis that the engineer's professional judgment determined it did not affect the structural findings
option3: Omit the equipment failure from the report on the grounds that the contractual scope of work defined deliverables as test pile results rather than test program conditions, and that the failure was a field contingency managed during execution
role label: Engineer B Objective Complete Report Equipment Failure Omission
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:53:25.291252
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

DP2
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP2
decision question: Before issuing adverse professional conclusions about another engineer's pile design in a litigation context, what fact-gathering obligations does the retained expert bear with respect to available on-site witnesses and primary records?
focus: Engineer B issued adverse conclusions about the adequacy of 19 piles without consulting Engineer A's on-site representatives, the contractor's supervisors, or workers who were present during original pile installation and who possessed direct firsthand knowledge of the driving conditions Engineer B's theory addressed.
option1: Contact Engineer A's on-site representatives and the contractor's supervisors and workers before finalizing the report, document their accounts of original pile driving conditions, and incorporate or address that testimony in the conclusions
option2: Limit fact-gathering to the test pile program and the pile driving records provided by the municipality, on the basis that the adversarial litigation context makes direct contact with Engineer A's representatives legally and professionally inappropriate without coordinating through counsel
option3: Disclose in the report that on-site representatives and construction workers were not consulted, identify the specific factual questions that consultation would have addressed, and qualify the adverse conclusions to reflect the evidentiary gap created by the absence of firsthand witness testimony
role label: Engineer B Available Evidence Consultation On-Site Representatives
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:53:25.291400
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

DP3
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP3
decision question: When pile driving records and accepted wave equation analysis directly contradict an adverse conclusion about pile adequacy, what obligation does the reporting engineer bear to disclose that contradictory evidence in the report?
focus: Engineer B issued a report concluding that 19 piles were inadequate without disclosing that, according to the pile driving records, those piles had been driven to essential refusal, and that accepted wave equation calculations applied to those records would have indicated load capacity several multiples above design requirements — the single most significant piece of evidence bearing on pile adequacy.
option1: Apply wave equation analysis to the available pile driving records, disclose that the 19 questioned piles were driven to essential refusal at capacities several multiples above design requirements, and reconcile that finding with the depth-based test program results in the report's conclusions
option2: Disclose the existence of the pile driving records and the refusal data in the report, note that wave equation analysis was outside the contracted scope, and recommend that the municipality commission a supplemental analysis before relying on the test program conclusions for litigation purposes
option3: Exclude the pile driving records from the report on the basis that their reliability is professionally questionable, but disclose in the report that the records exist, that they were considered and found suspect, and that the specific basis for that professional judgment is the engineer's assessment of their internal consistency
role label: Engineer B Objective Complete Report Wave Equation Omission
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:53:25.291490
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

DP4
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP4
decision question: When a comparative test pile driving program uses materially different equipment and procedures than the original installation, what obligation does the supervising engineer bear to ensure methodological fidelity or disclose departures that affect the validity of the comparison?
focus: Engineer B designed and supervised a comparative test pile driving program using a vibratory hammer and non-replicated penetration depth conditions, when the original piles were driven under different conditions, and then drew adverse conclusions from the test results without disclosing the methodological departures that made the comparison structurally invalid.
option1: Replicate the original pile driving conditions — including hammer type, penetration depth requirements, and blow-count recording protocols — in the test program, or disclose all material departures in the report and qualify the adverse conclusions to reflect the limits of comparability
option2: Proceed with the available equipment and field conditions, disclose the vibratory hammer substitution and depth variations in the report's methodology section, and present the test results as indicative rather than definitive comparators pending a fully replicated test program
option3: Apply professional judgment that the vibratory hammer and modified depth protocol are sufficiently equivalent for the purposes of the evaluation, proceed without disclosure of the departures, and issue conclusions based on the test results as if they were directly comparable to the original installation
role label: Engineer B Comparative Testing Methodological Fidelity Vibratory Hammer
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:53:25.291573
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

DP5
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP5
decision question: When an engineer is queried about the basis for excluding material evidence from an adverse professional report, what honesty and non-distortion obligations govern the engineer's account of those investigative choices?
focus: Engineer B offered two mutually exclusive post-report explanations for why the pile driving records were excluded from his report — first claiming they were outside his contractual scope of work, then claiming he simply did not believe them — without acknowledging or reconciling the contradiction, raising an independent honesty and non-distortion violation distinct from the substantive omissions in the report itself.
option1: Provide a single, coherent, and transparent account of why the pile driving records were excluded — either acknowledging they were outside the contracted scope and that this limitation should have been disclosed in the report, or acknowledging they were reviewed and found unreliable and explaining the specific professional basis for that judgment
option2: Maintain the scope-of-work explanation as the primary justification, acknowledge that the records were brought to the engineer's attention during the engagement, and clarify that the scope limitation was a contractual boundary that the municipality and engineer agreed upon before the work commenced
option3: Maintain the disbelief explanation as the primary justification, provide the specific technical or documentary basis for finding the records unreliable, and acknowledge that this professional judgment should have been disclosed in the report rather than left unstated
role label: Engineer B Adversarial Circumstance Non-Justification Selective Data Use
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:53:25.291676
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

DP6
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP6
decision question: When a retained litigation expert's obligation to serve the client's interests appears to conflict with the professional obligation to produce a complete and non-selective report, how should the engineer resolve that tension — and does the adversarial context of the engagement alter the applicable standard?
focus: Engineer B was retained by the municipality in an adversarial litigation context and produced a report that systematically excluded every available piece of evidence favorable to Engineer A — wave equation results, equipment failure, pile driving refusal data, and on-site witness testimony — raising the question of whether the Faithful Agent Obligation to the municipality and the Completeness and Non-Selectivity Obligation can be reconciled, and how a retained litigation expert should resolve that tension.
option1: Produce a complete and non-selective report that includes all material findings — wave equation results, equipment failure, pile driving refusal data — regardless of whether those findings are adverse to the municipality's litigation position, serving the municipality's legitimate interest in a professionally defensible and credible technical assessment
option2: Produce a report focused on the test pile program results within the contracted scope, disclose the scope limitation prominently, and recommend that the municipality commission a supplemental analysis addressing the pile driving records and wave equation methodology before relying on the report for litigation purposes
option3: Decline the engagement on the grounds that the adversarial litigation context and the municipality's defined scope create irreconcilable pressure to produce a client-favorable rather than objectively complete report, and advise the municipality to retain an expert whose scope of work is defined broadly enough to permit complete and objective reporting
role label: Engineer B Faithful Agent Municipality Report Completeness
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:53:25.291758
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

Decision to Exclude Stakeholder Consultation
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:37:51.654922
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

Decision to Exclude Stakeholder Consultation → Contradictory Post-Report Explanations
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:37:51.655349
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

Dynamic Test Equipment Failure
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Event
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:37:51.655201
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

Engineer-B-Concluding-Report-Pile-Test
type: ProfessionalReportIntegrityStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.88
createdby: Engineer B
discoveredincase: 71
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: Engineer B's concluding report on test pile program
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T11:12:38.004872+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 71
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T11:12:38.004872+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Professional Report Integrity Standard
sourcetext: Engineer B's concluding report stated that approximately 19 of the 90 piles did not meet the safety factor required by the design calculations
textreferences: Engineer B did not report that the dynamic test equipment had failed
textreferences: Engineer B did not state anywhere in the report that these 19 piles...had been driven to essential refusal
textreferences: Engineer B's concluding report stated that approximately 19 of the 90 piles did not meet the safety factor required by the design calculations
usedby: Municipality (submitted in mediation); Engineer A (challenged after issuance)
usedincontext: The specific expert report at the center of the ethical dispute — found to be materially incomplete by omitting wave equation results, equipment failure, and pile driving records showing essential refusal, raising questions about Engineer B's professional obligations
wasattributedto: Case 71 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:37:51.633672
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

Engineer-Notification-Right-Pile-Case
type: EngineerNotificationRightinReviewContexts
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.9
createdby: Professional engineering ethics consensus
discoveredincase: 71
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: Professional norms establishing the right of a reviewed engineer to be consulted during independent assessment
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T11:12:38.004872+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 71
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T11:12:38.004872+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Engineer Notification Right in Review Contexts
sourcetext: At no time during the development of Engineer B's report did Engineer B talk to any representative of Engineer A, even though Engineer A's on-site representatives were available to testify as to the accuracy of the pile driving records
textreferences: At no time during the development of Engineer B's report did Engineer B talk to any representative of Engineer A, even though Engineer A's on-site representatives were available to testify as to the accuracy of the pile driving records
textreferences: No effort was made by Engineer B to inquire from contractors, workers, or others on the job to verify or refute his theories
usedby: Engineer B (violated); Engineer A (right-holder)
usedincontext: Governs Engineer B's failure to contact Engineer A or Engineer A's on-site representatives at any point during the development of the expert report, despite their availability to clarify pile driving records
wasattributedto: Case 71 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:37:51.632759
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

Engineer A Deposition Factual Completeness
type: DepositionFactualCompletenessCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Deposition Factual Completeness Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A exercised the capability to testify completely and accurately about the geotechnical firm's report and the basis for the pile design, including the material fact that piles were expected to gain sufficient strength within 30 days.
casecontext: Engineer A testified during mediation proceedings about the basis for the pile design and the geotechnical firm's strength gain predictions
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.86
demonstratedthrough: Testimony that the geotechnical firm's report expected piles to gain sufficient additional strength within 30 days to meet driving resistance requirements
discoveredincase: 71
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T11:22:50.342736+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 71
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T11:22:50.342736+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer A testified that the geotechnical firm's report expected that the piles would gain sufficient additional strength within 30 days to meet driving resistance requirements.
textreferences: Engineer A testified that the geotechnical firm's report expected that the piles would gain sufficient additional strength within 30 days to meet driving resistance requirements.
wasattributedto: Case 71 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:37:51.646611
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

Engineer A Deposition Factual Completeness Constraint — Geotechnical Report Pile Setup Testimony
type: DepositionFactualCompletenessWithoutVoluntarySelf-CharacterizationConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A testified that the geotechnical firm's report expected piles would gain sufficient additional strength within 30 days to meet driving resistance requirements, providing the factual basis for the pile design without characterizing the initial driving resistance shortfall as a design error.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.82
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Deposition Factual Completeness Without Voluntary Self-Characterization Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was required to testify completely and accurately about the geotechnical firm's report and the basis for the pile design — including the 30-day pile setup expectation — without volunteering characterizations of the design as an error when no professional determination of error had been made.
discoveredincase: 71
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T11:21:54.652110+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 71
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T11:21:54.652110+00:00
importance: medium
severity: medium
source: NSPE Code of Ethics — truthfulness and completeness provisions; legal deposition conduct standards
sourcetext: Engineer A testified that the geotechnical firm's report expected that the piles would gain sufficient additional strength within 30 days to meet driving resistance requirements.
temporalscope: During mediation testimony
textreferences: Engineer A testified that the geotechnical firm's report expected that the piles would gain sufficient additional strength within 30 days to meet driving resistance requirements.
wasattributedto: Case 71 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:37:51.644702
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

Engineer A Deposition Factual Completeness Geotechnical Report Testimony
type: DepositionFactualCompletenessWithoutVoluntarySelf-CharacterizationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A testified during mediation that the geotechnical firm's report expected piles would gain sufficient additional strength within 30 days to meet driving resistance requirements, providing factual testimony about the design basis.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.83
discoveredincase: 71
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T11:19:52.632902+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 71
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T11:19:52.632902+00:00
importance: medium
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Deposition Factual Completeness Without Voluntary Self-Characterization Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to testify completely and accurately about the geotechnical firm's report and the basis for the pile design — including the expectation that piles would gain sufficient strength within 30 days — without voluntarily characterizing the design as an error or assuming fault determinations properly reserved for the legal process.
sourcetext: Engineer A testified that the geotechnical firm's report expected that the piles would gain sufficient additional strength within 30 days to meet driving resistance requirements.
temporalscope: During testimony in the mediation proceedings
textreferences: Engineer A testified that the geotechnical firm's report expected that the piles would gain sufficient additional strength within 30 days to meet driving resistance requirements.
wasattributedto: Case 71 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:37:51.643110
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

Engineer A Dock Foundation Design Engineer
type: ConsultingDesignEngineer
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'license': 'Professional Engineer', 'specialty': 'Marine/dock infrastructure and pile foundation design', 'litigation_status': 'Defendant/respondent in contractor lawsuit; co-settled for $300,000'}
caseinvolvement: Retained by the municipality to design a dock on a 90-pile foundation; party to litigation arising from contractor's extra claim; testified during mediation regarding geotechnical design assumptions; retained independent geotechnical consultant to observe test pile driving.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 71
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T11:13:16.138011+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 71
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T11:13:16.138011+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'client', 'target': 'Municipality'}
relationships: {'type': 'peer_adversarial', 'target': 'Engineer B'}
relationships: {'type': 'retains', 'target': 'Engineer A Geotechnical Consultant'}
rolecategory: provider_client
roleclass: Consulting Design Engineer
sourcetext: Engineer A was retained by a municipality to design a dock on a supporting foundation of 90 piles
textreferences: An independent geotechnical consultant was retained by Engineer A to observe the test
textreferences: Engineer A and the municipality shared the cost of the settlement with the contractor for $300,000
textreferences: Engineer A testified that the geotechnical firm's report expected that the piles would gain sufficient additional strength within 30 days
textreferences: Engineer A was retained by a municipality to design a dock on a supporting foundation of 90 piles
wasattributedto: Case 71 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:37:51.633972
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

Engineer A Geotechnical Consultant Contradicting Engineer B's Test Findings
type: ContradictedSafetyAssessment
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From geotechnical consultant's observation of test pile program through mediation testimony
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Engineer A's geotechnical consultant
affectedparties: Engineer B
affectedparties: Municipality
concept category: State
confidence: 0.82
discoveredincase: 71
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T11:13:30.349068+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 71
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T11:13:30.349068+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: The geotechnical consultant testified and showed that dynamic test equipment had failed during the test.
stateclass: Contradicted Safety Assessment
subject: Engineer A's independent geotechnical consultant's testimony versus Engineer B's report conclusions
terminatedby: Mediation settlement
textreferences: Engineer B's concluding report stated that approximately 19 of the 90 piles did not meet the safety factor required by the design calculations.
textreferences: In the opinion of Engineer A's geotechnical consultant, this would have broken the pile bond and undervalued the skin friction value reported by Engineer B's tests.
textreferences: The geotechnical consultant testified and showed that dynamic test equipment had failed during the test.
triggeringevent: Independent geotechnical consultant observing test pile program and identifying equipment failure, non-equivalent conditions, and methodological flaws that undermine Engineer B's conclusions
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 71 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:37:51.636451
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

Engineer A Geotechnical Consultant Independent Observation Completeness
type: IndependentGeotechnicalObservationCompletenessCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Independent Geotechnical Observation Completeness Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A's independent geotechnical consultant demonstrated the capability to provide complete and objective testimony about all material observations during the test pile driving program, including equipment failures and methodological deviations
casecontext: Engineer A's geotechnical consultant retained as independent observer of test pile driving program supervised by Engineer B; provided complete testimony about material observations
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: Demonstrated: The independent geotechnical consultant testified that dynamic test equipment failed, that a vibratory hammer was substituted for the original hammer type, and that pile bond was broken before recording blow counts
discoveredincase: 71
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T11:29:00.145245+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 71
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T11:29:00.145245+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A's independent geotechnical consultant
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer A's independent geotechnical consultant was obligated to provide complete and objective testimony about all material observations during the test pile driving program
textreferences: Engineer A's independent geotechnical consultant was obligated to provide complete and objective testimony about all material observations during the test pile driving program
wasattributedto: Case 71 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:37:51.652528
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

Engineer A Geotechnical Consultant Independent Observer
type: IndependentGeotechnicalLitigationObserver
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'license': 'Professional Engineer / Geotechnical Specialist', 'specialty': 'Geotechnical engineering, pile dynamics, skin friction analysis', 'retained_by': 'Engineer A'}
caseinvolvement: Retained by Engineer A to independently observe the test pile driving supervised by Engineer B. Testified that dynamic test equipment failed, that test piles were not driven to required penetration depth, that a vibratory hammer was used (not used in original driving), and that pre-test hammer drops would have broken pile bond and undervalued skin friction — thereby challenging the validity of Engineer B's test results.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 71
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T11:13:16.138011+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 71
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T11:13:16.138011+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'observes_testing_of', 'target': 'Engineer B Municipality-Retained Litigation Testing Engineer'}
relationships: {'type': 'retained_by', 'target': 'Engineer A Dock Foundation Design Engineer'}
rolecategory: provider_client
roleclass: Independent Geotechnical Litigation Observer
sourcetext: An independent geotechnical consultant was retained by Engineer A to observe the test
textreferences: An independent geotechnical consultant was retained by Engineer A to observe the test
textreferences: In the opinion of Engineer A's geotechnical consultant, this would have broken the pile bond and undervalued the skin friction value reported by Engineer B's tests
textreferences: The geotechnical consultant testified and showed that dynamic test equipment had failed during the test
textreferences: the test piles were not driven to the same depth of penetration that apparently was required for the plug to form in the original piles
wasattributedto: Case 71 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:37:51.634749
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

Engineer A Geotechnical Consultant Independent Observer Completeness
type: IndependentGeotechnicalObservationCompletenessCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Independent Geotechnical Observation Completeness Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A's independent geotechnical consultant demonstrated the capability to provide complete and objective testimony about all material observations during the test pile driving program, including equipment failures, methodological deviations, and their effect on test validity.
casecontext: Retained by Engineer A to independently observe the test pile driving program supervised by Engineer B; provided comprehensive testimony about all material observations including those adverse to the test program's validity
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: Testimony disclosing: (1) dynamic test equipment failure, (2) insufficient penetration depth for plug formation, (3) vibratory hammer substitution, (4) pre-record hammer drops breaking pile bond, (5) resulting undervaluation of skin friction
discoveredincase: 71
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T11:22:50.342736+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 71
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T11:22:50.342736+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A's independent geotechnical consultant
proficiencylevel: expert
sourcetext: The geotechnical consultant testified and showed that dynamic test equipment had failed during the test and that the test piles were not driven to the same depth of penetration that apparently was required for the plug to form in the original piles.
textreferences: Driving conditions were not duplicated in driving the test piles in that a vibratory hammer was used for the test piles and not used in the original driving.
textreferences: In the opinion of Engineer A's geotechnical consultant, this would have broken the pile bond and undervalued the skin friction value reported by Engineer B's tests.
textreferences: The geotechnical consultant testified and showed that dynamic test equipment had failed during the test and that the test piles were not driven to the same depth of penetration that apparently was required for the plug to form in the original piles.
wasattributedto: Case 71 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:37:51.646761
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

Engineer A Geotechnical Consultant Independent Observer Testimony Completeness
type: ObjectiveandCompleteReportingObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A's geotechnical consultant testified completely about dynamic test equipment failure, depth of penetration discrepancies, vibratory hammer use, and the technical implications for skin friction values — fulfilling the obligation.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.85
discoveredincase: 71
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T11:19:52.632902+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 71
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T11:19:52.632902+00:00
importance: medium
obligatedparty: Engineer A's independent geotechnical consultant
obligationclass: Objective and Complete Reporting Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A's independent geotechnical consultant was obligated to provide complete and objective testimony about all material observations during the test pile driving program, including equipment failures, methodological deviations, and their technical implications.
sourcetext: The geotechnical consultant testified and showed that dynamic test equipment had failed during the test and that the test piles were not driven to the same depth of penetration that apparently was required for the plug to form in the original piles.
temporalscope: During testimony in the mediation proceedings
textreferences: In the opinion of Engineer A's geotechnical consultant, this would have broken the pile bond and undervalued the skin friction value reported by Engineer B's tests.
textreferences: The geotechnical consultant testified and showed that dynamic test equipment had failed during the test and that the test piles were not driven to the same depth of penetration that apparently was required for the plug to form in the original piles.
wasattributedto: Case 71 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:37:51.642964
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

Engineer A On-Site Representative
type: ParticipantRole
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'affiliation': "Engineer A's firm", 'presence': 'On-site during test pile driving'}
caseinvolvement: Engineer A's representative present on-site during the test pile driving program; Engineer B failed to communicate with this individual, constituting a diligence failure in fact-gathering.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.72
discoveredincase: 71
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T11:14:34.664500+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 71
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T11:14:34.664500+00:00
importance: low
relationships: {'type': 'not_consulted_by', 'target': 'Engineer B Adversarial Litigation Testing Supervisor'}
relationships: {'type': 'represents', 'target': 'Engineer A Dock Foundation Design Engineer'}
rolecategory: provider_client
roleclass: Participant Role
sourcetext: Engineer B may be criticized for his failure to communicate with Engineer A's on-site representative
textreferences: Engineer B may be criticized for his failure to communicate with Engineer A's on-site representative
wasattributedto: Case 71 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:37:51.637878
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

Engineer A Retains Independent Observer
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:37:51.654768
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

Engineer A testimony (30-day strength gain) during mediation
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:37:51.655592
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

Engineer B Adversarial Circumstance Non-Justification Selective Data Use
type: AdversarialCircumstanceNon-JustificationforSelectiveReportingObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer B's selective use of data in the concluding report occurred in an adversarial litigation context; the case discussion explicitly states that whether or not the adversarial circumstance inspired the selective reporting is irrelevant to the ethical violation.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 71
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T11:27:05.459435+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 71
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T11:27:05.459435+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer B
obligationclass: Adversarial Circumstance Non-Justification for Selective Reporting Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer B was obligated to apply the same completeness and objectivity standards to the test pile driving report regardless of the adversarial context, recognizing that the adversarial circumstance — whether or not it motivated the selective reporting — does not justify selective use of technical data.
sourcetext: It is not evident from the facts of the case that Engineer B's selective use of technical fact was inspired by the adversarial circumstance, nor does it matter.
temporalscope: Throughout the engagement and report preparation
textreferences: It is not evident from the facts of the case that Engineer B's selective use of technical fact was inspired by the adversarial circumstance, nor does it matter.
textreferences: This is an egregious denial of the duties and responsibilities of a professional engineer in any setting, legal, quasi-legal or non-legal.
wasattributedto: Case 71 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:37:51.649126
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

Engineer B Adversarial Circumstance Non-Justification Selective Data Use Instance
type: AdversarialCircumstanceNon-JustificationforSelectiveDataUseConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The municipality retained Engineer B in an adversarial context to evaluate Engineer A's pile design; Engineer B's selective reporting violated the principle that adversarial context does not modify engineering objectivity obligations.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.95
constrainedentity: Engineer B
constraintclass: Adversarial Circumstance Non-Justification for Selective Data Use Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer B was constrained to apply the same completeness and objectivity standards to the pile driving test report regardless of the adversarial legal/quasi-legal context between the municipality and Engineer A — the adversarial setting provided no justification for selective use of technical data.
discoveredincase: 71
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T11:29:18.765291+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 71
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T11:29:18.765291+00:00
importance: critical
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics — universal applicability of objectivity and completeness obligations across legal, quasi-legal, and non-legal settings
sourcetext: It is not evident from the facts of the case that Engineer B's selective use of technical fact was inspired by the adversarial circumstance, nor does it matter.
temporalscope: Throughout the adversarial proceeding and report preparation
textreferences: It is not evident from the facts of the case that Engineer B's selective use of technical fact was inspired by the adversarial circumstance, nor does it matter.
textreferences: This is an egregious denial of the duties and responsibilities of a professional engineer in any setting, legal, quasi-legal or non-legal.
wasattributedto: Case 71 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:37:51.653186
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

Engineer B Adversarial Client Disservice Through Selective Reporting Municipality
type: AdversarialContextClientDisserviceThroughSelectiveReportingConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer B's selective report omitted material facts (wave equation results, equipment failure, piles driven to refusal) that could have redirected the municipality's legal strategy, thereby disserving the client by potentially misdirecting a conclusion.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.92
constrainedentity: Engineer B
constraintclass: Adversarial Context Client Disservice Through Selective Reporting Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer B was constrained to produce a complete and accurate technical report that genuinely served the municipality's interests, and was prohibited from producing a selectively incomplete report that potentially misdirected the municipality's legal conclusions by omitting material technical findings.
discoveredincase: 71
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T11:29:18.765291+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 71
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T11:29:18.765291+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics — faithful agent obligation; objectivity and completeness provisions
sourcetext: As an engineering document the report is incomplete and does a disservice to Engineer B's client municipality by potentially misdirecting a conclusion.
temporalscope: At time of drafting and submitting the concluding report to the municipality
textreferences: As an engineering document the report is incomplete and does a disservice to Engineer B's client municipality by potentially misdirecting a conclusion.
textreferences: by excluding the pile driving records, Engineer B has denied himself the opportunity to present a rational for discounting their value, and thereby to serve his client.
wasattributedto: Case 71 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:37:51.653796
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

Engineer B Adversarial Context Non-Justification Recognition Failure
type: AdversarialContextNon-JustificationRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Adversarial Context Non-Justification Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer B lacked or failed to exercise the capability to recognize that the adversarial litigation context did not justify selective use of technical facts in the test pile driving report
casecontext: Engineer B retained by municipality to supervise test pile driving in adversarial dispute with Engineer A; produced incomplete report omitting material findings
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstratedthrough: Failure: Engineer B produced a selective report omitting material facts (piles driven to refusal, equipment failure) in a litigation context, with the BER noting it does not matter whether adversarial circumstance inspired the selectivity
discoveredincase: 71
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T11:29:00.145245+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 71
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T11:29:00.145245+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer B
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: It is not evident from the facts of the case that Engineer B's selective use of technical fact was inspired by the adversarial circumstance, nor does it matter.
textreferences: It is not evident from the facts of the case that Engineer B's selective use of technical fact was inspired by the adversarial circumstance, nor does it matter.
textreferences: This is an egregious denial of the duties and responsibilities of a professional engineer in any setting, legal, quasi-legal or non-legal.
wasattributedto: Case 71 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:37:51.650743
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

Engineer B Adversarial Context Report Completeness Litigation
type: AdversarialContextReportCompletenessandNon-SelectivityObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer B was retained by the municipality during litigation with Engineer A and produced a report that selectively omitted findings favorable to Engineer A's position, including wave equation results showing piles met strength requirements and the failure of dynamic test equipment.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 71
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T11:19:52.632902+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 71
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T11:19:52.632902+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer B
obligationclass: Adversarial Context Report Completeness and Non-Selectivity Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer B was obligated, as an engineer retained by the municipality in an adversarial litigation context, to produce a complete and non-selective report that included all material findings — including the wave equation results and equipment failure — regardless of whether those findings were adverse to the municipality's litigation position.
sourcetext: Engineer B did not state anywhere in the report that these 19 piles, according to the pile driving records, had been driven to essential refusal and that, applying accepted wave equation calculations, the piles would have indicated a strength several multiples over the calculated load requirements.
temporalscope: At the time of preparing and issuing the concluding report on the test pile driving program
textreferences: Additionally, Engineer B did not report that the dynamic test equipment had failed.
textreferences: Engineer B did not state anywhere in the report that these 19 piles, according to the pile driving records, had been driven to essential refusal and that, applying accepted wave equation calculations, the piles would have indicated a strength several multiples over the calculated load requirements.
textreferences: Engineer B's concluding report stated that approximately 19 of the 90 piles did not meet the safety factor required by the design calculations.
wasattributedto: Case 71 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:37:51.642107
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

Engineer B Adversarial Context Report Completeness Non-Selectivity Violation
type: AdversarialContextReportCompletenessandNon-SelectivityObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer B was retained by the municipality in an adversarial dispute with Engineer A; Engineer B's report selectively omitted material findings (equipment failure, piles driven to refusal, wave equation results) that would have been favorable to Engineer A's position.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 71
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T11:27:05.459435+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 71
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T11:27:05.459435+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer B
obligationclass: Adversarial Context Report Completeness and Non-Selectivity Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer B was obligated to produce a complete, non-selective report including all material technical findings — including findings favorable to Engineer A — notwithstanding the adversarial litigation context of the engagement.
sourcetext: Engineer B appears to have assumed a responsibility to defend the client municipality by the selective use of data. This is an egregious denial of the duties and responsibilities of a professional engineer in any setting, legal, quasi-legal or non-legal.
temporalscope: Throughout the preparation and issuance of the concluding report
textreferences: Engineer B appears to have assumed a responsibility to defend the client municipality by the selective use of data. This is an egregious denial of the duties and responsibilities of a professional engineer in any setting, legal, quasi-legal or non-legal.
textreferences: It is not evident from the facts of the case that Engineer B's selective use of technical fact was inspired by the adversarial circumstance, nor does it matter.
wasattributedto: Case 71 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:37:51.648968
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

Engineer B Adversarial Engagement Without Coordination with Engineer A
type: AdversarialExpertEngagementWithoutPeerCoordinationState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Engineer B's retention by municipality through issuance of the report
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Engineer B
affectedparties: Municipality
concept category: State
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 71
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T11:13:30.349068+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 71
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T11:13:30.349068+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: The municipality retained Engineer B to supervise the driving of several test piles to see whether the piles would gain sufficient strength to meet the design calculation requirements.
stateclass: Adversarial Expert Engagement Without Peer Coordination State
subject: Engineer B's role as municipality-retained expert evaluating Engineer A's pile design
terminatedby: Post-report query initiated by Engineer A (not by Engineer B)
textreferences: At no time during the development of Engineer B's report did Engineer B talk to any representative of Engineer A, even though Engineer A's on-site representatives were available to testify as to the accuracy of the pile driving records.
textreferences: The municipality retained Engineer B to supervise the driving of several test piles to see whether the piles would gain sufficient strength to meet the design calculation requirements.
triggeringevent: Municipality retaining Engineer B to evaluate Engineer A's pile design in the context of litigation/mediation, with Engineer B proceeding without any contact with Engineer A's team
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 71 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:37:51.636274
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

Engineer B Adversarial Expert Engagement Without Peer Coordination
type: AdversarialExpertEngagementWithoutPeerCoordinationState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Engineer B's retention by municipality through submission of the report
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Engineer B
affectedparties: Municipality
concept category: State
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 71
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T11:14:46.027785+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 71
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T11:14:46.027785+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: It is clear that Engineer B may be criticized for his failure to communicate with Engineer A's on-site representative
stateclass: Adversarial Expert Engagement Without Peer Coordination State
subject: Engineer B's evaluation of Engineer A's pile work conducted without coordination with Engineer A or Engineer A's representatives
terminatedby: Not resolved within the case facts
textreferences: It is clear that Engineer B may be criticized for his failure to communicate with Engineer A's on-site representative
textreferences: The opportunity for expert engineering review and interpretation of the pile driving test was effectively denied by Engineer B's report
triggeringevent: Municipality retaining Engineer B to contest Engineer A's conclusions in an adversarial proceeding without Engineer B coordinating with Engineer A
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 71 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:37:51.639239
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

Engineer B Adversarial Expert Report Material Finding Disclosure Constraint — Litigation Context
type: AdversarialExpertReportMaterialFindingDisclosureConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer B was retained by the municipality to evaluate Engineer A's pile design in the context of an adversarial mediation proceeding over $300,000 in settlement costs, and produced a report that omitted material findings favorable to Engineer A.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.86
constrainedentity: Engineer B
constraintclass: Adversarial Expert Report Material Finding Disclosure Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer B, as an expert retained by the municipality in an adversarial mediation proceeding against Engineer A, was required to include all material findings in the expert report — including those that would favor Engineer A — and was prohibited from producing a selectively incomplete report that served the municipality's adversarial interest at the expense of professional objectivity.
discoveredincase: 71
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T11:21:54.652110+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 71
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T11:21:54.652110+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics — objectivity, completeness, and faithful agent provisions; Conflicting Expert Report Standard
sourcetext: During the mediation, the municipality brought in expert witnesses to support their case.
temporalscope: Throughout the preparation and submission of the expert report in the mediation proceeding
textreferences: Additionally, Engineer B did not report that the dynamic test equipment had failed.
textreferences: During the mediation, the municipality brought in expert witnesses to support their case.
textreferences: Engineer B did not state anywhere in the report that these 19 piles, according to the pile driving records, had been driven to essential refusal
textreferences: Engineer B's concluding report stated that approximately 19 of the 90 piles did not meet the safety factor required by the design calculations.
wasattributedto: Case 71 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:37:51.644556
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

Engineer B Adversarial Expert Report Material Finding Disclosure Wave Equation Equipment Failure
type: AdversarialExpertReportMaterialFindingDisclosureConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer B's report omitted wave equation results, equipment failure, and the fact that piles were driven to refusal — all material findings that would have qualified or contradicted the adverse conclusions about the 19 piles.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.96
constrainedentity: Engineer B
constraintclass: Adversarial Expert Report Material Finding Disclosure Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer B, as an expert retained by the municipality in an adversarial proceeding, was required to include all material findings in the expert report — including the wave equation analysis results, the fact that all 19 piles were driven to refusal, and the failure of dynamic test equipment — and was prohibited from selectively omitting findings that would qualify or contradict the adverse conclusions.
discoveredincase: 71
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T11:29:18.765291+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 71
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T11:29:18.765291+00:00
importance: critical
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics — complete reporting obligation; adversarial context does not modify objectivity requirements
sourcetext: Material facts, however, were not addressed in Engineer B's report. Among them, that dynamic test equipment failed during the test, and that all 19 test piles reported as failing the test were driven to refusal.
temporalscope: At time of drafting and submitting the concluding pile driving test report
textreferences: Material facts, however, were not addressed in Engineer B's report. Among them, that dynamic test equipment failed during the test, and that all 19 test piles reported as failing the test were driven to refusal.
textreferences: the Code of Ethics which requires that engineers 'shall include all relevant and pertinent information in such report, statements or testimony.'
wasattributedto: Case 71 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:37:51.654580
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

Engineer B Adversarial Litigation Testing Supervisor
type: AdversarialLitigationTestingSupervisorEngineer
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'license': 'Professional Engineer', 'specialty': 'Geotechnical/foundation testing', 'ethical_failure': "Selective use of technical facts; omission of material findings; failure to communicate with opposing party's representative; failure to gather facts from on-site parties"}
caseinvolvement: Retained by the municipality to supervise the test pile driving program; produced a report omitting material facts (equipment failure, piles driven to refusal) that selectively supported the municipality's adversarial position, failed to communicate with Engineer A's on-site representative, and failed to inquire from contractors and workers — constituting a failure of fact-gathering diligence and an egregious denial of professional duties.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 71
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T11:14:34.664500+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 71
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T11:14:34.664500+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'adversarial_context_peer', 'target': 'Engineer A Dock Foundation Design Engineer'}
relationships: {'type': 'failed_to_communicate_with', 'target': 'Engineer A On-Site Representative'}
relationships: {'type': 'retained_by', 'target': 'Municipality Litigation Dispute Client'}
rolecategory: provider_client
roleclass: Adversarial Litigation Testing Supervisor Engineer
sourcetext: the municipality arranged for a test pile driving program and retained Engineer B to supervise the program
textreferences: Engineer B appears to have assumed a responsibility to defend the client municipality by the selective use of data
textreferences: Engineer B may be criticized for his failure to communicate with Engineer A's on-site representative
textreferences: Engineer B reports that 19 piles do not meet the required factor of safety
textreferences: Engineer B's failure to inquire from the contractor, workers or others on the job is a failure of fact gathering diligence
textreferences: Engineer B's selective use of technical fact
textreferences: Material facts, however, were not addressed in Engineer B's report
textreferences: the municipality arranged for a test pile driving program and retained Engineer B to supervise the program
wasattributedto: Case 71 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:37:51.637589
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

Engineer B Adversarial Report Completeness and Non-Selectivity
type: SelectiveInformationOmissionRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Selective Information Omission Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer B failed to exercise the capability to recognize that selective omission of material findings — including essential refusal data and equipment failure — from a litigation report constituted an ethical violation of the obligation to produce complete and non-selective professional reports.
casecontext: Engineer B produced a concluding report in an adversarial litigation context that selectively omitted multiple material findings favorable to Engineer A while reporting only findings adverse to Engineer A's pile design
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.87
demonstratedthrough: Report omitted: (1) pile driving records showing essential refusal, (2) wave equation analysis results, (3) dynamic equipment failure — while including only findings adverse to Engineer A
discoveredincase: 71
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T11:22:50.342736+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 71
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T11:22:50.342736+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer B
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: Engineer B did not state anywhere in the report that these 19 piles, according to the pile driving records, had been driven to essential refusal
textreferences: Engineer B did not report that the dynamic test equipment had failed.
textreferences: Engineer B did not state anywhere in the report that these 19 piles, according to the pile driving records, had been driven to essential refusal
textreferences: Engineer B's concluding report stated that approximately 19 of the 90 piles did not meet the safety factor required by the design calculations.
wasattributedto: Case 71 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:37:51.646227
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

Engineer B Adverse Evidence Consultation Failure
type: AdverseTechnicalOpinionEvidenceConsultationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Adverse Technical Opinion Evidence Consultation Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer B lacked or failed to exercise the capability to consult available evidence sources — including Engineer A's on-site representatives, contractors, and workers — before issuing adverse conclusions about the 19 piles, constituting a violation of the obligation to base adverse technical opinions on all available evidence.
casecontext: Engineer B was retained by the municipality to supervise test pile driving and evaluate whether original piles met design safety factors; issued adverse conclusions without consulting available witnesses
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.93
demonstratedthrough: Failure to speak with any representative of Engineer A, contractors, or workers despite their availability; failure to verify or refute theories about why piles met driving refusal prior to predicted depth
discoveredincase: 71
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T11:22:50.342736+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 71
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T11:22:50.342736+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer B
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: At no time during the development of Engineer B's report did Engineer B talk to any representative of Engineer A, even though Engineer A's on-site representatives were available to testify as to the accuracy of the pile driving records.
textreferences: At no time during the development of Engineer B's report did Engineer B talk to any representative of Engineer A, even though Engineer A's on-site representatives were available to testify as to the accuracy of the pile driving records.
textreferences: No effort was made by Engineer B to inquire from contractors, workers, or others on the job to verify or refute his theories about why the 19 piles met driving refusal prior to predicted depth.
wasattributedto: Case 71 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:37:51.644999
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

Engineer B Adverse Technical Opinion Evidence Consultation Failure
type: AdverseTechnicalOpinionEvidenceConsultationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Adverse Technical Opinion Evidence Consultation Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer B failed to consult all reasonably available sources of evidence — including Engineer A's on-site representatives, contractors, and workers — before issuing adverse conclusions about the adequacy of the 19 piles
casecontext: Engineer B retained to supervise test pile driving and evaluate pile adequacy; failed to consult available witnesses and records before forming adverse opinions
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.92
demonstratedthrough: Failure: Engineer B did not communicate with Engineer A's on-site representative and failed to inquire from the contractor, workers, or others on the job before issuing adverse technical conclusions
discoveredincase: 71
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T11:29:00.145245+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 71
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T11:29:00.145245+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer B
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: It is clear that Engineer B may be criticized for his failure to communicate with Engineer A's on-site representative.
textreferences: Engineer B's failure to inquire from the contractor, workers or others on the job is a failure of fact gathering diligence.
textreferences: It is clear that Engineer B may be criticized for his failure to communicate with Engineer A's on-site representative.
wasattributedto: Case 71 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:37:51.651635
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

Engineer B Artfully Misleading Scope-of-Work Explanation
type: ArtfullyMisleadingStatementProhibitionObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer B provided two contradictory explanations for not reviewing pile driving records: first citing scope-of-work limitations, then claiming the records were not believed. The scope-of-work explanation was technically framed but obscured the actual reason.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.85
discoveredincase: 71
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T11:19:52.632902+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 71
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T11:19:52.632902+00:00
importance: medium
obligatedparty: Engineer B
obligationclass: Artfully Misleading Statement Prohibition Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer B was obligated to refrain from making artfully misleading statements about the basis for omitting pile driving records — first claiming it was outside the scope of work (technically defensible but obscuring the real reason), then substituting a different explanation (disbelief of records) when queried — as these sequential contradictory explanations created false impressions about the professional basis for the omission.
sourcetext: Previously, Engineer B had said, 'We didn't look at the pile driving records because it was not in our scope of work.'
temporalscope: When queried by Engineer A after the report was issued
textreferences: Previously, Engineer B had said, 'We didn't look at the pile driving records because it was not in our scope of work.'
textreferences: When queried by Engineer A after the report was issued by Engineer B, Engineer B said: 'We just did not believe the driving records and there was also the issue of whether the pile was vented to allow air to escape from below a closure plate that was included in the pile to separate the concrete fill in the pile from the clay. The driving records look suspicious.'
wasattributedto: Case 71 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:37:51.642396
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

Engineer B Artfully Misleading Scope Explanation Recognition
type: ArtfulMisrepresentationinNegotiationRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Artful Misrepresentation in Negotiation Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer B failed to recognize that the sequential use of contradictory explanations — first scope limitation, then disbelief — constituted an artfully misleading pattern of statements that created a false impression about the basis for omitting pile driving records from the report.
casecontext: Engineer B's initial explanation that records were outside scope of work was later contradicted by the admission that records were actually disbelieved as suspicious, revealing the scope explanation as artfully misleading
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.82
demonstratedthrough: Use of scope-of-work explanation that was technically plausible but misleading given the actual reason (disbelief of records); subsequent disclosure of disbelief revealed the scope explanation as artfully misleading
discoveredincase: 71
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T11:22:50.342736+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 71
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T11:22:50.342736+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer B
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: Previously, Engineer B had said, 'We didn't look at the pile driving records because it was not in our scope of work.'
textreferences: Engineer B said: 'We just did not believe the driving records...'
textreferences: Engineer B was obligated to refrain from making artfully misleading statements about the basis for omitting pile driving records
textreferences: Previously, Engineer B had said, 'We didn't look at the pile driving records because it was not in our scope of work.'
wasattributedto: Case 71 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:37:51.646464
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

Engineer B Available Evidence Consultation Constraint — On-Site Representatives and Contractors
type: AdverseOpinionAvailableEvidenceConsultationConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer B issued adverse conclusions about 19 piles without consulting any representative of Engineer A, contractors, or workers, despite their availability, and without reviewing the pile driving records that would have shown the piles were driven to essential refusal.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.88
constrainedentity: Engineer B
constraintclass: Adverse Opinion Available Evidence Consultation Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer B was prohibited from issuing adverse conclusions about the adequacy of the 19 piles without first consulting Engineer A's on-site representatives, contractors, and workers who were available and could testify to the accuracy of the pile driving records.
discoveredincase: 71
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T11:21:54.652110+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 71
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T11:21:54.652110+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics — objectivity, completeness, and truthfulness provisions
sourcetext: At no time during the development of Engineer B's report did Engineer B talk to any representative of Engineer A, even though Engineer A's on-site representatives were available to testify as to the accuracy of the pile driving records.
temporalscope: Throughout the development of Engineer B's expert report and test pile program
textreferences: At no time during the development of Engineer B's report did Engineer B talk to any representative of Engineer A, even though Engineer A's on-site representatives were available to testify as to the accuracy of the pile driving records.
textreferences: No effort was made by Engineer B to inquire from contractors, workers, or others on the job to verify or refute his theories about why the 19 piles met driving refusal prior to predicted depth.
wasattributedto: Case 71 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:37:51.643260
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

Engineer B Available Evidence Consultation On-Site Representatives
type: AvailableEvidenceConsultationBeforeAdverseTechnicalOpinionObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer B issued adverse conclusions about 19 piles without consulting Engineer A's on-site representatives who were available and could have testified about the accuracy of the pile driving records.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 71
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T11:19:52.632902+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 71
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T11:19:52.632902+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer B
obligationclass: Available Evidence Consultation Before Adverse Technical Opinion Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer B was obligated to consult Engineer A's on-site representatives, contractors, and workers before issuing adverse conclusions about the adequacy of the 19 piles, as these individuals were available and possessed material knowledge about the pile driving records and conditions.
sourcetext: At no time during the development of Engineer B's report did Engineer B talk to any representative of Engineer A, even though Engineer A's on-site representatives were available to testify as to the accuracy of the pile driving records.
temporalscope: During the development of the concluding report, prior to issuing adverse conclusions
textreferences: At no time during the development of Engineer B's report did Engineer B talk to any representative of Engineer A, even though Engineer A's on-site representatives were available to testify as to the accuracy of the pile driving records.
textreferences: No effort was made by Engineer B to inquire from contractors, workers, or others on the job to verify or refute his theories about why the 19 piles met driving refusal prior to predicted depth.
wasattributedto: Case 71 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:37:51.641641
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

Engineer B Available Evidence Consultation Pile Driving Records Failure
type: AvailableEvidenceConsultationBeforeAdverseTechnicalOpinionObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer B formed and published adverse technical opinions that 19 piles did not meet safety factor requirements without consulting pile driving records that would have shown the piles were driven to refusal, and without consulting Engineer A's on-site representative or other available witnesses.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 71
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T11:27:05.459435+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 71
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T11:27:05.459435+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer B
obligationclass: Available Evidence Consultation Before Adverse Technical Opinion Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer B was obligated to consult all reasonably available evidence — including pile driving records, on-site representatives, contractors, and workers — before publishing adverse technical conclusions about Engineer A's pile design.
sourcetext: Material facts, however, were not addressed in Engineer B's report. Among them, that dynamic test equipment failed during the test, and that all 19 test piles reported as failing the test were driven to refusal.
temporalscope: Before finalizing and publishing the concluding report on the test pile driving program
textreferences: Engineer B's failure to inquire from the contractor, workers or others on the job is a failure of fact gathering diligence.
textreferences: Material facts, however, were not addressed in Engineer B's report. Among them, that dynamic test equipment failed during the test, and that all 19 test piles reported as failing the test were driven to refusal.
wasattributedto: Case 71 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:37:51.648690
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

Engineer B Available Witness Non-Consultation — Contractor and Workers
type: AvailableWitnessNon-ConsultationState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: During and after the pile driving test program, prior to submission of Engineer B's report
affectedparties: Contractor
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Engineer B
affectedparties: Municipality
affectedparties: Workers
concept category: State
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 71
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T11:14:46.027785+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 71
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T11:14:46.027785+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer B's failure to inquire from the contractor, workers or others on the job is a failure of fact gathering diligence
stateclass: Available Witness Non-Consultation State
subject: Engineer B's failure to consult contractor, workers, or others present at the pile driving test site
terminatedby: Not resolved within the case facts
textreferences: Engineer B's failure to inquire from the contractor, workers or others on the job is a failure of fact gathering diligence
textreferences: It is clear that Engineer B may be criticized for his failure to communicate with Engineer A's on-site representative
triggeringevent: Engineer B conducting the test program and preparing the report without consulting available on-site personnel who could have provided material context
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 71 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:37:51.638897
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

Engineer B Client-Aligned Advocacy Displacing Objective Reporting
type: Client-AlignedAdvocacyDisplacingObjectiveReportingState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Engineer B's retention by municipality through submission of the incomplete report
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Engineer B
affectedparties: Municipality
concept category: State
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 71
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T11:14:46.027785+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 71
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T11:14:46.027785+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer B appears to have assumed a responsibility to defend the client municipality by the selective use of data
stateclass: Client-Aligned Advocacy Displacing Objective Reporting State
subject: Engineer B's professional posture in preparing and submitting the pile driving test report
terminatedby: Not resolved within the case facts
textreferences: As an engineering document the report is incomplete and does a disservice to Engineer B's client municipality by potentially misdirecting a conclusion
textreferences: As evidence, the report appears to serve no purpose except to impugn Engineer A, or to support the original testimony of the municipality's expert witness
textreferences: Engineer B appears to have assumed a responsibility to defend the client municipality by the selective use of data
textreferences: This is an egregious denial of the duties and responsibilities of a professional engineer in any setting, legal, quasi-legal or non-legal
triggeringevent: Engineer B's adoption of a client-defense posture resulting in selective use of data to impugn Engineer A rather than provide objective technical assessment
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 71 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:37:51.638220
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

Engineer B Client Disservice Through Selective Reporting Failure
type: ClientDisserviceThroughSelectiveTechnicalReportingRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Client Disservice Through Selective Technical Reporting Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer B failed to recognize that producing a selective report omitting pile driving records and equipment failure information actually disserved the municipality by potentially misdirecting conclusions and denying the opportunity to discount contrary evidence
casecontext: Engineer B retained by municipality in adversarial dispute; produced report omitting material facts that could have been addressed and discounted, thereby better serving the client
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: Failure: Engineer B's selective report did a disservice to the municipality by potentially misdirecting conclusions and denying Engineer B the opportunity to present a rationale for discounting pile driving records
discoveredincase: 71
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T11:29:00.145245+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 71
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T11:29:00.145245+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer B
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: As an engineering document the report is incomplete and does a disservice to Engineer B's client municipality by potentially misdirecting a conclusion.
textreferences: As an engineering document the report is incomplete and does a disservice to Engineer B's client municipality by potentially misdirecting a conclusion.
textreferences: by excluding the pile driving records, Engineer B has denied himself the opportunity to present a rational for discounting their value, and thereby to serve his client.
wasattributedto: Case 71 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:37:51.650884
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

Engineer B Client Disservice Through Selective Reporting Municipality
type: ClientDisserviceThroughSelectiveReportingNon-CommissionObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer B's selective omission of pile driving records from the concluding report not only violated professional completeness obligations but also disserved the municipality by potentially misdirecting its legal conclusions and depriving it of a rational basis for evaluating the pile adequacy question.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 71
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T11:27:05.459435+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 71
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T11:27:05.459435+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer B
obligationclass: Client Disservice Through Selective Reporting Non-Commission Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer B was obligated to refrain from producing a report that selectively omitted material technical findings in a manner that disserved the municipality's actual interests — specifically by excluding pile driving records that would have enabled a rational basis for evaluating pile adequacy and potentially misdirecting the municipality's legal conclusions.
sourcetext: As an engineering document the report is incomplete and does a disservice to Engineer B's client municipality by potentially misdirecting a conclusion.
temporalscope: At the time of preparing and issuing the concluding report
textreferences: As an engineering document the report is incomplete and does a disservice to Engineer B's client municipality by potentially misdirecting a conclusion.
textreferences: by excluding the pile driving records, Engineer B has denied himself the opportunity to present a rational for discounting their value, and thereby to serve his client.
wasattributedto: Case 71 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:37:51.649563
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

Engineer B Comparative Test Condition Replication Constraint — Vibratory Hammer and Penetration Depth
type: ComparativeTestConditionReplicationConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer B used a vibratory hammer instead of the original impact hammer, did not drive test piles to the same penetration depth, and dropped the hammer several times before commencing blow count records — conditions that Engineer A's geotechnical consultant testified would have broken the pile bond and undervalued skin friction values.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.87
constrainedentity: Engineer B
constraintclass: Comparative Test Condition Replication Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer B was required to replicate the material driving conditions of the original pile installation — including use of the same type of hammer, equivalent penetration depth requirements, and avoidance of pre-record hammer drops — when supervising the test pile program intended to evaluate whether the original piles met design requirements.
discoveredincase: 71
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T11:21:54.652110+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 71
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T11:21:54.652110+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics — objectivity and completeness provisions; professional standard of care for comparative testing
sourcetext: Driving conditions were not duplicated in driving the test piles in that a vibratory hammer was used for the test piles and not used in the original driving.
temporalscope: During the design and execution of the test pile driving program
textreferences: Driving conditions were not duplicated in driving the test piles in that a vibratory hammer was used for the test piles and not used in the original driving.
textreferences: In the opinion of Engineer A's geotechnical consultant, this would have broken the pile bond and undervalued the skin friction value reported by Engineer B's tests.
textreferences: after the 30 day set up, the driving hammer was dropped several times to start the hammer before the record of blow counts commenced.
textreferences: the test piles were not driven to the same depth of penetration that apparently was required for the plug to form in the original piles.
wasattributedto: Case 71 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:37:51.643437
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

Engineer B Comparative Testing Methodological Fidelity Failure
type: ComparativeTestingMethodologicalFidelityCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Comparative Testing Methodological Fidelity Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer B failed to exercise the capability to replicate original pile driving conditions in the test program, using a vibratory hammer instead of the original hammer type, failing to achieve the same penetration depth, and allowing pre-record hammer drops that broke pile bond and undervalued skin friction.
casecontext: Engineer B supervised the test pile driving program intended to evaluate whether original piles would gain sufficient strength after 30-day set-up; methodological deviations invalidated comparative validity
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.92
demonstratedthrough: Use of vibratory hammer instead of original hammer type; failure to achieve required penetration depth for plug formation; dropping hammer several times before commencing blow count record
discoveredincase: 71
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T11:22:50.342736+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 71
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T11:22:50.342736+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer B
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: Driving conditions were not duplicated in driving the test piles in that a vibratory hammer was used for the test piles and not used in the original driving.
textreferences: Driving conditions were not duplicated in driving the test piles in that a vibratory hammer was used for the test piles and not used in the original driving.
textreferences: after the 30 day set up, the driving hammer was dropped several times to start the hammer before the record of blow counts commenced.
textreferences: the test piles were not driven to the same depth of penetration that apparently was required for the plug to form in the original piles
textreferences: this would have broken the pile bond and undervalued the skin friction value reported by Engineer B's tests
wasattributedto: Case 71 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:37:51.645190
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

Engineer B Comparative Testing Methodological Fidelity Vibratory Hammer
type: ComparativeTestingMethodologicalFidelityObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer B supervised test pile driving using a vibratory hammer not used in the original driving, drove piles to different depths than required for plug formation, and dropped the hammer several times before commencing blow count records — all deviations that Engineer A's geotechnical consultant testified would have undervalued skin friction values.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 71
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T11:19:52.632902+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 71
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T11:19:52.632902+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer B
obligationclass: Comparative Testing Methodological Fidelity Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer B was obligated to use the same type of driving hammer and penetration depth requirements in the test pile driving program as were used in the original pile driving, or to disclose and account for any deviations in the resulting report, so that the test results constituted valid comparators for evaluating the original piles.
sourcetext: Driving conditions were not duplicated in driving the test piles in that a vibratory hammer was used for the test piles and not used in the original driving.
temporalscope: During the design and execution of the test pile driving program and in the preparation of the concluding report
textreferences: Driving conditions were not duplicated in driving the test piles in that a vibratory hammer was used for the test piles and not used in the original driving.
textreferences: In the opinion of Engineer A's geotechnical consultant, this would have broken the pile bond and undervalued the skin friction value reported by Engineer B's tests.
textreferences: after the 30 day set up, the driving hammer was dropped several times to start the hammer before the record of blow counts commenced.
textreferences: the test piles were not driven to the same depth of penetration that apparently was required for the plug to form in the original piles
wasattributedto: Case 71 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:37:51.641816
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

Engineer B Compromised Test Condition Replication — Equipment Failure
type: CompromisedTestConditionReplicationState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: During the test pile driving program supervised by Engineer B
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Engineer B
affectedparties: Municipality
affectedparties: Quasi-legal proceeding
concept category: State
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 71
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T11:14:46.027785+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 71
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T11:14:46.027785+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Among them, that dynamic test equipment failed during the test
stateclass: Compromised Test Condition Replication State
subject: Engineer B's pile driving test program in which dynamic test equipment failed during testing
terminatedby: Not resolved within the case facts; failure remains undisclosed in the report
textreferences: Among them, that dynamic test equipment failed during the test
textreferences: Material facts, however, were not addressed in Engineer B's report
textreferences: Whatever rational Engineer B may employ to draw his conclusion, valid or not, the select language of the report precludes any interpretation that any or all 90 piles met the factor of safety requirement
triggeringevent: Dynamic test equipment failure during the test program, which was not disclosed in Engineer B's report despite its material effect on the validity of test results
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 71 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:37:51.639082
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

Engineer B Contradictory Explanation Issuance
type: ContradictoryProfessionalExplanationNon-IssuanceCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Contradictory Professional Explanation Non-Issuance Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer B failed to maintain consistency in professional explanations, first claiming pile driving records were outside scope of work, then claiming they were disbelieved as suspicious — issuing contradictory explanations that collectively created an artfully misleading impression about the basis for the omission.
casecontext: When queried by Engineer A after the report was issued, Engineer B provided a different explanation for the omission of pile driving records than had been previously given
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.91
demonstratedthrough: Sequential contradictory statements: first 'not in scope of work,' then 'we just did not believe the driving records' and 'the driving records look suspicious'
discoveredincase: 71
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T11:22:50.342736+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 71
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T11:22:50.342736+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer B
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: Previously, Engineer B had said, 'We didn't look at the pile driving records because it was not in our scope of work.'
textreferences: Previously, Engineer B had said, 'We didn't look at the pile driving records because it was not in our scope of work.'
textreferences: The driving records look suspicious.
textreferences: When queried by Engineer A after the report was issued by Engineer B, Engineer B said: 'We just did not believe the driving records and there was also the issue of whether the pile was vented...'
wasattributedto: Case 71 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:37:51.645488
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

Engineer B Contradictory Explanation Non-Issuance Scope vs Disbelief
type: ContradictoryProfessionalExplanationNon-IssuanceObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer B gave two mutually incompatible explanations for the same omission: (1) pile driving records were outside the scope of work, and (2) the records were not believed. These explanations are logically inconsistent — if records were outside scope, their credibility was irrelevant; if records were disbelieved, they were within scope but rejected.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.84
discoveredincase: 71
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T11:19:52.632902+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 71
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T11:19:52.632902+00:00
importance: medium
obligatedparty: Engineer B
obligationclass: Contradictory Professional Explanation Non-Issuance Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer B was obligated to provide a consistent, non-contradictory explanation for the decision not to review pile driving records, refraining from first citing scope-of-work limitations and then substituting an incompatible explanation of disbelieving the records when the first explanation was challenged.
sourcetext: Previously, Engineer B had said, 'We didn't look at the pile driving records because it was not in our scope of work.'
temporalscope: When queried by Engineer A after the report was issued
textreferences: Previously, Engineer B had said, 'We didn't look at the pile driving records because it was not in our scope of work.'
textreferences: When queried by Engineer A after the report was issued by Engineer B, Engineer B said: 'We just did not believe the driving records...The driving records look suspicious.'
wasattributedto: Case 71 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:37:51.642583
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

Engineer B Contradictory Explanations for Ignoring Pile Driving Records
type: ContradictoryScopeJustificationState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From post-report query by Engineer A through mediation proceedings
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Engineer B
affectedparties: Municipality
concept category: State
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 71
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T11:13:30.349068+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 71
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T11:13:30.349068+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Previously, Engineer B had said, 'We didn't look at the pile driving records because it was not in our scope of work.'
stateclass: Contradictory Scope Justification State
subject: Engineer B's post-report explanations for not consulting pile driving records
terminatedby: Not resolved within the case facts presented
textreferences: Previously, Engineer B had said, 'We didn't look at the pile driving records because it was not in our scope of work.'
textreferences: When queried by Engineer A after the report was issued by Engineer B, Engineer B said: 'We just did not believe the driving records and there was also the issue of whether the pile was vented... The driving records look suspicious.'
triggeringevent: Engineer A querying Engineer B about why pile driving records were not considered, revealing inconsistency between scope-based and credibility-based justifications
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 71 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:37:51.636082
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

Engineer B Contradictory Professional Explanation Non-Issuance Failure
type: ContradictoryProfessionalExplanationNon-IssuanceCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Contradictory Professional Explanation Non-Issuance Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer B failed to maintain consistency in professional explanations for the omission of pile driving records, first claiming they were outside scope of work and then claiming they were disbelieved — creating an artfully misleading pattern
casecontext: Engineer B provided contradictory explanations for the omission of pile driving records from the test pile driving report
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: Failure: Engineer B issued contradictory explanations for omitting pile driving records (scope-of-work vs. disbelief), constituting an artfully misleading pattern violating professional obligations of honesty
discoveredincase: 71
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T11:29:00.145245+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 71
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T11:29:00.145245+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer B
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: Engineer B was obligated to provide a consistent, non-contradictory explanation for the decision not to review pile driving records
textreferences: Engineer B was obligated to provide a consistent, non-contradictory explanation for the decision not to review pile driving records
wasattributedto: Case 71 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:37:51.652106
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

Engineer B Contradictory Professional Explanation Scope vs Disbelief
type: ContradictoryProfessionalExplanationNon-IssuanceObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: When queried about why pile driving records were not analyzed, Engineer B first claimed it was outside the scope of work, then contradicted this by stating he did not believe the records — providing two incompatible explanations that undermined the credibility and integrity of the report.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 71
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T11:27:05.459435+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 71
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T11:27:05.459435+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer B
obligationclass: Contradictory Professional Explanation Non-Issuance Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer B was obligated to refrain from issuing contradictory explanations for the omission of pile driving records — first claiming the omission was outside the scope of work, then substituting the incompatible explanation that he did not believe the records.
sourcetext: Engineer B initially claimed that pile driving records were not reviewed because it 'was not in our scope of work,' then contradicted this by stating he did not believe the records.
temporalscope: When queried about the basis for omitting pile driving records from the concluding report
textreferences: Engineer B initially claimed that pile driving records were not reviewed because it 'was not in our scope of work,' then contradicted this by stating he did not believe the records.
wasattributedto: Case 71 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:37:51.650137
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

Engineer B Contradictory Professional Justification Constraint — Scope vs. Disbelief
type: ContradictoryProfessionalJustificationNon-IssuanceConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: When queried by Engineer A after the report was issued, Engineer B provided a substantively different explanation (disbelief of records, venting concern) from the prior stated reason (scope of work), revealing that neither explanation was a complete or honest account of the decision.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.87
constrainedentity: Engineer B
constraintclass: Contradictory Professional Justification Non-Issuance Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer B was prohibited from offering mutually inconsistent explanations for the decision not to review pile driving records — first claiming it was outside the scope of work, then claiming the records were not believed — as these contradictory justifications constitute artfully misleading statements about the basis for the professional omission.
discoveredincase: 71
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T11:21:54.652110+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 71
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T11:21:54.652110+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics — truthfulness, non-deception, and objectivity provisions
sourcetext: Previously, Engineer B had said, 'We didn't look at the pile driving records because it was not in our scope of work.'
temporalscope: In post-report communications and explanations to Engineer A and other parties
textreferences: Engineer B said: 'We just did not believe the driving records and there was also the issue of whether the pile was vented to allow air to escape from below a closure plate that was included in the pile to separate the concrete fill in the pile from the clay. The driving records look suspicious.'
textreferences: Previously, Engineer B had said, 'We didn't look at the pile driving records because it was not in our scope of work.'
wasattributedto: Case 71 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:37:51.643754
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

Engineer B Contradictory Professional Justification Scope vs Disbelief Constraint Instance
type: ContradictoryProfessionalJustificationNon-IssuanceConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer B offered two contradictory explanations for not reviewing pile driving records: (1) it was outside the scope of work, and (2) Engineer B did not believe the records. These contradictory justifications were found to constitute artfully misleading statements.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.93
constrainedentity: Engineer B
constraintclass: Contradictory Professional Justification Non-Issuance Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer B was prohibited from offering mutually inconsistent explanations for the omission of pile driving records — first claiming scope-of-work limitation, then claiming disbelief of the records — as these contradictory justifications constitute artfully misleading statements violating the NSPE Code's truthfulness and non-deception provisions.
discoveredincase: 71
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T11:29:18.765291+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 71
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T11:29:18.765291+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics — truthfulness and non-deception provisions; prohibition on artfully misleading statements
sourcetext: Engineer B's selective use of technical fact was inspired by the adversarial circumstance, nor does it matter.
temporalscope: During post-report explanatory proceedings and mediation testimony
textreferences: Engineer B's selective use of technical fact was inspired by the adversarial circumstance, nor does it matter.
textreferences: This is an egregious denial of the duties and responsibilities of a professional engineer in any setting, legal, quasi-legal or non-legal.
wasattributedto: Case 71 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:37:51.654237
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

Engineer B Dynamic Equipment Failure Non-Disclosure
type: DynamicPileTestEquipmentFailureDisclosureCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Dynamic Pile Test Equipment Failure Disclosure Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer B failed to disclose in the concluding report that dynamic test equipment had failed during the test pile driving program, omitting material information necessary for readers to independently evaluate the reliability of the test results.
casecontext: Dynamic test equipment failed during the test pile driving program supervised by Engineer B; this failure was not reported in Engineer B's concluding report but was disclosed by Engineer A's independent geotechnical consultant
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.91
demonstratedthrough: Concluding report omitted any mention of dynamic test equipment failure despite its occurrence during the test program
discoveredincase: 71
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T11:22:50.342736+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 71
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T11:22:50.342736+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer B
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: Engineer B did not report that the dynamic test equipment had failed.
textreferences: Engineer B did not report that the dynamic test equipment had failed.
textreferences: The geotechnical consultant testified and showed that dynamic test equipment had failed during the test
wasattributedto: Case 71 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:37:51.645769
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

Engineer B Dynamic Pile Test Equipment Failure Disclosure Failure
type: DynamicPileTestEquipmentFailureDisclosureCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Dynamic Pile Test Equipment Failure Disclosure Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer B failed to disclose in the concluding report that dynamic test equipment had failed during the test pile driving program, preventing readers from independently evaluating the reliability and validity of the test results
casecontext: Engineer B supervised test pile driving program; dynamic test equipment failed during the program; Engineer B's concluding report omitted this material fact
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.92
demonstratedthrough: Failure: Engineer B's concluding report omitted the material fact that dynamic test equipment failed during the test program
discoveredincase: 71
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T11:29:00.145245+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 71
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T11:29:00.145245+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer B
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: Material facts, however, were not addressed in Engineer B's report. Among them, that dynamic test equipment failed during the test
textreferences: Material facts, however, were not addressed in Engineer B's report. Among them, that dynamic test equipment failed during the test
wasattributedto: Case 71 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:37:51.652385
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

Engineer B Expert Report Peer Review Opportunity Foreclosure Language
type: ExpertReportPeerReviewOpportunityPreservationConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer B's report language was so absolute that it effectively denied the opportunity for expert engineering review and interpretation of the pile driving test, preventing any finding that the piles were adequate.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.91
constrainedentity: Engineer B
constraintclass: Expert Report Peer Review Opportunity Preservation Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer B was constrained to draft the concluding pile driving test report using language that preserved the opportunity for independent expert engineering review and interpretation, and was prohibited from using language so absolute and conclusory that it precluded any interpretation that any or all 90 piles met the factor of safety requirement.
discoveredincase: 71
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T11:29:18.765291+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 71
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T11:29:18.765291+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics — objectivity and completeness provisions; professional obligation not to foreclose legitimate technical review
sourcetext: Whatever rational Engineer B may employ to draw his conclusion, valid or not, the select language of the report precludes any interpretation that any or all 90 piles met the factor of safety requirement.
temporalscope: At time of drafting and submitting the concluding report
textreferences: The opportunity for expert engineering review and interpretation of the pile driving test was effectively denied by Engineer B's report.
textreferences: Whatever rational Engineer B may employ to draw his conclusion, valid or not, the select language of the report precludes any interpretation that any or all 90 piles met the factor of safety requirement.
wasattributedto: Case 71 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:37:51.653335
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

Engineer B Fact-Gathering Diligence Failure Contractor Workers On-Site Representatives
type: Fact-GatheringDiligenceBeforeAdverseTechnicalConclusionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer B failed to communicate with Engineer A's on-site representative and failed to inquire from the contractor, workers, or others present at the pile driving, constituting a failure of fact-gathering diligence.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.93
constrainedentity: Engineer B
constraintclass: Fact-Gathering Diligence Before Adverse Technical Conclusion Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer B was constrained to exercise diligent fact-gathering — including communicating with Engineer A's on-site representative and inquiring from the contractor, workers, and others on the job — before rendering adverse conclusions about the adequacy of the 19 piles.
discoveredincase: 71
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T11:29:18.765291+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 71
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T11:29:18.765291+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics — objectivity, completeness, and diligent investigation obligations
sourcetext: It is clear that Engineer B may be criticized for his failure to communicate with Engineer A's on-site representative.
temporalscope: During the test pile driving program and prior to finalizing the concluding report
textreferences: However, Engineer B's failure to inquire from the contractor, workers or others on the job is a failure of fact gathering diligence.
textreferences: It is clear that Engineer B may be criticized for his failure to communicate with Engineer A's on-site representative.
wasattributedto: Case 71 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:37:51.653632
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

Engineer B Fact-Gathering Diligence Failure On-Site Representative
type: Fact-GatheringDiligenceObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer B supervised a test pile driving program retained by the municipality in an adversarial dispute with Engineer A; Engineer B failed to communicate with Engineer A's on-site representative and failed to inquire from contractor, workers, or others on the job.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 71
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T11:27:05.459435+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 71
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T11:27:05.459435+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer B
obligationclass: Fact-Gathering Diligence Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer B was obligated to communicate with Engineer A's on-site representative and to inquire from the contractor, workers, and others on the job before drawing conclusions about pile adequacy in the test pile driving program.
sourcetext: It is clear that Engineer B may be criticized for his failure to communicate with Engineer A's on-site representative.
temporalscope: During and immediately following the test pile driving program, before finalizing the concluding report
textreferences: Engineer B's failure to inquire from the contractor, workers or others on the job is a failure of fact gathering diligence.
textreferences: It is clear that Engineer B may be criticized for his failure to communicate with Engineer A's on-site representative.
wasattributedto: Case 71 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:37:51.648550
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

Engineer B Fact-Grounded Opinion Constraint — Pile Adequacy Adverse Conclusions
type: Fact-GroundedOpinionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer B's adverse opinion about the 19 piles was based solely on skin friction resistance calculations applied to penetration depth, while intentionally excluding the pile driving records and wave equation analysis that would have shown the piles met design requirements.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.91
constrainedentity: Engineer B
constraintclass: Fact-Grounded Opinion Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer B was required to base the adverse technical opinion about the adequacy of the 19 piles on all established facts and completed professional analysis — including the pile driving records and wave equation calculations — rather than on a selective subset of data that excluded primary technical documentation.
discoveredincase: 71
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T11:21:54.652110+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 71
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T11:21:54.652110+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics — objectivity and completeness provisions
sourcetext: This opinion was based upon the fact that the nineteen piles did not reach sufficient depth to develop the full strength when applying skin friction resistance value to the square footage of pile penetration.
temporalscope: At the time of forming and issuing the adverse technical opinion in the expert report
textreferences: Engineer B did not state anywhere in the report that these 19 piles, according to the pile driving records, had been driven to essential refusal and that, applying accepted wave equation calculations, the piles would have indicated a strength several multiples over the calculated load requirements.
textreferences: This opinion was based upon the fact that the nineteen piles did not reach sufficient depth to develop the full strength when applying skin friction resistance value to the square footage of pile penetration.
wasattributedto: Case 71 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:37:51.644208
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

Engineer B Fact-Grounded Technical Opinion Obligation Violated
type: Fact-GroundedTechnicalOpinionObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer B expressed technical opinions that 19 piles did not meet safety factor requirements based on selectively presented data, omitting material findings (equipment failure, piles driven to refusal, wave equation results) that were directly relevant to those conclusions.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 71
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T11:27:05.459435+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 71
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T11:27:05.459435+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer B
obligationclass: Fact-Grounded Technical Opinion Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer B was obligated to express technical opinions about pile adequacy only when those opinions were founded upon all established facts and completed professional analysis — including pile driving records, wave equation analysis, and equipment failure data — and to include all relevant and pertinent information in the professional report.
sourcetext: At the conclusion of the program Engineer B reports that 19 piles do not meet the required factor of safety for the reason that the piles were not driven to a sufficient depth that pile friction resistance would support the load.
temporalscope: At the time of forming and publishing technical opinions in the concluding report
textreferences: At the conclusion of the program Engineer B reports that 19 piles do not meet the required factor of safety for the reason that the piles were not driven to a sufficient depth that pile friction resistance would support the load.
textreferences: Material facts, however, were not addressed in Engineer B's report.
wasattributedto: Case 71 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:37:51.650599
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

Engineer B Fact-Grounded Technical Opinion Pile Adequacy Conclusions
type: Fact-GroundedTechnicalOpinionObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer B's adverse opinion about 19 piles was based solely on skin friction depth calculations while omitting wave equation analysis that would have shown the piles met strength requirements, rendering the opinion incomplete and not fully fact-grounded.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 71
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T11:19:52.632902+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 71
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T11:19:52.632902+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer B
obligationclass: Fact-Grounded Technical Opinion Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer B was obligated to base the adverse technical opinion about the 19 piles on all established facts and completed professional analysis — including wave equation calculations from pile driving records — rather than on skin friction depth calculations alone, and to include all relevant and pertinent information in the professional report.
sourcetext: This opinion was based upon the fact that the nineteen piles did not reach sufficient depth to develop the full strength when applying skin friction resistance value to the square footage of pile penetration.
temporalscope: During the formation and publication of the adverse technical opinion in the concluding report
textreferences: Engineer B did not state anywhere in the report that these 19 piles, according to the pile driving records, had been driven to essential refusal and that, applying accepted wave equation calculations, the piles would have indicated a strength several multiples over the calculated load requirements.
textreferences: This opinion was based upon the fact that the nineteen piles did not reach sufficient depth to develop the full strength when applying skin friction resistance value to the square footage of pile penetration.
wasattributedto: Case 71 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:37:51.642736
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

Engineer B Fact-Grounded Technical Opinion Pile Adequacy Without Full Evidence Base
type: Fact-GroundedOpinionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer B issued adverse conclusions about pile adequacy without reviewing pile driving records that would have shown the piles were driven to refusal and that wave equation analysis supported their adequacy.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.95
constrainedentity: Engineer B
constraintclass: Fact-Grounded Opinion Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer B was constrained to base adverse technical opinions about the adequacy of the 19 piles on all established facts and completed professional analysis — including pile driving records, wave equation results, and equipment failure data — and was prohibited from issuing adverse findings without this complete factual foundation.
discoveredincase: 71
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T11:29:18.765291+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 71
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T11:29:18.765291+00:00
importance: critical
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics — objectivity provisions; requirement that opinions be founded on established facts and completed analysis
sourcetext: Engineers must be exponents of all the available technical facts as the basis for problem solving.
temporalscope: At time of forming and reporting adverse conclusions about pile adequacy
textreferences: Engineers must be exponents of all the available technical facts as the basis for problem solving.
textreferences: Material facts, however, were not addressed in Engineer B's report.
wasattributedto: Case 71 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:37:51.654385
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

Engineer B Facts Versus Adversarial Interests Distinction Failure
type: Facts-Versus-Adversarial-InterestsDistinctionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Facts-Versus-Adversarial-Interests Distinction Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer B failed to maintain the distinction between technical facts (which are not adversarial) and adversarial interests (which are polarizing), allowing the adversarial context to distort his selection and presentation of technical facts
casecontext: Engineer B retained in adversarial dispute context; allowed adversarial interests to polarize his selection of technical facts in the test pile driving report
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: Failure: Engineer B selectively used technical facts in a manner consistent with defending the municipality's adversarial position rather than treating all technical facts as equally available for objective analysis
discoveredincase: 71
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T11:29:00.145245+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 71
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T11:29:00.145245+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer B
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: Engineers must be exponents of all the available technical facts as the basis for problem solving.
textreferences: Engineer B appears to have assumed a responsibility to defend the client municipality by the selective use of data.
textreferences: Engineers must be exponents of all the available technical facts as the basis for problem solving.
textreferences: Facts are not adversarial, even if they may be conflicting.
wasattributedto: Case 71 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:37:51.651212
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

Engineer B Failure to Consult Available On-Site Representatives
type: AvailableWitnessNon-ConsultationState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: Throughout the development of Engineer B's report
affectedparties: Contractors and workers
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Engineer B
affectedparties: Municipality
affectedparties: On-site representatives
concept category: State
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 71
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T11:13:30.349068+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 71
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T11:13:30.349068+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: At no time during the development of Engineer B's report did Engineer B talk to any representative of Engineer A, even though Engineer A's on-site representatives were available to testify as to the accuracy of the pile driving records.
stateclass: Available Witness Non-Consultation State
subject: Engineer B's investigative process for the pile adequacy report
terminatedby: Post-report query by Engineer A (after report was already issued)
textreferences: At no time during the development of Engineer B's report did Engineer B talk to any representative of Engineer A, even though Engineer A's on-site representatives were available to testify as to the accuracy of the pile driving records.
textreferences: No effort was made by Engineer B to inquire from contractors, workers, or others on the job to verify or refute his theories about why the 19 piles met driving refusal prior to predicted depth.
triggeringevent: Engineer B proceeding to develop and issue a report on pile adequacy without contacting Engineer A's on-site representatives, contractors, or workers
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 71 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:37:51.635615
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

Engineer B Faithful Agent Municipality Report Completeness
type: FaithfulAgentObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer B was retained by the municipality to supervise test pile driving and produce a report; the faithful agent obligation required honest and complete reporting even if some findings were adverse to the municipality's litigation interests.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 71
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T11:19:52.632902+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 71
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T11:19:52.632902+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer B
obligationclass: Faithful Agent Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer B was obligated to act as a faithful agent to the municipality by providing a complete and accurate technical report on the test pile driving program, serving the municipality's legitimate interests within the bounds of professional ethics — which required including all material findings rather than selectively reporting only findings favorable to the municipality's litigation position.
sourcetext: the municipality retained Engineer B to supervise the driving of several test piles to see whether the piles would gain sufficient strength to meet the design calculation requirements.
temporalscope: Throughout the engagement to supervise test pile driving and produce the concluding report
textreferences: Engineer B did not state anywhere in the report that these 19 piles, according to the pile driving records, had been driven to essential refusal
textreferences: Engineer B's concluding report stated that approximately 19 of the 90 piles did not meet the safety factor required by the design calculations.
textreferences: the municipality retained Engineer B to supervise the driving of several test piles to see whether the piles would gain sufficient strength to meet the design calculation requirements.
wasattributedto: Case 71 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:37:51.642257
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

Engineer B Faithful Agent Obligation Violated by Selective Reporting
type: FaithfulAgentObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer B was retained by the municipality as a faithful agent to supervise test pile driving and produce a report evaluating pile adequacy; the faithful agent duty required complete and objective reporting that genuinely served the municipality's interests, not selective reporting that disserved those interests.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.87
discoveredincase: 71
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T11:27:05.459435+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 71
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T11:27:05.459435+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer B
obligationclass: Faithful Agent Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer B was obligated to act as a faithful agent to the municipality by producing a complete and objective report that genuinely served the municipality's interests — including by presenting all material technical findings that would enable the municipality to make informed decisions about the litigation — rather than selectively omitting material facts in a misguided attempt to 'defend' the client.
sourcetext: As an engineering document the report is incomplete and does a disservice to Engineer B's client municipality by potentially misdirecting a conclusion.
temporalscope: Throughout the engagement, from retention through report issuance
textreferences: As an engineering document the report is incomplete and does a disservice to Engineer B's client municipality by potentially misdirecting a conclusion.
textreferences: by excluding the pile driving records, Engineer B has denied himself the opportunity to present a rational for discounting their value, and thereby to serve his client.
wasattributedto: Case 71 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:37:51.650447
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

Engineer B Incomplete Circumstantial Knowledge Adverse Pile Conclusions Without Full Record Review
type: IncompleteCircumstantialKnowledgeCritiqueProhibitionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer B rendered adverse conclusions about pile adequacy without reviewing pile driving records that would have shown the piles were driven to refusal — a material circumstance informing Engineer A's original professional judgment.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.87
constrainedentity: Engineer B
constraintclass: Incomplete Circumstantial Knowledge Critique Prohibition Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer B was prohibited from rendering specific adverse conclusions about the adequacy of Engineer A's 19 piles without reviewing the pile driving records, wave equation analysis, and other material evidence that informed Engineer A's original professional judgment.
discoveredincase: 71
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T11:29:18.765291+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 71
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T11:29:18.765291+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics — objectivity provisions; prohibition on criticism without full knowledge of circumstances
sourcetext: Material facts, however, were not addressed in Engineer B's report.
temporalscope: Prior to and at time of finalizing the concluding report
textreferences: Engineers must be exponents of all the available technical facts as the basis for problem solving.
textreferences: Facts are not adversarial, even if they may be conflicting.
textreferences: Material facts, however, were not addressed in Engineer B's report.
wasattributedto: Case 71 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:37:51.653947
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

Engineer B Incomplete Knowledge Restraint Adverse Conclusions Failure
type: IncompleteKnowledgeRestraintinCompetitorCritiqueCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Incomplete Knowledge Restraint in Competitor Critique Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer B failed to restrain from rendering specific adverse conclusions about the adequacy of Engineer A's 19 piles without reviewing the pile driving records that constituted the primary evidence of pile performance
casecontext: Engineer B formed adverse technical opinions about Engineer A's pile foundation design without reviewing available pile driving records or consulting available witnesses
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: Failure: Engineer B issued adverse conclusions about pile adequacy without consulting pile driving records, on-site representatives, contractors, or workers — all of whom constituted available evidence
discoveredincase: 71
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T11:29:00.145245+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 71
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T11:29:00.145245+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer B
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: Engineer B's failure to inquire from the contractor, workers or others on the job is a failure of fact gathering diligence.
textreferences: Engineer B's failure to inquire from the contractor, workers or others on the job is a failure of fact gathering diligence.
textreferences: It is clear that Engineer B may be criticized for his failure to communicate with Engineer A's on-site representative.
wasattributedto: Case 71 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:37:51.651494
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

Engineer B Incomplete Knowledge Restraint Adverse Conclusions Without Full Record Review
type: IncompleteKnowledgeRestraintinCompetitorCritiqueObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer B rendered specific adverse conclusions about pile safety factors without reviewing pile driving records showing piles were driven to refusal, and without consulting Engineer A's on-site representative — constituting critique without complete situational knowledge.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 71
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T11:27:05.459435+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 71
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T11:27:05.459435+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer B
obligationclass: Incomplete Knowledge Restraint in Competitor Critique Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer B was obligated to refrain from rendering specific adverse conclusions about the adequacy of Engineer A's 19 piles without reviewing the pile driving records that would have provided complete situational knowledge of the conditions under which those piles were driven.
sourcetext: Material facts, however, were not addressed in Engineer B's report. Among them, that dynamic test equipment failed during the test, and that all 19 test piles reported as failing the test were driven to refusal.
temporalscope: Before finalizing and publishing adverse technical conclusions about Engineer A's pile design
textreferences: It is clear that Engineer B may be criticized for his failure to communicate with Engineer A's on-site representative.
textreferences: Material facts, however, were not addressed in Engineer B's report. Among them, that dynamic test equipment failed during the test, and that all 19 test piles reported as failing the test were driven to refusal.
wasattributedto: Case 71 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:37:51.650282
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

Engineer B Incomplete Risk Disclosure Constraint — Equipment Failure Non-Disclosure
type: IncompleteRiskDisclosureProhibition
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The failure of dynamic test equipment during the test pile program was a material fact bearing on the reliability of Engineer B's test results, yet it was omitted entirely from the concluding report.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.9
constrainedentity: Engineer B
constraintclass: Incomplete Risk Disclosure Prohibition
constraintstatement: Engineer B was prohibited from omitting from the expert report the material fact that dynamic test equipment had failed during the test pile driving program, as this failure was directly relevant to the reliability of the test results and the validity of the adverse conclusions about the 19 piles.
discoveredincase: 71
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T11:21:54.652110+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 71
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T11:21:54.652110+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics — completeness and non-deception provisions
sourcetext: Additionally, Engineer B did not report that the dynamic test equipment had failed.
temporalscope: At the time of preparation and submission of the concluding expert report
textreferences: Additionally, Engineer B did not report that the dynamic test equipment had failed.
textreferences: The geotechnical consultant testified and showed that dynamic test equipment had failed during the test and that the test piles were not driven to the same depth of penetration
wasattributedto: Case 71 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:37:51.644852
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

Engineer B Incumbent Engineer Knowledge Constraint — Failure to Notify Engineer A
type: IncumbentEngineerKnowledgeRequirementBeforePeerReviewConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer B conducted a full evaluation of Engineer A's pile design and issued an adverse expert report without at any time contacting Engineer A or Engineer A's representatives, despite their availability.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.85
constrainedentity: Engineer B
constraintclass: Incumbent Engineer Knowledge Requirement Before Peer Review Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer B was required to ensure that Engineer A was aware of the review of Engineer A's pile design work before proceeding with substantive evaluation, and was prohibited from conducting a covert evaluation of Engineer A's work without Engineer A's knowledge.
discoveredincase: 71
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T11:21:54.652110+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 71
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T11:21:54.652110+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics — peer review and professional courtesy provisions
sourcetext: At no time during the development of Engineer B's report did Engineer B talk to any representative of Engineer A, even though Engineer A's on-site representatives were available to testify as to the accuracy of the pile driving records.
temporalscope: Before and during the development of the expert report evaluating Engineer A's pile design
textreferences: At no time during the development of Engineer B's report did Engineer B talk to any representative of Engineer A, even though Engineer A's on-site representatives were available to testify as to the accuracy of the pile driving records.
wasattributedto: Case 71 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:37:51.644370
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

Engineer B Intentional Information Disregard Constraint — Pile Driving Records Wave Equation
type: IntentionalInformationDisregardProhibitionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer B admitted to not believing the pile driving records and excluded them from the report, despite their status as primary technical documentation and their material bearing on the adverse conclusions about the 19 piles.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.92
constrainedentity: Engineer B
constraintclass: Intentional Information Disregard Prohibition Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer B was prohibited from intentionally disregarding the pile driving records when forming adverse conclusions about the 19 piles, as those records — when analyzed using accepted wave equation calculations — would have shown the piles had been driven to essential refusal and possessed strength several multiples over the calculated load requirements.
discoveredincase: 71
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T11:21:54.652110+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 71
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T11:21:54.652110+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics — objectivity, completeness, and truthfulness provisions; BER Case 95-5 precedent
sourcetext: Engineer B did not state anywhere in the report that these 19 piles, according to the pile driving records, had been driven to essential refusal and that, applying accepted wave equation calculations, the piles would have indicated a strength several multiples over the calculated load requirements.
temporalscope: Throughout the development of the expert report and test pile program
textreferences: Engineer B did not state anywhere in the report that these 19 piles, according to the pile driving records, had been driven to essential refusal and that, applying accepted wave equation calculations, the piles would have indicated a strength several multiples over the calculated load requirements.
textreferences: Engineer B said: 'We just did not believe the driving records'
wasattributedto: Case 71 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:37:51.643901
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

Engineer B Intentional Information Disregard Pile Driving Records
type: IntentionalInformationDisregardProhibitionObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer B initially claimed pile driving records were outside scope of work, then admitted to disbelieving them — in either case, the records were not analyzed despite being directly relevant to the adverse conclusions drawn about pile adequacy.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 71
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T11:19:52.632902+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 71
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T11:19:52.632902+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer B
obligationclass: Intentional Information Disregard Prohibition Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer B was obligated to refrain from intentionally disregarding the pile driving records when forming adverse conclusions about the 19 piles, as those records were material evidence that would have altered or qualified the conclusions presented in the report.
sourcetext: Previously, Engineer B had said, 'We didn't look at the pile driving records because it was not in our scope of work.'
temporalscope: During the preparation of the concluding report and when queried about the basis for conclusions
textreferences: Previously, Engineer B had said, 'We didn't look at the pile driving records because it was not in our scope of work.'
textreferences: When queried by Engineer A after the report was issued by Engineer B, Engineer B said: 'We just did not believe the driving records...The driving records look suspicious.'
wasattributedto: Case 71 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:37:51.649858
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

Engineer B Intentional Information Disregard Pile Driving Records Constraint Instance
type: IntentionalInformationDisregardProhibitionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer B excluded pile driving records from the report, offering contradictory justifications (scope limitation vs. disbelief), while the records would have shown the piles were driven to refusal.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.96
constrainedentity: Engineer B
constraintclass: Intentional Information Disregard Prohibition Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer B was prohibited from intentionally disregarding or selectively omitting the pile driving records when forming and reporting adverse conclusions about the 19 piles, regardless of any claimed scope-of-work limitation or disbelief of the records.
discoveredincase: 71
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T11:29:18.765291+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 71
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T11:29:18.765291+00:00
importance: critical
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics — objectivity and truthfulness provisions; prohibition on selective use of technical fact
sourcetext: It is not evident from the facts of the case that Engineer B's selective use of technical fact was inspired by the adversarial circumstance, nor does it matter.
temporalscope: Throughout the test pile driving program and report preparation
textreferences: Engineer B appears to have assumed a responsibility to defend the client municipality by the selective use of data.
textreferences: It is not evident from the facts of the case that Engineer B's selective use of technical fact was inspired by the adversarial circumstance, nor does it matter.
wasattributedto: Case 71 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:37:51.652988
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

Engineer B Litigation Context Intentional Evidence Disregard
type: LitigationContextIntentionalEvidenceDisregardRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Litigation Context Intentional Evidence Disregard Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer B failed to recognize that intentionally disregarding pile driving records — on the basis that they appeared suspicious — without investigation or disclosure constituted an ethical violation, conflating professional skepticism with impermissible intentional evidence disregard.
casecontext: Engineer B formed adverse conclusions about 19 piles while intentionally disregarding pile driving records showing essential refusal, without disclosing this disregard or investigating the basis for the suspicious appearance of the records
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.89
demonstratedthrough: Explicit statement that pile driving records were disbelieved as suspicious without any investigation, inquiry, or disclosure of the disbelief in the report
discoveredincase: 71
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T11:22:50.342736+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 71
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T11:22:50.342736+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer B
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: Engineer B said: 'We just did not believe the driving records and there was also the issue of whether the pile was vented to allow air to escape from below a closure plate...'
textreferences: Engineer B said: 'We just did not believe the driving records and there was also the issue of whether the pile was vented to allow air to escape from below a closure plate...'
textreferences: Engineer B was obligated to refrain from intentionally disregarding the pile driving records when forming adverse conclusions about the 19 piles
textreferences: The driving records look suspicious.
wasattributedto: Case 71 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:37:51.646079
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

Engineer B Municipality-Retained Litigation Testing Engineer
type: Municipality-RetainedLitigationTestingEngineer
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'license': 'Professional Engineer (implied)', 'specialty': 'Geotechnical/pile foundation engineering', 'ethical_issues': ['Incomplete reporting — omitted driving records analysis', 'Omitted disclosure of dynamic test equipment failure', 'Failed to consult available on-site witnesses', 'Did not apply wave equation calculations to driving records', 'Gave contradictory explanations for omissions', "Selective analysis favoring retaining client's litigation position"]}
caseinvolvement: Retained by the municipality to supervise test pile driving and produce a report evaluating whether piles met design safety factors. Produced a report finding 19 of 90 piles deficient, but omitted material data: failed to report equipment failure, omitted wave equation analysis showing piles at essential refusal, failed to consult Engineer A's on-site representatives, and gave contradictory explanations for scope limitations. Central figure in the ethical analysis.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 71
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T11:13:16.138011+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 71
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T11:13:16.138011+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'peer_adversarial', 'target': 'Engineer A Dock Foundation Design Engineer'}
relationships: {'type': 'retained_by', 'target': 'Municipality Litigation Testing Client'}
relationships: {'type': 'subject_of_observation', 'target': 'Engineer A Geotechnical Consultant'}
rolecategory: provider_client
roleclass: Municipality-Retained Litigation Testing Engineer
sourcetext: the municipality retained Engineer B to supervise the driving of several test piles
textreferences: At no time during the development of Engineer B's report did Engineer B talk to any representative of Engineer A
textreferences: Engineer B did not report that the dynamic test equipment had failed
textreferences: Engineer B did not state anywhere in the report that these 19 piles...had been driven to essential refusal
textreferences: Engineer B's concluding report stated that approximately 19 of the 90 piles did not meet the safety factor required by the design calculations
textreferences: No effort was made by Engineer B to inquire from contractors, workers, or others on the job
textreferences: We didn't look at the pile driving records because it was not in our scope of work
textreferences: We just did not believe the driving records
textreferences: the municipality retained Engineer B to supervise the driving of several test piles
wasattributedto: Case 71 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:37:51.634481
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

Engineer B Objective Complete Report Equipment Failure Omission
type: ObjectiveandCompleteReportingObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer B's concluding report omitted the fact that dynamic test equipment failed during the test, a fact testified to by Engineer A's independent geotechnical consultant.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 71
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T11:19:52.632902+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 71
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T11:19:52.632902+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer B
obligationclass: Objective and Complete Reporting Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer B was obligated to disclose in the concluding report that dynamic test equipment had failed during the test pile driving program, as this material fact directly affected the validity and interpretation of the test results.
sourcetext: Additionally, Engineer B did not report that the dynamic test equipment had failed.
temporalscope: At the time of preparing and issuing the concluding report on the test pile driving program
textreferences: Additionally, Engineer B did not report that the dynamic test equipment had failed.
textreferences: The geotechnical consultant testified and showed that dynamic test equipment had failed during the test
wasattributedto: Case 71 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:37:51.641480
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

Engineer B Objective Complete Report Wave Equation Omission
type: ObjectiveandCompleteReportingObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer B's concluding report on the test pile driving program omitted the wave equation analysis results that would have shown the 19 piles met strength requirements, while reporting only the skin friction depth calculation that showed they did not.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 71
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T11:19:52.632902+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 71
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T11:19:52.632902+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer B
obligationclass: Objective and Complete Reporting Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer B was obligated to include in the concluding report the material finding that the 19 disputed piles had been driven to essential refusal and that, applying accepted wave equation calculations, those piles would have indicated strength several multiples over the calculated load requirements.
sourcetext: Engineer B did not state anywhere in the report that these 19 piles, according to the pile driving records, had been driven to essential refusal and that, applying accepted wave equation calculations, the piles would have indicated a strength several multiples over the calculated load requirements.
temporalscope: At the time of preparing and issuing the concluding report on the test pile driving program
textreferences: Engineer B did not state anywhere in the report that these 19 piles, according to the pile driving records, had been driven to essential refusal and that, applying accepted wave equation calculations, the piles would have indicated a strength several multiples over the calculated load requirements.
wasattributedto: Case 71 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:37:51.641340
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

Engineer B Objective and Complete Reporting Wave Equation Omission
type: ObjectiveandCompleteReportingObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer B's concluding report omitted the wave equation analysis showing piles had strength multiples over calculated loads, omitted the dynamic test equipment failure, and omitted that all 19 piles were driven to refusal — all material facts directly relevant to the pile adequacy conclusions.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 71
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T11:27:05.459435+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 71
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T11:27:05.459435+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer B
obligationclass: Objective and Complete Reporting Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer B was obligated to include all relevant and pertinent information in the concluding report — including wave equation analysis results, the equipment failure during testing, and the fact that all 19 disputed piles were driven to refusal — as required by the Code of Ethics.
sourcetext: Material facts, however, were not addressed in Engineer B's report. Among them, that dynamic test equipment failed during the test, and that all 19 test piles reported as failing the test were driven to refusal.
temporalscope: At the time of preparing and issuing the concluding report on the test pile driving program
textreferences: Material facts, however, were not addressed in Engineer B's report. Among them, that dynamic test equipment failed during the test, and that all 19 test piles reported as failing the test were driven to refusal.
textreferences: the Code of Ethics which requires that engineers 'shall include all relevant and pertinent information in such report, statements or testimony.'
wasattributedto: Case 71 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:37:51.648830
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

Engineer B Peer Technical Review Opportunity Foreclosure Report Language
type: PeerTechnicalReviewOpportunityPreservationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer B's report used language that precluded any interpretation that any or all 90 piles met the factor of safety requirement, effectively denying the opportunity for expert engineering review and interpretation of the pile driving test.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 71
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T11:27:05.459435+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 71
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T11:27:05.459435+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer B
obligationclass: Peer Technical Review Opportunity Preservation Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer B was obligated to ensure that the concluding report's language did not foreclose the opportunity for expert engineering review and independent interpretation of the pile driving test results — specifically by not using selective language that precluded any interpretation that the 90 piles met the safety factor requirement.
sourcetext: Whatever rational Engineer B may employ to draw his conclusion, valid or not, the select language of the report precludes any interpretation that any or all 90 piles met the factor of safety requirement.
temporalscope: At the time of drafting and issuing the concluding report
textreferences: The opportunity for expert engineering review and interpretation of the pile driving test was effectively denied by Engineer B's report.
textreferences: Whatever rational Engineer B may employ to draw his conclusion, valid or not, the select language of the report precludes any interpretation that any or all 90 piles met the factor of safety requirement.
wasattributedto: Case 71 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:37:51.649716
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

Engineer B Peer Technical Review Opportunity Preservation Failure
type: PeerTechnicalReviewOpportunityPreservationinReportLanguageCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Peer Technical Review Opportunity Preservation in Report Language Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer B failed to exercise the capability to ensure that report language preserved the opportunity for independent expert engineering review and interpretation of the pile driving test data
casecontext: Engineer B's concluding report on test pile driving program used language that foreclosed alternative technical interpretations, denying peer review opportunity
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.87
demonstratedthrough: Failure: Engineer B's report used select language that precluded any interpretation that any or all 90 piles met the factor of safety requirement, effectively denying the opportunity for expert engineering review
discoveredincase: 71
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T11:29:00.145245+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 71
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T11:29:00.145245+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer B
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: Whatever rational Engineer B may employ to draw his conclusion, valid or not, the select language of the report precludes any interpretation that any or all 90 piles met the factor of safety requirement.
textreferences: The opportunity for expert engineering review and interpretation of the pile driving test was effectively denied by Engineer B's report.
textreferences: Whatever rational Engineer B may employ to draw his conclusion, valid or not, the select language of the report precludes any interpretation that any or all 90 piles met the factor of safety requirement.
wasattributedto: Case 71 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:37:51.651046
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

Engineer B Pile Foundation Adequacy Evaluation
type: PileFoundationAdequacyEvaluationCompetence
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Pile Foundation Adequacy Evaluation Competence
capabilitystatement: Engineer B possessed but incompletely applied pile foundation adequacy evaluation competence, applying only skin friction area calculations while omitting wave equation analysis and failing to account for essential refusal data in the pile driving records when evaluating the 19 disputed piles.
casecontext: Engineer B was retained to evaluate whether original piles met design safety factors; produced conclusions based on incomplete analytical methodology
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstratedthrough: Application of skin friction resistance calculations to evaluate pile adequacy; failure to apply wave equation analysis; failure to account for essential refusal in pile driving records
discoveredincase: 71
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T11:22:50.342736+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 71
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T11:22:50.342736+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer B
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: Engineer B's concluding report stated that approximately 19 of the 90 piles did not meet the safety factor required by the design calculations.
textreferences: Engineer B's concluding report stated that approximately 19 of the 90 piles did not meet the safety factor required by the design calculations.
textreferences: This opinion was based upon the fact that the nineteen piles did not reach sufficient depth to develop the full strength when applying skin friction resistance value to the square footage of pile penetration.
textreferences: applying accepted wave equation calculations, the piles would have indicated a strength several multiples over the calculated load requirements
wasattributedto: Case 71 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:37:51.645931
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

Engineer B Pile Foundation Adequacy Evaluation Competence Failure
type: PileFoundationAdequacyEvaluationCompetence
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Pile Foundation Adequacy Evaluation Competence
capabilitystatement: Engineer B failed to apply the full range of analytical methods — including wave equation analysis and pile driving record interpretation — to evaluate the load-carrying adequacy of the 19 disputed piles, relying instead on skin friction area calculations alone
casecontext: Engineer B retained to evaluate whether piles met design safety factors; produced report concluding 19 piles failed without applying all available analytical methods
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.87
demonstratedthrough: Failure: Engineer B concluded 19 piles did not meet required factor of safety based on insufficient depth for pile friction resistance, without applying wave equation analysis to pile driving records showing piles driven to essential refusal
discoveredincase: 71
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T11:29:00.145245+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 71
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T11:29:00.145245+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer B
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: Engineer B reports that 19 piles do not meet the required factor of safety for the reason that the piles were not driven to a sufficient depth that pile friction resistance would support the load.
textreferences: Engineer B reports that 19 piles do not meet the required factor of safety for the reason that the piles were not driven to a sufficient depth that pile friction resistance would support the load.
textreferences: all 19 test piles reported as failing the test were driven to refusal.
wasattributedto: Case 71 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:37:51.652245
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

Engineer B Precedent-Based Report Completeness Standard
type: Precedent-BasedReportCompletenessStandardApplicationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Precedent-Based Report Completeness Standard Application Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer B failed to apply the BER precedent-based standard for report completeness — established in BER Cases 95-5 and 99-8 — that requires inclusion of all relevant and pertinent information including findings contrary to the preparer's preferred conclusion, and that prohibits intentional disregard of contrary information.
casecontext: Engineer B's report in the adversarial litigation context failed to meet the BER-established standard for completeness and non-selectivity in professional engineering reports
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.86
demonstratedthrough: Production of a report omitting essential refusal data and equipment failure findings; intentional disregard of pile driving records; invocation of scope limitation as excuse for omission
discoveredincase: 71
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T11:22:50.342736+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 71
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T11:22:50.342736+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer B
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: Engineer B did not state anywhere in the report that these 19 piles, according to the pile driving records, had been driven to essential refusal
textreferences: Engineer B did not report that the dynamic test equipment had failed.
textreferences: Engineer B did not state anywhere in the report that these 19 piles, according to the pile driving records, had been driven to essential refusal
textreferences: We just did not believe the driving records
wasattributedto: Case 71 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:37:51.646922
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

Engineer B Precedent-Based Report Completeness Standard Application Failure
type: Precedent-BasedReportCompletenessStandardApplicationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Precedent-Based Report Completeness Standard Application Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer B failed to apply the professional standard for completeness and integrity in preparing engineering reports, including the requirement to include all relevant and pertinent information and to refrain from intentional disregard of contrary information
casecontext: Engineer B produced concluding report on test pile driving that failed to meet professional completeness standards by omitting material facts
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstratedthrough: Failure: Engineer B's report selectively omitted material technical findings including pile driving records, wave equation analysis results, and equipment failure information
discoveredincase: 71
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T11:29:00.145245+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 71
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T11:29:00.145245+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer B
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: the Code of Ethics which requires that engineers 'shall include all relevant and pertinent information in such report, statements or testimony.'
textreferences: As evidence, the report appears to serve no purpose except to impugn Engineer A, or to support the original testimony of the municipality's expert witness.
textreferences: the Code of Ethics which requires that engineers 'shall include all relevant and pertinent information in such report, statements or testimony.'
wasattributedto: Case 71 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:37:51.652669
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

Engineer B Report Selective Omission of Pile Driving Records and Equipment Failure
type: SelectiveInformationOmissioninProfessionalReportState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From issuance of Engineer B's report through mediation proceedings
affectedparties: Contractor
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Engineer B
affectedparties: Municipality
concept category: State
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 71
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T11:13:30.349068+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 71
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T11:13:30.349068+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer B did not state anywhere in the report that these 19 piles, according to the pile driving records, had been driven to essential refusal and that, applying accepted wave equation calculations, the piles would have indicated a strength several multiples over the calculated load requirements.
stateclass: Selective Information Omission in Professional Report State
subject: Engineer B's concluding report on pile adequacy
terminatedby: Disclosure through Engineer A's geotechnical consultant's testimony and subsequent querying of Engineer B
textreferences: Additionally, Engineer B did not report that the dynamic test equipment had failed.
textreferences: Engineer B did not state anywhere in the report that these 19 piles, according to the pile driving records, had been driven to essential refusal and that, applying accepted wave equation calculations, the piles would have indicated a strength several multiples over the calculated load requirements.
triggeringevent: Engineer B issuing a report that omitted pile driving records showing piles driven to essential refusal, omitted wave equation calculations showing multiples of required strength, and omitted the dynamic test equipment failure
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 71 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:37:51.635222
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

Engineer B Retained Expert Impugning Engineer A Prohibition Instance
type: CompetitorReputationInjuryProhibitionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer B's report, by selectively omitting material facts favorable to Engineer A's conclusions, functioned primarily to impugn Engineer A rather than to provide objective technical analysis.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.88
constrainedentity: Engineer B
constraintclass: Competitor Reputation Injury Prohibition Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer B was prohibited from producing a technical report that served no evident engineering purpose except to impugn Engineer A's professional reputation or to support the municipality's expert witness testimony, as such a report constitutes an attempt to injure the professional reputation of another engineer.
discoveredincase: 71
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T11:29:18.765291+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 71
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T11:29:18.765291+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics — prohibition against maliciously or falsely injuring the professional reputation of another engineer
sourcetext: As evidence, the report appears to serve no purpose except to impugn Engineer A, or to support the original testimony of the municipality's expert witness.
temporalscope: At time of drafting and submitting the concluding report
textreferences: As evidence, the report appears to serve no purpose except to impugn Engineer A, or to support the original testimony of the municipality's expert witness.
wasattributedto: Case 71 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:37:51.653482
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

Engineer B Scope-of-Work Non-Exculpation Constraint — Pile Driving Records Omission
type: Scope-of-WorkNon-ExculpationforMaterialEvidenceOmissionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer B initially claimed the pile driving records were not reviewed because it was outside the scope of work, but later admitted to disbelieving the records — revealing that the scope justification was a post-hoc rationalization for a predetermined decision to exclude material evidence.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.89
constrainedentity: Engineer B
constraintclass: Scope-of-Work Non-Exculpation for Material Evidence Omission Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer B was prohibited from invoking the contractual scope-of-work limitation as justification for omitting the pile driving records from the expert report, given that those records constituted material evidence bearing directly on the adverse conclusions about the 19 piles.
discoveredincase: 71
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T11:21:54.652110+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 71
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T11:21:54.652110+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics — objectivity, completeness, and non-deception provisions
sourcetext: Previously, Engineer B had said, 'We didn't look at the pile driving records because it was not in our scope of work.'
temporalscope: At the time of report preparation and in post-report explanations
textreferences: Engineer B said: 'We just did not believe the driving records'
textreferences: Previously, Engineer B had said, 'We didn't look at the pile driving records because it was not in our scope of work.'
wasattributedto: Case 71 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:37:51.643606
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

Engineer B Scope-of-Work Non-Exculpation Material Evidence Omission Pile Records Constraint Instance
type: Scope-of-WorkNon-ExculpationforMaterialEvidenceOmissionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer B first claimed scope-of-work limitation as justification for not reviewing pile driving records, then claimed disbelief of the records — offering contradictory justifications that the NSPE found constituted artfully misleading statements.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.94
constrainedentity: Engineer B
constraintclass: Scope-of-Work Non-Exculpation for Material Evidence Omission Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer B was prohibited from invoking the contractual scope-of-work limitation as justification for omitting the pile driving records from the concluding report, as the materiality of those records to the adverse conclusions superseded any scope limitation.
discoveredincase: 71
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T11:29:18.765291+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 71
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T11:29:18.765291+00:00
importance: critical
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics — completeness and non-deception provisions; scope-of-work does not excuse material omission
sourcetext: by excluding the pile driving records, Engineer B has denied himself the opportunity to present a rational for discounting their value, and thereby to serve his client.
temporalscope: At time of drafting report and during subsequent explanatory proceedings
textreferences: by excluding the pile driving records, Engineer B has denied himself the opportunity to present a rational for discounting their value, and thereby to serve his client.
wasattributedto: Case 71 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:37:51.654089
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

Engineer B Scope-of-Work Non-Excuse Material Evidence Omission Pile Records
type: Scope-of-WorkNon-ExcuseforMaterialEvidenceOmissionObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer B initially claimed that pile driving records were not reviewed because it 'was not in our scope of work,' then contradicted this by stating he did not believe the records; the case discussion establishes that scope-of-work does not excuse material omissions.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.89
discoveredincase: 71
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T11:27:05.459435+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 71
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T11:27:05.459435+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer B
obligationclass: Scope-of-Work Non-Excuse for Material Evidence Omission Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer B was obligated to refrain from invoking a contractual scope-of-work limitation as justification for omitting the pile driving records from the concluding report, recognizing that the scope-of-work clause did not relieve him of the ethical obligation to include all material facts necessary for a complete and non-misleading professional opinion.
sourcetext: by excluding the pile driving records, Engineer B has denied himself the opportunity to present a rational for discounting their value, and thereby to serve his client.
temporalscope: At the time of preparing the report and when queried about the omission of pile driving records
textreferences: by excluding the pile driving records, Engineer B has denied himself the opportunity to present a rational for discounting their value, and thereby to serve his client.
textreferences: the Code of Ethics which requires that engineers 'shall include all relevant and pertinent information in such report, statements or testimony.'
wasattributedto: Case 71 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:37:51.650001
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

Engineer B Scope-of-Work Non-Excuse Material Omission Recognition Failure
type: Scope-of-WorkNon-ExcuseMaterialOmissionRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Scope-of-Work Non-Excuse Material Omission Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer B failed to recognize that the contractual scope-of-work limitation did not constitute a valid professional justification for omitting pile driving records from the technical report
casecontext: Engineer B's report omitted pile driving records; Engineer B offered scope-of-work as justification, which the BER found to be an impermissible excuse for material omission
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstratedthrough: Failure: Engineer B invoked scope-of-work as justification for not reviewing pile driving records, then contradictorily claimed the records were disbelieved — neither justification being professionally valid
discoveredincase: 71
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T11:29:00.145245+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 71
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T11:29:00.145245+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer B
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: by excluding the pile driving records, Engineer B has denied himself the opportunity to present a rational for discounting their value
textreferences: by excluding the pile driving records, Engineer B has denied himself the opportunity to present a rational for discounting their value
textreferences: the Code of Ethics which requires that engineers 'shall include all relevant and pertinent information in such report, statements or testimony.'
wasattributedto: Case 71 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:37:51.651807
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

Engineer B Scope-of-Work Non-Excuse Pile Driving Records
type: Scope-of-WorkNon-ExcuseforMaterialEvidenceOmissionObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer B initially justified not reviewing pile driving records by claiming it was outside the scope of work, then contradicted this by stating the records were not believed — in either case, the scope-of-work excuse was used as cover for a material omission.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 71
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T11:19:52.632902+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 71
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T11:19:52.632902+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer B
obligationclass: Scope-of-Work Non-Excuse for Material Evidence Omission Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer B was obligated to refrain from invoking the contractual scope-of-work limitation as justification for not reviewing or including the pile driving records in the concluding report, as those records were material to the adverse conclusions drawn and were readily available.
sourcetext: Previously, Engineer B had said, 'We didn't look at the pile driving records because it was not in our scope of work.'
temporalscope: During preparation of the report and when queried about the basis for omitting pile driving record analysis
textreferences: Engineer B did not state anywhere in the report that these 19 piles, according to the pile driving records, had been driven to essential refusal
textreferences: Previously, Engineer B had said, 'We didn't look at the pile driving records because it was not in our scope of work.'
wasattributedto: Case 71 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:37:51.641956
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

Engineer B Scope-of-Work Non-Excuse Recognition Failure
type: Scope-of-WorkNon-ExcuseMaterialOmissionRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Scope-of-Work Non-Excuse Material Omission Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer B failed to recognize that the contractual scope-of-work limitation did not excuse the omission of pile driving records from the concluding report, improperly invoking scope as justification for not reviewing or including material evidence.
casecontext: Engineer B's concluding report omitted pile driving records showing piles driven to essential refusal; Engineer B initially justified this omission by citing scope-of-work limitations
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.91
demonstratedthrough: Explicit statement that pile driving records were not reviewed 'because it was not in our scope of work'; omission of pile driving records showing 19 piles driven to essential refusal from concluding report
discoveredincase: 71
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T11:22:50.342736+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 71
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T11:22:50.342736+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer B
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: Previously, Engineer B had said, 'We didn't look at the pile driving records because it was not in our scope of work.'
textreferences: Engineer B did not state anywhere in the report that these 19 piles, according to the pile driving records, had been driven to essential refusal
textreferences: Previously, Engineer B had said, 'We didn't look at the pile driving records because it was not in our scope of work.'
wasattributedto: Case 71 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:37:51.645335
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

Engineer B Selective Information Omission Recognition Failure
type: SelectiveInformationOmissionRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Selective Information Omission Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer B failed to recognize that omitting material information — including that 19 piles were driven to essential refusal and that dynamic test equipment failed — created a misleading and incomplete picture in violation of the obligation to include all relevant and pertinent information
casecontext: Engineer B's concluding report on test pile driving omitted material facts that were required to be included under professional code obligations
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.92
demonstratedthrough: Failure: Engineer B's report omitted that all 19 test piles reported as failing were driven to refusal, and that dynamic test equipment had failed during the test program
discoveredincase: 71
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T11:29:00.145245+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 71
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T11:29:00.145245+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer B
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: Material facts, however, were not addressed in Engineer B's report. Among them, that dynamic test equipment failed during the test, and that all 19 test piles reported as failing the test were driven to refusal.
textreferences: Material facts, however, were not addressed in Engineer B's report. Among them, that dynamic test equipment failed during the test, and that all 19 test piles reported as failing the test were driven to refusal.
textreferences: the Code of Ethics which requires that engineers 'shall include all relevant and pertinent information in such report, statements or testimony.'
wasattributedto: Case 71 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:37:51.651354
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

Engineer B Selective Information Omission in Pile Driving Report
type: SelectiveInformationOmissioninProfessionalReportState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From completion of pile driving test program through submission and reliance on Engineer B's report
affectedparties: Court or quasi-legal proceeding
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Engineer B
affectedparties: Municipality
concept category: State
confidence: 0.97
discoveredincase: 71
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T11:14:46.027785+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 71
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T11:14:46.027785+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Material facts, however, were not addressed in Engineer B's report
stateclass: Selective Information Omission in Professional Report State
subject: Engineer B's pile driving test report submitted to municipality
terminatedby: Not resolved within the case facts; report remains as submitted
textreferences: Among them, that dynamic test equipment failed during the test, and that all 19 test piles reported as failing the test were driven to refusal
textreferences: By excluding the pile driving records, Engineer B has denied himself the opportunity to present a rational for discounting their value
textreferences: Engineers shall include all relevant and pertinent information in such report, statements or testimony
textreferences: Material facts, however, were not addressed in Engineer B's report
textreferences: The select language of the report precludes any interpretation that any or all 90 piles met the factor of safety requirement
triggeringevent: Engineer B's preparation and submission of report omitting dynamic test equipment failure and the fact that all 19 failing piles were driven to refusal
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 71 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:37:51.638055
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

Engineer B Wave Equation Analysis Application Failure
type: WaveEquationAnalysisApplicationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Wave Equation Analysis Application Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer B failed to apply wave equation analysis to the available pile driving records, which would have yielded materially different capacity conclusions than the skin friction area calculations alone used in the report
casecontext: Engineer B supervised test pile driving program and produced concluding report; failed to apply wave equation analysis to pile driving records showing piles driven to essential refusal
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.87
demonstratedthrough: Failure: Engineer B's report omitted wave equation analysis results that would have shown piles driven to essential refusal satisfied design safety factor requirements
discoveredincase: 71
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T11:29:00.145245+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 71
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T11:29:00.145245+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer B
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: Material facts, however, were not addressed in Engineer B's report. Among them, that dynamic test equipment failed during the test, and that all 19 test piles reported as failing the test were driven to refusal.
textreferences: Material facts, however, were not addressed in Engineer B's report. Among them, that dynamic test equipment failed during the test, and that all 19 test piles reported as failing the test were driven to refusal.
wasattributedto: Case 71 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:37:51.651950
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

Engineer B Wave Equation Analysis Omission
type: WaveEquationAnalysisApplicationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Wave Equation Analysis Application Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer B failed to apply or disclose wave equation analysis to the pile driving records, omitting from the concluding report the material finding that the 19 disputed piles had been driven to essential refusal and that wave equation calculations would indicate strength several multiples over design requirements.
casecontext: Engineer B evaluated pile adequacy using only skin friction resistance calculations, omitting wave equation analysis that would have yielded materially different capacity conclusions for the 19 disputed piles
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.92
demonstratedthrough: Concluding report based solely on skin friction area calculations without wave equation analysis; omission of essential refusal finding from report
discoveredincase: 71
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T11:22:50.342736+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 71
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T11:22:50.342736+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer B
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: Engineer B did not state anywhere in the report that these 19 piles, according to the pile driving records, had been driven to essential refusal and that, applying accepted wave equation calculations, the piles would have indicated a strength several multiples over the calculated load requirements.
textreferences: Engineer B did not state anywhere in the report that these 19 piles, according to the pile driving records, had been driven to essential refusal and that, applying accepted wave equation calculations, the piles would have indicated a strength several multiples over the calculated load requirements.
textreferences: This opinion was based upon the fact that the nineteen piles did not reach sufficient depth to develop the full strength when applying skin friction resistance value to the square footage of pile penetration.
wasattributedto: Case 71 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:37:51.645626
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

Engineer B Written Report Completeness Constraint — Wave Equation Results and Equipment Failure
type: WrittenReportCompletenessConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer B's concluding report omitted the wave equation analysis results, the pile driving records showing essential refusal, and the equipment failure during testing — all of which were material to the adverse conclusions about the 19 piles.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.93
constrainedentity: Engineer B
constraintclass: Written Report Completeness Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer B was required to include in the concluding expert report all material findings — specifically: (1) that the 19 disputed piles had been driven to essential refusal per the pile driving records; (2) that wave equation analysis would show those piles had strength several multiples over design requirements; and (3) that dynamic test equipment had failed during the test pile program — as omission of these facts rendered the report materially incomplete and misleading.
discoveredincase: 71
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T11:21:54.652110+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 71
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T11:21:54.652110+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics — complete reporting obligation; Professional Report Integrity Standard
sourcetext: Engineer B did not state anywhere in the report that these 19 piles, according to the pile driving records, had been driven to essential refusal and that, applying accepted wave equation calculations, the piles would have indicated a strength several multiples over the calculated load requirements.
temporalscope: At the time of preparation and submission of the concluding expert report
textreferences: Additionally, Engineer B did not report that the dynamic test equipment had failed.
textreferences: Engineer B did not state anywhere in the report that these 19 piles, according to the pile driving records, had been driven to essential refusal and that, applying accepted wave equation calculations, the piles would have indicated a strength several multiples over the calculated load requirements.
wasattributedto: Case 71 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:37:51.644054
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

Engineer B Written Report Completeness Wave Equation and Equipment Failure Omission
type: WrittenReportCompletenessConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer B's concluding report on the 19 disputed piles omitted that all 19 had been driven to refusal and that dynamic test equipment had failed during testing — both material facts bearing on the adequacy conclusions.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.97
constrainedentity: Engineer B
constraintclass: Written Report Completeness Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer B was constrained to include all relevant and pertinent information in the pile driving test report — including the wave equation analysis results showing piles driven to refusal and the failure of dynamic test equipment — and was prohibited from omitting these material facts regardless of adversarial context.
discoveredincase: 71
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T11:29:18.765291+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 71
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T11:29:18.765291+00:00
importance: critical
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics — obligation to include all relevant and pertinent information in reports, statements, or testimony
sourcetext: Material facts, however, were not addressed in Engineer B's report. Among them, that dynamic test equipment failed during the test, and that all 19 test piles reported as failing the test were driven to refusal.
temporalscope: At time of drafting and submitting the concluding pile driving test report
textreferences: Material facts, however, were not addressed in Engineer B's report. Among them, that dynamic test equipment failed during the test, and that all 19 test piles reported as failing the test were driven to refusal.
textreferences: the Code of Ethics which requires that engineers 'shall include all relevant and pertinent information in such report, statements or testimony.'
wasattributedto: Case 71 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:37:51.652838
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

Engineer B report development during absence of communication with Engineer A representatives
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:37:51.655988
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

Engineer B's report before Engineer B's contradictory explanations
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:37:51.655926
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

Engineer B's report development before Engineer A querying Engineer B
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:37:51.655897
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

Expert Testimony on Pile Failures
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Event
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:37:51.655107
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

Faithful Agent Obligation Invoked By Municipality Retaining Engineer B
type: FaithfulAgentObligationWithinEthicalLimits
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer B's engagement to supervise test pile driving and produce evaluation report
balancingwith: Adversarial Engagement Objectivity Obligation
balancingwith: Objectivity
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer B was retained by the municipality as a faithful agent to supervise test pile driving and produce a report evaluating pile adequacy; the faithful agent obligation required diligent execution of this assignment, but the ethical limits of that obligation prohibited producing a report that selectively omitted material findings favorable to the opposing party.
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 71
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T11:17:33.458831+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 71
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T11:17:33.458831+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The faithful agent obligation permits engineers to diligently pursue their client's legitimate interests but does not authorize selective omission of material technical findings; the 'within ethical limits' qualifier is operative and overrides pure client loyalty.
invokedby: Engineer B Adversarial Litigation Testing Supervisor
invokedby: Municipality Litigation Dispute Client
principleclass: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
sourcetext: The municipality retained Engineer B to supervise the driving of several test piles to see whether the piles would gain sufficient strength to meet the design calculation requirements.
tensionresolution: The ethical limits qualifier in the faithful agent obligation means that client loyalty cannot justify selective reporting; Engineer B's obligation to the municipality was bounded by the obligation to produce a complete and honest technical report.
textreferences: Engineer B's concluding report stated that approximately 19 of the 90 piles did not meet the safety factor required by the design calculations.
textreferences: The municipality retained Engineer B to supervise the driving of several test piles to see whether the piles would gain sufficient strength to meet the design calculation requirements.
wasattributedto: Case 71 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:37:51.640656
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

Geotechnical-Firm-Report-Pile-Setup
type: ReferenceMaterial
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.85
createdby: Original geotechnical firm retained for the project
discoveredincase: 71
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: Geotechnical firm's report on pile set-up strength gain
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T11:12:38.004872+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 71
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T11:12:38.004872+00:00
importance: medium
resourceclass: Reference Material
sourcetext: Engineer A testified that the geotechnical firm's report expected that the piles would gain sufficient additional strength within 30 days to meet driving resistance requirements
textreferences: Engineer A testified that the geotechnical firm's report expected that the piles would gain sufficient additional strength within 30 days to meet driving resistance requirements
usedby: Engineer A (relied upon in design and testimony); Municipality (basis for test pile program)
usedincontext: Technical reference establishing the design basis that piles would gain sufficient additional strength within 30 days of initial driving to meet resistance requirements, forming the foundation of Engineer A's design rationale
wasattributedto: Case 71 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:37:51.633460
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

Geotechnical Report Strength-Gain Anticipation
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Event
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:37:51.655143
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

Honesty Principle Violated By Engineer B Contradictory Explanations
type: Honesty
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer B's post-report explanation to Engineer A
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer B provided contradictory explanations for why pile driving records were not analyzed — first claiming it was outside the scope of work, then claiming the records were reviewed but disbelieved as suspicious — revealing a lack of honesty in accounting for the omission of material evidence from the report.
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 71
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T11:17:33.458831+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 71
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T11:17:33.458831+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Professional honesty requires consistent and truthful accounting of one's professional decisions; contradictory explanations for the same omission indicate either dishonesty or a failure to maintain adequate records of professional decision-making.
invokedby: Engineer B Adversarial Litigation Testing Supervisor
principleclass: Honesty
sourcetext: Previously, Engineer B had said, 'We didn't look at the pile driving records because it was not in our scope of work.'
tensionresolution: Honesty in professional representations is not subordinated to client litigation interests; the contradictory explanations compound the original omission.
textreferences: Previously, Engineer B had said, 'We didn't look at the pile driving records because it was not in our scope of work.'
textreferences: When queried by Engineer A after the report was issued by Engineer B, Engineer B said: 'We just did not believe the driving records and there was also the issue of whether the pile was vented to allow air to escape from below a closure plate that was included in the pile to separate the concrete fill in the pile from the clay. The driving records look suspicious.'
wasattributedto: Case 71 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:37:51.640333
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

II.3.a.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:53:25.291794
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

II.3.b.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:53:25.291827
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

II.3.c.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:53:25.291863
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

III.1.a.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:53:25.291895
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

III.1.b.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:53:25.292254
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

III.3.a.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:53:25.292285
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

Incomplete Situational Knowledge Restraint Violated By Engineer B Adverse Conclusions Without Full Record Review
type: IncompleteSituationalKnowledgeRestraintinCompetitorCritique
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer B's conclusions about the 19 piles not meeting safety factor requirements
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer B rendered specific adverse conclusions about the adequacy of 19 piles without reviewing the pile driving records that would have provided the full situational context for why those piles met driving refusal prior to predicted depth — forming critical opinions without complete knowledge of the circumstances.
confidence: 0.86
discoveredincase: 71
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T11:17:33.458831+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 71
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T11:17:33.458831+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Engineers forming adverse technical opinions about another engineer's work must have complete situational knowledge before rendering specific critical conclusions; forming adverse opinions without reviewing available primary records violates this restraint.
invokedby: Engineer B Adversarial Litigation Testing Supervisor
principleclass: Incomplete Situational Knowledge Restraint in Competitor Critique
sourcetext: No effort was made by Engineer B to inquire from contractors, workers, or others on the job to verify or refute his theories about why the 19 piles met driving refusal prior to predicted depth.
tensionresolution: The obligation to have complete situational knowledge before rendering adverse opinions is not overridden by scope limitations or client preferences; the engineer must either obtain adequate knowledge or qualify conclusions accordingly.
textreferences: No effort was made by Engineer B to inquire from contractors, workers, or others on the job to verify or refute his theories about why the 19 piles met driving refusal prior to predicted depth.
textreferences: Previously, Engineer B had said, 'We didn't look at the pile driving records because it was not in our scope of work.'
wasattributedto: Case 71 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:37:51.640817
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

Inconsistent Pile Depth Decision
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:37:51.654884
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

Mediation Proceeding Transparency Obligations
type: DepositionTransparencyObligationState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: Throughout the mediation proceedings
affectedparties: Contractor
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Engineer B
affectedparties: Expert witnesses
affectedparties: Municipality
concept category: State
confidence: 0.75
discoveredincase: 71
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T11:13:30.349068+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 71
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T11:13:30.349068+00:00
importance: medium
sourcetext: The claim was settled by mediation.
stateclass: Deposition Transparency Obligation State
subject: Engineer A and Engineer B's obligations during mediation testimony
terminatedby: Settlement of claim for $300,000 shared between Engineer A and municipality
textreferences: Engineer A testified that the geotechnical firm's report expected that the piles would gain sufficient additional strength within 30 days.
textreferences: One expert testified that the pile driving records indicated that many of the piles did not... meet driving resistance sufficient to satisfy the load carrying requirements.
textreferences: The claim was settled by mediation.
triggeringevent: Contractor's lawsuit against Engineer A and municipality proceeding to mediation with expert testimony
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 71 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:37:51.636644
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

Mediation Settlement Agreement
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:37:51.654688
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

Mediation Settlement Reached
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Event
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:37:51.655070
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

Methodological Consistency Obligation Implicated in Pile Driving Test Program
type: MethodologicalConsistencyObligationinComparativeTesting
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Test pile driving program comparative to original 90-pile foundation design
balancingwith: Adversarial Engagement Objectivity Obligation
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The test pile driving program was designed to evaluate Engineer A's original pile driving work; material departures from original conditions — including equipment failure during dynamic testing — were material to the validity of the comparative conclusions and should have been disclosed in Engineer B's report.
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 71
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T11:25:04.851822+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 71
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T11:25:04.851822+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Equipment failure during dynamic testing constituted a material departure from the conditions required for valid comparison with the original pile driving program, and its omission from Engineer B's report violated the methodological consistency disclosure obligation.
invokedby: Engineer B Adversarial Litigation Testing Supervisor
principleclass: Methodological Consistency Obligation in Comparative Testing
sourcetext: Among them, that dynamic test equipment failed during the test, and that all 19 test piles reported as failing the test were driven to refusal.
tensionresolution: The methodological consistency obligation required disclosure of equipment failure regardless of its effect on the municipality's litigation position.
textreferences: Among them, that dynamic test equipment failed during the test, and that all 19 test piles reported as failing the test were driven to refusal.
textreferences: Whatever rational Engineer B may employ to draw his conclusion, valid or not, the select language of the report precludes any interpretation that any or all 90 piles met the factor of safety requirement.
wasattributedto: Case 71 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:37:51.647758
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

Methodological Consistency Violated By Engineer B Using Vibratory Hammer
type: MethodologicalConsistencyObligationinComparativeTesting
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Test pile driving program design and supervision
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer B supervised a test pile driving program intended to evaluate whether original piles would gain sufficient strength, but used a vibratory hammer that was not used in the original driving, drove piles to different depths than the originals, and dropped the hammer several times before commencing blow count records — all material departures from original conditions that were not disclosed in the concluding report.
confidence: 0.87
discoveredincase: 71
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T11:17:33.458831+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 71
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T11:17:33.458831+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: A comparative test program must replicate original conditions with sufficient fidelity to permit valid comparison; material departures must be disclosed and their impact on test validity assessed; failure to do so renders the test results misleading.
invokedby: Engineer B Adversarial Litigation Testing Supervisor
principleclass: Methodological Consistency Obligation in Comparative Testing
sourcetext: Driving conditions were not duplicated in driving the test piles in that a vibratory hammer was used for the test piles and not used in the original driving.
tensionresolution: The obligation to conduct and report methodologically valid comparative tests is not overridden by client preferences for particular test outcomes.
textreferences: Also, after the 30 day set up, the driving hammer was dropped several times to start the hammer before the record of blow counts commenced.
textreferences: Driving conditions were not duplicated in driving the test piles in that a vibratory hammer was used for the test piles and not used in the original driving.
textreferences: In the opinion of Engineer A's geotechnical consultant, this would have broken the pile bond and undervalued the skin friction value reported by Engineer B's tests.
wasattributedto: Case 71 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:37:51.640188
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

Municipality Expert Witness Engineer
type: ForensicEngineeringExpertWitness
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'retained_by': 'Municipality', 'testimony_subject': 'Pile driving records and driving resistance compliance', 'proceeding_type': 'Mediation'}
caseinvolvement: Expert witness(es) retained by the municipality during mediation proceedings who testified that pile driving records indicated many piles did not meet driving resistance sufficient to satisfy load-carrying requirements of the design calculations.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.85
discoveredincase: 71
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T11:13:16.138011+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 71
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T11:13:16.138011+00:00
importance: medium
relationships: {'type': 'retained_by', 'target': 'Municipality Litigation Testing Client'}
relationships: {'type': 'testifies_against', 'target': 'Engineer A Dock Foundation Design Engineer'}
rolecategory: provider_client
roleclass: Forensic Engineering Expert Witness
sourcetext: the municipality brought in expert witnesses to support their case
textreferences: One expert testified that the pile driving records indicated that many of the piles did not, at the time of initial driving, meet driving resistance sufficient to satisfy the load carrying requirements of the design calculations
textreferences: the municipality brought in expert witnesses to support their case
wasattributedto: Case 71 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:37:51.634988
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

Municipality Litigation Dispute Client
type: LitigationDisputeMunicipalityClient
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'entity_type': 'Municipal government', 'dispute_role': 'Adversarial party seeking to attribute settlement costs to Engineer A'}
caseinvolvement: Party to an adversarial dispute with Engineer A over settlement cost sharing; arranged and funded the test pile driving program; retained Engineer B; ultimately harmed by Engineer B's incomplete report which misdirected conclusions.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.85
discoveredincase: 71
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T11:14:34.664500+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 71
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T11:14:34.664500+00:00
importance: medium
relationships: {'type': 'adversarial_party_against', 'target': 'Engineer A Dock Foundation Design Engineer'}
relationships: {'type': 'retains', 'target': 'Engineer B Adversarial Litigation Testing Supervisor'}
rolecategory: provider_client
roleclass: Litigation Dispute Municipality Client
sourcetext: an adversarial relationship is established between the municipality and Engineer A to resolve the sharing of a settlement cost between the two
textreferences: an adversarial relationship is established between the municipality and Engineer A to resolve the sharing of a settlement cost between the two
textreferences: does a disservice to Engineer B's client municipality by potentially misdirecting a conclusion
textreferences: the municipality arranged for a test pile driving program
wasattributedto: Case 71 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:37:51.637741
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

Municipality Litigation Testing Client
type: MunicipalInfrastructureClient
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'entity_type': 'Municipal government', 'litigation_status': 'Co-defendant; co-settled for $300,000', 'role_in_testing': 'Retained Engineer B to conduct test pile driving'}
caseinvolvement: Original client retaining Engineer A for dock design; co-defendant in contractor lawsuit; retained Engineer B to supervise test pile driving during mediation; brought in expert witnesses to support their case.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 71
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T11:13:16.138011+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 71
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T11:13:16.138011+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'client_of', 'target': 'Engineer A Dock Foundation Design Engineer'}
relationships: {'type': 'retains', 'target': 'Engineer B Municipality-Retained Litigation Testing Engineer'}
relationships: {'type': 'retains', 'target': 'Municipality Expert Witness Engineer'}
rolecategory: provider_client
roleclass: Municipal Infrastructure Client
sourcetext: Engineer A was retained by a municipality to design a dock
textreferences: Engineer A and the municipality shared the cost of the settlement with the contractor for $300,000
textreferences: Engineer A was retained by a municipality to design a dock
textreferences: the municipality brought in expert witnesses to support their case
textreferences: the municipality retained Engineer B to supervise the driving of several test piles
wasattributedto: Case 71 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:37:51.634219
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

Municipality Retains Engineer B
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:37:51.654728
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

Municipality Retains Engineer B → Selective Omission in Report
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:37:51.655382
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

Municipality vs Engineer A Adversarial Proceeding Fact Polarization
type: AdversarialProceedingFactPolarizationState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From establishment of adversarial relationship between municipality and Engineer A through the pile driving test program and reporting
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Engineer B
affectedparties: Municipality
concept category: State
confidence: 0.87
discoveredincase: 71
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T11:14:46.027785+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 71
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T11:14:46.027785+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: In this case, an adversarial relationship is established between the municipality and Engineer A to resolve the sharing of a settlement cost between the two
stateclass: Adversarial Proceeding Fact Polarization State
subject: The adversarial legal/quasi-legal proceeding between the municipality and Engineer A over settlement cost sharing
terminatedby: Not resolved within the case facts
textreferences: Adversarial interests, however, are polarizing to the effect that some facts may be preferred by one interest over the other
textreferences: Facts are not adversarial, even if they may be conflicting
textreferences: In this case, an adversarial relationship is established between the municipality and Engineer A to resolve the sharing of a settlement cost between the two
textreferences: It is not evident from the facts of the case that Engineer B's selective use of technical fact was inspired by the adversarial circumstance, nor does it matter
triggeringevent: Municipality establishing adversarial relationship with Engineer A to resolve settlement cost sharing, and retaining Engineer B to contest Engineer A's conclusions
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 71 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:37:51.638724
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

NSPE-Code-of-Ethics-Engineer-B-Report
type: ProfessionalCode
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.95
createdby: National Society of Professional Engineers
discoveredincase: 71
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T11:12:38.004872+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 71
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T11:12:38.004872+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Professional Code
sourcetext: Engineer B did not state anywhere in the report that these 19 piles...had been driven to essential refusal
textreferences: Engineer B did not report that the dynamic test equipment had failed
textreferences: Engineer B did not state anywhere in the report that these 19 piles...had been driven to essential refusal
usedby: Board of Ethical Review in evaluating Engineer B's conduct
usedincontext: Primary normative authority governing Engineer B's obligations to produce a complete, accurate, and non-misleading expert report, including obligations not to omit material facts such as equipment failure and wave equation results
version: Current at time of case
wasattributedto: Case 71 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:37:51.632057
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

NSPE Code of Ethics - Complete Reporting Obligation
type: ProfessionalCode
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.98
createdby: National Society of Professional Engineers
discoveredincase: 71
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T11:14:10.751902+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 71
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T11:14:10.751902+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Professional Code
sourcetext: Neither interpretation is tolerated by the Code of Ethics which requires that engineers 'shall include all relevant and pertinent information in such report, statements or testimony.'
textreferences: Neither interpretation is tolerated by the Code of Ethics which requires that engineers 'shall include all relevant and pertinent information in such report, statements or testimony.'
textreferences: Note: Code III.1.f no longer exists.
usedby: Board of Ethical Review in evaluating Engineer B's conduct
usedincontext: Cited as the governing ethical authority requiring engineers to include all relevant and pertinent information in reports, statements, or testimony; used to evaluate Engineer B's selective omission of material facts from the pile driving test report
version: Current at time of case (Code III.1.f referenced, now removed)
wasattributedto: Case 71 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:37:51.636828
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

Objectivity Principle Violated By Engineer B Selective Reporting
type: Objectivity
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer B's concluding report conclusions regarding pile adequacy
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer B rendered a technical opinion that 19 piles did not meet safety factor requirements based on skin friction depth calculations alone, while omitting the wave equation analysis that would have shown the piles met requirements — producing a selectively framed conclusion that served the municipality's litigation position rather than an objective technical assessment.
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 71
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T11:17:33.458831+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 71
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T11:17:33.458831+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Objectivity requires that technical opinions reflect all material analytical methods and findings, not only those that support the retaining client's position; selective application of analytical methods to reach a predetermined conclusion violates objectivity.
invokedby: Engineer B Adversarial Litigation Testing Supervisor
principleclass: Objectivity
sourcetext: Engineer B did not state anywhere in the report that these 19 piles, according to the pile driving records, had been driven to essential refusal and that, applying accepted wave equation calculations, the piles would have indicated a strength several multiples over the calculated load requirements.
tensionresolution: Objectivity is not balanced away by client loyalty in technical reporting; the engineer's duty to render objective opinions is paramount.
textreferences: Engineer B did not state anywhere in the report that these 19 piles, according to the pile driving records, had been driven to essential refusal and that, applying accepted wave equation calculations, the piles would have indicated a strength several multiples over the calculated load requirements.
textreferences: Engineer B's concluding report stated that approximately 19 of the 90 piles did not meet the safety factor required by the design calculations.
wasattributedto: Case 71 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:37:51.639565
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

Objectivity Principle Violated by Engineer B Selective Data Use
type: Objectivity
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Test pile driving report conclusions about 19 piles failing safety factor requirements
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer B rendered technical conclusions about pile safety factors based on selectively presented data, omitting material findings that would have undermined those conclusions — violating the objectivity principle requiring technical opinions to be based on objective assessment rather than client-serving bias.
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 71
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T11:25:04.851822+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 71
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T11:25:04.851822+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Objectivity required Engineer B to present all material technical findings bearing on his conclusions, including equipment failure and pile refusal data, rather than selectively presenting only those findings that supported the municipality's preferred outcome.
invokedby: Engineer B Adversarial Litigation Testing Supervisor
principleclass: Objectivity
sourcetext: Engineer B appears to have assumed a responsibility to defend the client municipality by the selective use of data.
tensionresolution: Objectivity obligation overrides client preference for favorable conclusions; selective data presentation to support a client's litigation position is a violation of objectivity regardless of the engineer's motivations.
textreferences: Engineer B appears to have assumed a responsibility to defend the client municipality by the selective use of data.
textreferences: Whatever rational Engineer B may employ to draw his conclusion, valid or not, the select language of the report precludes any interpretation that any or all 90 piles met the factor of safety requirement.
wasattributedto: Case 71 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:37:51.648387
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

Omission Materiality Threshold Crossed By Engineer B Wave Equation Omission
type: OmissionMaterialityThresholdinProfessionalDisclosure
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer B's decision not to include wave equation analysis in the concluding report
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer B's omission of the wave equation analysis — which would have shown the 19 disputed piles had strength several multiples over calculated load requirements — crossed the materiality threshold for required disclosure because this information would directly have affected the decision-making of the parties relying on the report in mediation proceedings.
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 71
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T11:17:33.458831+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 71
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T11:17:33.458831+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The omission of the wave equation results was material because it would have fundamentally altered the conclusions of the report and the parties' understanding of pile adequacy; material omissions of this nature are not ethically permissible regardless of scope limitations.
invokedby: Engineer B Adversarial Litigation Testing Supervisor
principleclass: Omission Materiality Threshold in Professional Disclosure
sourcetext: Engineer B did not state anywhere in the report that these 19 piles, according to the pile driving records, had been driven to essential refusal and that, applying accepted wave equation calculations, the piles would have indicated a strength several multiples over the calculated load requirements.
tensionresolution: The materiality threshold having been crossed, the omission constitutes an ethical violation that the scope-of-work defense cannot cure.
textreferences: Engineer B did not state anywhere in the report that these 19 piles, according to the pile driving records, had been driven to essential refusal and that, applying accepted wave equation calculations, the piles would have indicated a strength several multiples over the calculated load requirements.
textreferences: This opinion was based upon the fact that the nineteen piles did not reach sufficient depth to develop the full strength when applying skin friction resistance value to the square footage of pile penetration.
wasattributedto: Case 71 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:37:51.641195
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

Pile-Driving-Records-Dock-Project
type: ReferenceMaterial
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.87
createdby: Construction contractor on-site records
discoveredincase: 71
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: Pile driving records for 90-pile dock foundation
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T11:12:38.004872+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 71
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T11:12:38.004872+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Reference Material
sourcetext: the pile driving records indicated that many of the piles did not, at the time of initial driving, meet driving resistance sufficient to satisfy the load carrying requirements
textreferences: The driving records look suspicious
textreferences: We didn't look at the pile driving records because it was not in our scope of work
textreferences: the pile driving records indicated that many of the piles did not, at the time of initial driving, meet driving resistance sufficient to satisfy the load carrying requirements
usedby: Engineer A (relied upon); Engineer B (dismissed without review); Expert witnesses (cited in testimony)
usedincontext: Primary technical documentation recording blow counts and driving resistance for each of the 90 piles; central to the dispute over whether piles met design requirements, and explicitly dismissed by Engineer B without investigation
wasattributedto: Case 71 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:37:51.633229
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

Piles Driven to Refusal
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Event
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:37:51.655243
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

Piles Driven to Refusal → Contradictory Post-Report Explanations
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:37:51.655448
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

Pre-Count Hammer Drop Decision
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:37:51.654845
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

Professional-Report-Integrity-Standard-Pile-Case
type: ProfessionalReportIntegrityStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.93
createdby: Professional engineering ethics consensus
discoveredincase: 71
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: Professional norms governing completeness and accuracy of engineering expert reports
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T11:12:38.004872+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 71
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T11:12:38.004872+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Professional Report Integrity Standard
sourcetext: Engineer B did not state anywhere in the report that these 19 piles, according to the pile driving records, had been driven to essential refusal
textreferences: Engineer B did not report that the dynamic test equipment had failed
textreferences: Engineer B did not state anywhere in the report that these 19 piles, according to the pile driving records, had been driven to essential refusal
textreferences: We just did not believe the driving records
usedby: Engineer B (violated); Engineer A's geotechnical consultant (observed omissions)
usedincontext: Governs Engineer B's obligation to include all material findings in the expert report, including the failure of dynamic test equipment, the wave equation analysis results, and the pile driving records showing essential refusal — all of which were omitted
wasattributedto: Case 71 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:37:51.632233
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

Professional Accountability Invoked For Engineer B Report Deficiencies
type: ProfessionalAccountability
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer B's concluding report and the professional decisions made during its preparation
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer B, as the licensed professional responsible for the test pile driving supervision and concluding report, bears professional accountability for the report's material omissions — including the omission of wave equation results, equipment failure disclosure, and failure to consult available evidence — regardless of client instructions or scope limitations.
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 71
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T11:17:33.458831+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 71
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T11:17:33.458831+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Professional accountability requires that engineers own the consequences of their professional decisions, including decisions about what to include or omit from technical reports; accountability cannot be deflected by scope limitations or client direction.
invokedby: Engineer B Adversarial Litigation Testing Supervisor
principleclass: Professional Accountability
sourcetext: Engineer B did not state anywhere in the report that these 19 piles, according to the pile driving records, had been driven to essential refusal and that, applying accepted wave equation calculations, the piles would have indicated a strength several multiples over the calculated load requirements.
tensionresolution: Professional accountability is not diminished by adversarial context or client instructions; Engineer B remains accountable for the professional adequacy of the report.
textreferences: Additionally, Engineer B did not report that the dynamic test equipment had failed.
textreferences: Engineer B did not state anywhere in the report that these 19 piles, according to the pile driving records, had been driven to essential refusal and that, applying accepted wave equation calculations, the piles would have indicated a strength several multiples over the calculated load requirements.
wasattributedto: Case 71 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:37:51.641021
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

Professional Report Integrity Standard - Pile Driving Test Report
type: ProfessionalReportIntegrityStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.95
createdby: Professional engineering community / NSPE Code of Ethics
discoveredincase: 71
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: Professional norms requiring completeness and non-selective use of technical facts in engineering reports
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T11:14:10.751902+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 71
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T11:14:10.751902+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Professional Report Integrity Standard
sourcetext: Material facts, however, were not addressed in Engineer B's report. Among them, that dynamic test equipment failed during the test, and that all 19 test piles reported as failing the test were driven to refusal.
textreferences: As an engineering document the report is incomplete and does a disservice to Engineer B's client municipality by potentially misdirecting a conclusion.
textreferences: Engineer B appears to have assumed a responsibility to defend the client municipality by the selective use of data. This is an egregious denial of the duties and responsibilities of a professional engineer in any setting, legal, quasi-legal or non-legal.
textreferences: Material facts, however, were not addressed in Engineer B's report. Among them, that dynamic test equipment failed during the test, and that all 19 test piles reported as failing the test were driven to refusal.
usedby: Board of Ethical Review in criticizing Engineer B's report
usedincontext: Applied to evaluate Engineer B's failure to include material facts in the pile driving test report — specifically the failure of dynamic test equipment and that all 19 failing piles were driven to refusal — constituting selective use of data that misdirected conclusions and disserved the client
wasattributedto: Case 71 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:37:51.636977
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

Prohibition on Reputation Injury Implicated By Engineer B Report Against Engineer A
type: ProhibitiononReputationInjuryThroughCompetitiveCritique
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer B's concluding report and its effect on Engineer A's professional standing
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer B's report, by selectively omitting wave equation results and driving record analysis that would have vindicated Engineer A's design, effectively injured Engineer A's professional reputation in litigation proceedings — with Engineer B retained by the opposing party and therefore standing to benefit indirectly from Engineer A's diminished standing.
confidence: 0.85
discoveredincase: 71
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T11:17:33.458831+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 71
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T11:17:33.458831+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The prohibition on reputation injury through competitive critique applies when an engineer's selective or incomplete technical report has the effect of unjustly diminishing another engineer's professional standing, particularly in adversarial proceedings where the reporting engineer is retained by the opposing party.
invokedby: Engineer B Adversarial Litigation Testing Supervisor
principleclass: Prohibition on Reputation Injury Through Competitive Critique
sourcetext: Engineer B did not state anywhere in the report that these 19 piles, according to the pile driving records, had been driven to essential refusal and that, applying accepted wave equation calculations, the piles would have indicated a strength several multiples over the calculated load requirements.
tensionresolution: The prohibition on reputation injury is not overridden by the adversarial litigation context; the obligation to avoid unjust injury to another engineer's reputation persists regardless of the retaining party's interests.
textreferences: At no time during the development of Engineer B's report did Engineer B talk to any representative of Engineer A, even though Engineer A's on-site representatives were available to testify as to the accuracy of the pile driving records.
textreferences: Engineer B did not state anywhere in the report that these 19 piles, according to the pile driving records, had been driven to essential refusal and that, applying accepted wave equation calculations, the piles would have indicated a strength several multiples over the calculated load requirements.
wasattributedto: Case 71 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:37:51.640477
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_1
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:53:25.296214
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_10
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:53:25.296550
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_11
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:53:25.296600
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_12
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:53:25.296634
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_13
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:53:25.296665
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_14
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:53:25.296695
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_15
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:53:25.296726
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_16
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:53:25.296765
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_17
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:53:25.296808
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_18
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:53:25.296840
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_19
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:53:25.296870
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_2
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:53:25.296244
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_20
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:53:25.296901
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_3
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:53:25.296272
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_4
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:53:25.296303
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_5
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:53:25.296370
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_6
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:53:25.296407
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_7
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:53:25.296458
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_8
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:53:25.296490
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_9
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:53:25.296521
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

Question_1
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 1
question text: Was it ethical for Engineer B to not have included the failed operation of the test equipment in his report?
question type: board_explicit
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:53:25.291961
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

Question_101
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 101
question text: Does the fact that Engineer B offered two contradictory post-report explanations for ignoring the pile driving records — first claiming it was outside the scope of work, then claiming the records were simply not believed — constitute a violation of the honesty and non-distortion obligations independent of the report's substantive omissions?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:53:25.292220
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

Question_102
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 102
question text: To what extent does Engineer B's use of a vibratory hammer and failure to replicate original driving conditions — rather than merely the omissions in the written report — independently constitute an ethical violation by producing a test whose results were structurally incomparable to the original pile driving program?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:53:25.292372
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

Question_103
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 103
question text: Was it ethical for Engineer B to issue adverse conclusions about the adequacy of Engineer A's pile design without first notifying Engineer A that such an evaluation was underway, given that Engineer A's on-site representatives held material factual knowledge directly relevant to Engineer B's conclusions?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:53:25.292427
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

Question_104
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 104
question text: Does the municipality's retention of Engineer B in an adversarial litigation context create any ethical obligations for the municipality itself — for example, an obligation to ensure that Engineer B's scope of work was defined broadly enough to permit complete and objective reporting — or does the ethical burden fall entirely on Engineer B as the licensed professional?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:53:25.292483
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

Question_2
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 2
question text: Was it ethical for Engineer B not to communicate with any representatives of Engineer A about the project?
question type: board_explicit
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:53:25.292020
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

Question_201
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 201
question text: Does the Faithful Agent Obligation — which requires Engineer B to serve the municipality's litigation interests — conflict with the Completeness and Non-Selectivity Obligation, which requires Engineer B to report all material findings including those favorable to Engineer A, and if so, how should a retained litigation expert resolve that tension?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:53:25.292558
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

Question_202
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 202
question text: Does the Scope-of-Work Limitation as Incomplete Ethical Defense conflict with the Available Evidence Consultation Obligation — that is, can a contractually defined scope of work ever legitimately excuse an engineer from consulting material evidence that is readily available and directly relevant to the adverse conclusions being drawn?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:53:25.292637
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

Question_203
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 203
question text: Does the Technical Facts Non-Adversarial Character principle — which holds that factual findings such as wave equation results and equipment failure are not legitimately subject to adversarial framing — conflict with the Adversarial Engagement Objectivity Obligation in a way that reveals an internal tension in how litigation engineering is practiced, and does the NSPE Code resolve that tension in favor of objective disclosure over client advocacy?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:53:25.292697
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

Question_204
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 204
question text: Does the Omission Materiality Threshold principle — which requires disclosure only when an omission crosses a threshold of significance — conflict with the Completeness Violated By Engineer B Omitting Equipment Failure principle in a way that raises the question of who bears the burden of determining materiality: the reporting engineer, the client, or the profession's objective standard?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:53:25.292756
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

Question_3
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 3
question text: Was it ethical for Engineer B not to communicate with the contractor’s supervisor and workers who were on the job during construction?
question type: board_explicit
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:53:25.292101
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

Question_301
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 301
question text: From a deontological perspective, did Engineer B violate a categorical duty of completeness and non-selectivity by omitting the failed dynamic test equipment from his report, regardless of whether that omission ultimately affected the structural conclusions about the 19 piles?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:53:25.292833
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

Question_302
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 302
question text: From a virtue ethics perspective, did Engineer B demonstrate the professional integrity expected of a competent and honest engineering expert when he issued contradictory post-report explanations — first claiming the pile driving records were outside his scope of work, then claiming he simply disbelieved them — rather than transparently accounting for his investigative choices?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:53:25.292910
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

Question_303
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 303
question text: From a consequentialist perspective, did Engineer B's selective omission of wave equation analysis results and pile driving refusal data produce a net harm — including reputational injury to Engineer A, distortion of the mediation record, and potential disservice to the municipality as client — that outweighed any benefit derived from the narrowly scoped report he delivered?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:53:25.292968
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

Question_304
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 304
question text: From a deontological perspective, did Engineer B breach a duty of due diligence by drawing adverse technical conclusions about Engineer A's pile design without first consulting available on-site representatives, contractor supervisors, and workers who possessed direct firsthand knowledge of the pile driving conditions — knowledge that could have confirmed or refuted his theories?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:53:25.293024
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

Question_4
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 4
question text: Was it ethical for Engineer B to issue his report without mentioning that the 19 piles questioned had, according to the driving records, met refusal?
question type: board_explicit
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:53:25.292160
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

Question_401
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 401
question text: If Engineer B had disclosed the dynamic test equipment failure in his report, would the municipality, the mediating parties, and the reviewing technical community have been able to properly weight the test pile results — and would Engineer B's adverse conclusions about the 19 piles have survived scrutiny under those conditions?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:53:25.293104
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

Question_402
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 402
question text: If Engineer B had consulted Engineer A's on-site representatives and the contractor's supervisors and workers before finalizing his report, would he have obtained information sufficient to either substantiate or abandon his theory that the 19 piles were inadequate — and would the report's conclusions have materially differed?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:53:25.293160
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

Question_403
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 403
question text: If Engineer B had applied wave equation analysis to the pile driving records and disclosed that the 19 questioned piles had been driven to essential refusal — indicating load capacity several multiples above design requirements — would the municipality's litigation position have been materially weakened, and does that potential outcome explain Engineer B's selective reporting choices?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:53:25.293217
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

Question_404
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 404
question text: If Engineer B had declined the engagement on the grounds that the adversarial litigation context created irreconcilable pressure to produce a client-favorable rather than objectively complete report, would that refusal have better served the public interest, the integrity of the mediation proceeding, and Engineer B's own professional standing than the selective report he ultimately issued?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:53:25.293290
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_1
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:53:25.296948
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_10
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:53:25.297238
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_11
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:53:25.297267
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_12
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:53:25.297297
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_13
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:53:25.297328
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_14
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:53:25.297358
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_15
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:53:25.297386
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_16
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:53:25.297415
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_17
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:53:25.297444
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_18
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:53:25.297472
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_19
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:53:25.297500
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_2
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:53:25.296982
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_20
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:53:25.297529
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_21
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:53:25.297558
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_22
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:53:25.297603
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_23
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:53:25.297639
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_24
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:53:25.297670
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_25
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:53:25.297700
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_26
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:53:25.297729
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_27
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:53:25.297763
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_28
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:53:25.297794
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_3
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:53:25.297012
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_4
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:53:25.297044
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_5
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:53:25.297074
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_6
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:53:25.297106
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_7
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:53:25.297135
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_8
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:53:25.297164
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_9
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:53:25.297193
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

Scope-of-Work Defense Invoked By Engineer B to Justify Ignoring Pile Driving Records
type: Scope-of-WorkLimitationasIncompleteEthicalDefense
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer B's justification for omitting pile driving record analysis from report
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer B initially claimed that pile driving records were not reviewed because it 'was not in our scope of work,' then contradicted this by stating the records were reviewed but disbelieved — revealing that the scope limitation was invoked as a post-hoc justification for ignoring contrary evidence rather than a genuine constraint on the investigation.
confidence: 0.89
discoveredincase: 71
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T11:17:33.458831+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 71
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T11:17:33.458831+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: A scope-of-work limitation cannot ethically justify ignoring primary records that are directly material to the report's conclusions; the contradictory explanations reveal that the scope limitation was not a genuine constraint but a rationalization for selective analysis.
invokedby: Engineer B Adversarial Litigation Testing Supervisor
principleclass: Scope-of-Work Limitation as Incomplete Ethical Defense
sourcetext: Previously, Engineer B had said, 'We didn't look at the pile driving records because it was not in our scope of work.'
tensionresolution: Scope limitations define investigative duties but cannot authorize suppression of material findings; the contradiction in Engineer B's explanations further undermines the scope defense.
textreferences: Previously, Engineer B had said, 'We didn't look at the pile driving records because it was not in our scope of work.'
textreferences: When queried by Engineer A after the report was issued by Engineer B, Engineer B said: 'We just did not believe the driving records and there was also the issue of whether the pile was vented to allow air to escape from below a closure plate that was included in the pile to separate the concrete fill in the pile from the clay. The driving records look suspicious.'
wasattributedto: Case 71 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:37:51.640036
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

Scope-of-Work Limitation as Incomplete Ethical Defense Invoked for Engineer B Report
type: Scope-of-WorkLimitationasIncompleteEthicalDefense
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Omission of equipment failure and pile refusal data
appliedto: Test pile driving report
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Even if Engineer B's contractual scope of work defined the boundaries of his investigation, it did not authorize the omission of material technical findings — specifically equipment failure and pile refusal data — that were within his technical knowledge and observation during the test pile driving program.
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 71
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T11:25:04.851822+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 71
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T11:25:04.851822+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The scope-of-work limitation for the test pile driving program did not constitute a complete ethical defense for Engineer B's omission of material findings already made within that program.
invokedby: Engineer B Adversarial Litigation Testing Supervisor
principleclass: Scope-of-Work Limitation as Incomplete Ethical Defense
sourcetext: The opportunity for expert engineering review and interpretation of the pile driving test was effectively denied by Engineer B's report.
tensionresolution: Scope limitations define required investigation boundaries but do not authorize suppression of findings already made; Engineer B's omissions exceeded any legitimate scope-based justification.
textreferences: The opportunity for expert engineering review and interpretation of the pile driving test was effectively denied by Engineer B's report.
textreferences: the report appears to serve no purpose except to impugn Engineer A, or to support the original testimony of the municipality's expert witness.
textreferences: the select language of the report precludes any interpretation that any or all 90 piles met the factor of safety requirement.
wasattributedto: Case 71 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:37:51.647589
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

Selective Omission in Report
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:37:51.654958
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

Technical Facts Non-Adversarial Character Invoked in Pile Driving Report Case
type: TechnicalFactsNon-AdversarialCharacterPrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Test pile driving report omitting equipment failure and refusal data
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
balancingwith: Loyalty
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The case discussion establishes that Engineer B's selective omission of material pile driving facts (equipment failure, piles driven to refusal) was ethically impermissible regardless of whether it was motivated by the adversarial context, because technical facts do not become adversarial by virtue of being generated in a litigation context.
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 71
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T11:25:04.851822+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 71
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T11:25:04.851822+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: In this context, the non-adversarial character of technical facts means that Engineer B's duty to report all material findings — including those favorable to Engineer A — was not diminished by the municipality's adversarial interest in the litigation outcome.
invokedby: Engineer B Adversarial Litigation Testing Supervisor
principleclass: Technical Facts Non-Adversarial Character Principle
sourcetext: Facts are not adversarial, even if they may be conflicting. Adversarial interests, however, are polarizing to the effect that some facts may be preferred by one interest over the other.
tensionresolution: The principle that facts are not adversarial overrides any client loyalty rationale for selective reporting; the municipality's litigation interest cannot transform the character of engineering facts.
textreferences: Adversarial interests, however, are polarizing to the effect that some facts may be preferred by one interest over the other.
textreferences: Engineers must be exponents of all the available technical facts as the basis for problem solving.
textreferences: Facts are not adversarial, even if they may be conflicting.
textreferences: It is not evident from the facts of the case that Engineer B's selective use of technical fact was inspired by the adversarial circumstance, nor does it matter.
wasattributedto: Case 71 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:37:51.647088
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

Test Pile Program Compromised Conditions
type: CompromisedTestConditionReplicationState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From conduct of test pile driving through issuance of Engineer B's report
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Engineer B
affectedparties: Independent geotechnical consultant
affectedparties: Municipality
concept category: State
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 71
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T11:13:30.349068+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 71
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T11:13:30.349068+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Driving conditions were not duplicated in driving the test piles in that a vibratory hammer was used for the test piles and not used in the original driving.
stateclass: Compromised Test Condition Replication State
subject: The test pile driving program supervised by Engineer B
terminatedby: Disclosure through Engineer A's geotechnical consultant's testimony at mediation
textreferences: After the 30 day set up, the driving hammer was dropped several times to start the hammer before the record of blow counts commenced.
textreferences: Driving conditions were not duplicated in driving the test piles in that a vibratory hammer was used for the test piles and not used in the original driving.
textreferences: Engineer B did not report that the dynamic test equipment had failed.
textreferences: In the opinion of Engineer A's geotechnical consultant, this would have broken the pile bond and undervalued the skin friction value reported by Engineer B's tests.
textreferences: The geotechnical consultant testified and showed that dynamic test equipment had failed during the test and that the test piles were not driven to the same depth of penetration.
triggeringevent: Dynamic test equipment failure during testing, use of vibratory hammer not used in original driving, and pre-record hammer drops breaking pile bond
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 71 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:37:51.635917
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

Vibratory Hammer Substitution Decision
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:37:51.654806
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

Vibratory Hammer Substitution Decision → Selective Omission in Report
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:37:51.655317
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

Wave-Equation-Pile-Analysis-Methodology-Instance
type: WaveEquationPileAnalysisMethodology
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.88
createdby: Geotechnical engineering professional consensus
discoveredincase: 71
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: Accepted wave equation calculations for pile driving resistance analysis
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T11:12:38.004872+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 71
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T11:12:38.004872+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Wave Equation Pile Analysis Methodology
sourcetext: applying accepted wave equation calculations, the piles would have indicated a strength several multiples over the calculated load requirements
textreferences: applying accepted wave equation calculations, the piles would have indicated a strength several multiples over the calculated load requirements
usedby: Engineer A's geotechnical consultant (applied); Engineer B (not applied or reported)
usedincontext: Accepted technical methodology that, when applied to the pile driving records, would have shown the 19 disputed piles had strength several multiples over the calculated load requirements — a material finding omitted from Engineer B's report
wasattributedto: Case 71 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:37:51.632968
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

Wave Equation Pile Analysis Methodology - Factor of Safety Evaluation
type: WaveEquationPileAnalysisMethodology
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.88
createdby: Geotechnical/structural engineering professional community
discoveredincase: 71
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: Technical methodology for evaluating pile driving adequacy including factor of safety, blow count records, and dynamic testing
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T11:14:10.751902+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 71
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T11:14:10.751902+00:00
importance: medium
resourceclass: Wave Equation Pile Analysis Methodology
sourcetext: Engineer B reports that 19 piles do not meet the required factor of safety for the reason that the piles were not driven to a sufficient depth that pile friction resistance would support the load.
textreferences: Among them, that dynamic test equipment failed during the test, and that all 19 test piles reported as failing the test were driven to refusal.
textreferences: Engineer B reports that 19 piles do not meet the required factor of safety for the reason that the piles were not driven to a sufficient depth that pile friction resistance would support the load.
textreferences: The opportunity for expert engineering review and interpretation of the pile driving test was effectively denied by Engineer B's report.
usedby: Engineer A (original analysis) and Engineer B (test pile driving program supervision)
usedincontext: Referenced as the technical basis for Engineer A's original conclusions and Engineer B's subsequent test program; the methodology encompasses dynamic test equipment, pile driving to refusal, and factor of safety determinations that were selectively reported by Engineer B
wasattributedto: Case 71 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:37:51.637395
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

contractor extra claim and lawsuit before mediation settlement
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:37:51.655528
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

dynamic test equipment failure during test pile driving
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:37:51.655713
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

hammer dropped before blow counts after 30-day set period
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:37:51.655805
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

hammer dropped before blow counts before record of blow counts commencement
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:37:51.655774
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

mediation before test pile driving program
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:37:51.655622
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

municipality expert testimony (initial driving resistance failure) during mediation
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:37:51.655560
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

municipality retaining Engineer B equals Engineer A retaining independent geotechnical consultant
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:37:51.655652
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

original pile driving (construction) before contractor extra claim and lawsuit
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:37:51.655480
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

original pile driving (construction) before test pile driving program
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:37:51.655959
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

strength gain confirmation before Engineer B's concluding report
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:37:51.655866
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

test pile driving before 30-day set period
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:37:51.655682
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction

vibratory hammer use during test pile driving
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T11:37:51.655743
was generated by: ProEthica Case 71 Extraction