ProEthica Case 72 Ontology
type: Ontology
created: 2026-02-26T12:15:43.062062
imports: cases
imports: intermediate

60-Day Permit Window Opens
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Event
generated at time: 2026-02-26T12:15:43.080377
was generated by: ProEthica Case 72 Extraction

60-Day Permit Window Opens → Hiring Doe for Compliance Study
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T12:15:43.080717
was generated by: ProEthica Case 72 Extraction

60-day permit application window overlaps Doe's consulting engagement
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T12:15:43.081021
was generated by: ProEthica Case 72 Extraction

Adverse Findings Concluded
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Event
generated at time: 2026-02-26T12:15:43.080416
was generated by: ProEthica Case 72 Extraction

Agent-Trustee Distinction Framework (Section 1 Application)
type: Agent-TrusteeDistinctionFramework
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.85
createdby: National Society of Professional Engineers (codified in Section 1)
discoveredincase: 72
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: Faithful Agent or Trustee Obligation under NSPE Code Section 1
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T11:55:48.909724+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 72
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T11:55:48.909724+00:00
importance: medium
resourceclass: Agent-Trustee Distinction Framework
sourcetext: Section 1 of the code is clear in providing that the engineer 'will act in professional matters for each client or employer as a faithful agent or trustee.' In this spirit Engineer Doe has advised the XYZ Corporation that the results of his studies indicate that the established standards will in his opinion be violated.
textreferences: Section 1 of the code is clear in providing that the engineer 'will act in professional matters for each client or employer as a faithful agent or trustee.' In this spirit Engineer Doe has advised the XYZ Corporation that the results of his studies indicate that the established standards will in his opinion be violated.
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review in structuring the obligation analysis
usedincontext: Invoked to frame Engineer Doe's dual role: as a faithful agent/trustee he first advised XYZ Corporation of the standards violation, satisfying client-facing obligations before the paramount public duty under §2 took precedence
version: N/A
wasattributedto: Case 72 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T12:15:43.067593
was generated by: ProEthica Case 72 Extraction

BER Case No. 67-10
type: BERCasePrecedent
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.95
createdby: National Society of Professional Engineers Board of Ethical Review
discoveredincase: 72
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case No. 67-10
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T11:55:48.909724+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 72
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T11:55:48.909724+00:00
importance: medium
resourceclass: BER Case Precedent
sourcetext: As we noted in Case No. 67-10, even though involving unrelated facts and circumstances, 'It is basic to the entire concept of a profession that its members will devote their interests to the public welfare, as is made abundantly clear in §2 and §2(a) of the code.'
textreferences: As we noted in Case No. 67-10, even though involving unrelated facts and circumstances, 'It is basic to the entire concept of a profession that its members will devote their interests to the public welfare, as is made abundantly clear in §2 and §2(a) of the code.'
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
usedincontext: Cited as analogical precedent for the proposition that it is basic to the concept of a profession that its members devote their interests to public welfare, reinforcing the Board's interpretation of §§2 and 2(a) in the present case
version: 1967
wasattributedto: Case 72 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T12:15:43.067458
was generated by: ProEthica Case 72 Extraction

Case 72 Timeline
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T12:15:43.081054
was generated by: ProEthica Case 72 Extraction

Case No. 67-10
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T12:15:49.165242
was generated by: ProEthica Case 72 Extraction

CausalLink_Deciding Whether to Report Fin
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T15:59:05.606539
was generated by: ProEthica Case 72 Extraction

CausalLink_Hiring Doe for Compliance Stud
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T15:59:05.606421
was generated by: ProEthica Case 72 Extraction

CausalLink_Presenting False Compliance Da
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T15:59:05.606511
was generated by: ProEthica Case 72 Extraction

CausalLink_Terminating Contract and Suppr
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T15:59:05.606481
was generated by: ProEthica Case 72 Extraction

CausalLink_Verbally Advising Client of Ad
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T15:59:05.606451
was generated by: ProEthica Case 72 Extraction

Client Instruction Unprofessional Conduct Reporting Doe XYZ Suppression Instruction
type: ClientInstructionUnprofessionalConductReportingtoProperAuthorityObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: XYZ Corporation instructed Doe not to render a written report after receiving adverse verbal findings, then presented data at a public hearing asserting the discharge met minimum standards — directly contradicting Doe's completed findings.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 72
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T12:07:06.185123+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 72
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T12:07:06.185123+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer Doe
obligationclass: Client Instruction Unprofessional Conduct Reporting to Proper Authority Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer Doe was obligated under §2(c) to report XYZ Corporation's instruction not to render a written report — constituting a request for unprofessional conduct — to proper authorities, particularly upon learning that XYZ presented contradictory data at the public hearing before the State Pollution Control Authority.
sourcetext: That portion of §2(c) which requires the engineer to report any request for 'unprofessional' conduct to 'proper authorities' is particularly pertinent in the situation before us.
temporalscope: Upon learning of XYZ Corporation's contradictory testimony at the public regulatory hearing
textreferences: That portion of §2(c) which requires the engineer to report any request for 'unprofessional' conduct to 'proper authorities' is particularly pertinent in the situation before us.
textreferences: The client's action instructing Doe to not render a written report when coupled with XYZ's testimony at the hearing raises the question of Doe's obligation under §2(c).
textreferences: We interpret the language in the context of the facts to mean that it would now be 'unprofessional conduct' for Doe to not take further action to protect the public interest.
wasattributedto: Case 72 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T12:15:43.077346
was generated by: ProEthica Case 72 Extraction

Client Report Suppression Prohibition Triggered by XYZ Instruction
type: ClientReportSuppressionProhibition
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: XYZ Corporation's instruction to Doe not to produce a written report of his findings
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: XYZ Corporation's explicit instruction to Engineer Doe not to render a written report — after receiving adverse verbal findings — constitutes a client directive to suppress safety-relevant professional findings, raising serious ethical concerns about Doe's obligation to resist or report such suppression
confidence: 0.94
discoveredincase: 72
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T12:05:13.603514+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 72
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T12:05:13.603514+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The client's authority to terminate a contract does not extend to directing the suppression of safety-relevant findings; Doe has reason to question why the corporation specifically stipulates that he not render a written report
invokedby: XYZ Corporation Client Suppressing Engineering Report
principleclass: Client Report Suppression Prohibition
sourcetext: Doe, however, has reason to question why the corporation specifically stipulates that he not render a written report.
tensionresolution: The suppression instruction, combined with XYZ's subsequent false testimony at the hearing, transforms what might have been a permissible scope limitation into an ethically problematic suppression of material safety findings
textreferences: Doe, however, has reason to question why the corporation specifically stipulates that he not render a written report.
textreferences: The client's action instructing Doe to not render a written report when coupled with XYZ's testimony at the hearing raises the question of Doe's obligation under §2(c).
wasattributedto: Case 72 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T12:15:43.075719
was generated by: ProEthica Case 72 Extraction

Client Report Suppression Prohibition Violated By XYZ Corporation Instruction
type: ClientReportSuppressionProhibition
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Contract termination with full payment
appliedto: XYZ Corporation's instruction not to render a written report
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: XYZ Corporation's instruction to Doe not to render a written report, issued after receiving adverse verbal findings, constitutes a client directive to suppress safety-relevant professional findings that Doe is ethically prohibited from obeying
confidence: 0.96
discoveredincase: 72
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T11:58:47.868529+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 72
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T11:58:47.868529+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The combination of contract termination and explicit instruction not to produce a written report is a paradigmatic instance of client report suppression; the full payment mechanism does not convert the suppression into a legitimate scope-of-work decision
invokedby: Engineer Doe Faithful Agent Trustee Engineer
invokedby: Engineer Doe Public Health Risk Reporting Engineer
principleclass: Client Report Suppression Prohibition
sourcetext: the corporation terminates the contract with Doe with full payment for services performed, and instructs Doe not to render a written report to the corporation
tensionresolution: The client's authority to direct the scope and terms of the engagement does not extend to suppressing completed findings material to public health and environmental standards; Doe must produce and disclose the written report despite the instruction
textreferences: the corporation terminates the contract with Doe with full payment for services performed, and instructs Doe not to render a written report to the corporation
wasattributedto: Case 72 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T12:15:43.068921
was generated by: ProEthica Case 72 Extraction

Conclusion_1
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 1
conclusion number: 1
conclusion text: Doe has an ethical obligation to report his findings to the authority upon learning of the hearing.
conclusion type: board_explicit
extraction reasoning: Parsed from imported case text (no LLM)
generated at time: 2026-02-26T15:59:05.604445
was generated by: ProEthica Case 72 Extraction

Conclusion_101
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 104
answers question2: 402
cited provision1: NSPE Code of Ethics Section 2
cited provision2: NSPE Code of Ethics Section 2(a)
conclusion number: 101
conclusion text: Beyond the Board's finding that Doe has an ethical obligation to report his findings to the authority upon learning of the hearing, the obligation to report did not originate at the moment Doe learned of the hearing. Rather, the hearing was merely a confirmatory triggering event that made an already-existing duty impossible to defer. Once Doe completed his studies and concluded that the discharge would lower water quality below established standards, a proactive risk disclosure obligation to the State Pollution Control Authority arose independently of any client instruction, any contract termination, and any subsequent hearing. XYZ Corporation's instruction to suppress the written report did not extinguish that pre-existing duty; it merely created a conflict between Doe's faithful agent role and his paramount public safety obligation — a conflict that the NSPE Code resolves unambiguously in favor of public welfare. The hearing therefore accelerated and concretized a duty that had been latent since the moment Doe's adverse findings were concluded, meaning Doe was arguably already in a state of ethical non-compliance during the interval between contract termination and his learning of the hearing, had he taken no steps to report.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-02-26T15:59:05.604528
was generated by: ProEthica Case 72 Extraction

Conclusion_102
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 101
answers question2: 304
cited provision1: NSPE Code of Ethics Section 2(c)
cited provision2: NSPE Code of Ethics Section 2
conclusion number: 102
conclusion text: The Board's conclusion that Doe must report his findings to the authority is further deepened by recognizing that XYZ Corporation's instruction to suppress the written report was itself an independently wrongful act — a violation of the professional norm against client suppression of engineering findings — that created a separate and prior obligation for Doe to resist or report, distinct from the obligation triggered by the public hearing. The NSPE Code's prohibition on unprofessional conduct extends to client instructions that direct an engineer to conceal findings bearing on public safety. Doe's acceptance of contract termination without producing a written record, and without reporting the suppression instruction to a professional body or the authority, represents a gap in his ethical compliance that the Board's narrow framing around the hearing does not fully address. The hearing-based obligation is reactive; the suppression-resistance obligation is proactive and arose earlier. Treating the hearing as the sole or primary trigger risks implying that had no hearing been called, Doe's silence would have been ethically permissible — a conclusion inconsistent with the Code's structure, which places public welfare paramount regardless of whether a regulatory proceeding happens to surface the issue.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-02-26T15:59:05.604610
was generated by: ProEthica Case 72 Extraction

Conclusion_103
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 203
cited provision1: NSPE Code of Ethics Section 2
cited provision2: NSPE Code of Ethics Section 2(a)
cited provision3: NSPE Code of Ethics Section 2(c)
conclusion number: 103
conclusion text: The Board's conclusion, while correct, leaves unresolved a critical question about the scope and mechanism of Doe's disclosure obligation: whether Doe is obligated to act because XYZ Corporation presented false and misleading data at the public hearing — a reactive correction duty grounded in the obligation not to allow a public record to stand uncorrected — or because his own completed technical findings independently demand disclosure to the regulatory authority as a proactive reporting duty. These are analytically distinct obligations with different scopes. The reactive correction duty, triggered by XYZ's misleading hearing presentation, requires Doe to come forward specifically to contradict and correct the false data presented. The proactive reporting duty, grounded in his completed studies and the public safety risk they document, requires Doe to submit his findings to the authority as a matter of professional obligation regardless of what XYZ presented. The distinction matters because the proactive duty is broader: it encompasses not merely correcting XYZ's false data but affirmatively placing Doe's complete technical findings before the authority so that the permit decision can be made on accurate information. The Board's framing, anchored to the hearing, risks collapsing the broader proactive duty into the narrower reactive one, potentially understating what Doe must disclose and to whom. Full compliance with the Code requires Doe to satisfy both obligations simultaneously.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-02-26T15:59:05.604687
was generated by: ProEthica Case 72 Extraction

Conclusion_201
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 101
answers question2: 304
cited provision1: NSPE Code of Ethics - Section 2(c) (Plans/Specifications Safety and Reporting Unprofessional Conduct)
cited provision2: NSPE Code of Ethics - Section 2 (Public Safety, Health, and Welfare)
conclusion number: 201
conclusion text: XYZ Corporation's instruction to Doe not to produce a written report was itself an act of unprofessional conduct directed at a licensed engineer, and Doe had an independent obligation to resist and, if necessary, report that instruction to a professional body or the authority — separate from any obligation triggered by the public hearing. The instruction was not a legitimate exercise of client authority over scope of work; it was a directive to suppress completed technical findings bearing on public health and water quality. Under the Client Report Suppression Prohibition, a client cannot lawfully instruct an engineer to destroy or withhold findings that have already been reached, because those findings exist as professional conclusions independent of any written instrument. The hearing was not the origin of Doe's duty to resist suppression — it was merely the event that made the consequences of his silence visible and concrete.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-26T15:59:05.604779
was generated by: ProEthica Case 72 Extraction

Conclusion_202
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 102
cited provision1: NSPE Code of Ethics - Section 1 (Faithful Agent or Trustee)
cited provision2: NSPE Code of Ethics - Section 2(c) (Plans/Specifications Safety and Reporting Unprofessional Conduct)
cited provision3: Professional-Report-Integrity-Standard
conclusion number: 202
conclusion text: Doe's verbal-only advisory to XYZ Corporation was insufficient to discharge his professional duty to document and communicate findings. The obligation to produce a written record of completed technical studies is not merely a contractual deliverable that a client may waive — it is a professional norm grounded in the integrity of engineering practice and the public's interest in having a reliable, reviewable record of findings that bear on health and safety. When Doe concluded that the discharge would lower water quality below established standards, that conclusion became a professional fact requiring documentation. XYZ Corporation's instruction to suppress the written report did not extinguish the underlying finding or Doe's obligation to preserve and, where necessary, disclose it. The verbal advisory satisfied Doe's faithful agent duty to inform his client, but it did not satisfy his independent professional duty to maintain a documented record of findings with public safety implications.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-26T15:59:05.604861
was generated by: ProEthica Case 72 Extraction

Conclusion_203
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 103
cited provision1: NSPE Code of Ethics - Section 2 (Public Safety, Health, and Welfare)
cited provision2: NSPE Code of Ethics - Section 7 (Confidential Information)
conclusion number: 203
conclusion text: XYZ Corporation's full payment to Doe upon termination does not resolve and may in fact deepen the ethical concern about the ownership and disposition of his findings. Payment for services rendered transfers compensation for professional labor, not ownership of the engineer's professional conclusions or the right to suppress them. To the extent the payment was structured or timed to coincide with the instruction to suppress the written report, it could reasonably be construed as an attempt to purchase Doe's silence — a transaction that is ethically impermissible regardless of its commercial form. Doe's professional findings belong to the public record in the sense that they cannot be made to disappear by private financial arrangement when they bear on public health and regulatory compliance. The payment therefore creates no ambiguity about Doe's continuing obligation; if anything, the conjunction of full payment and suppression instruction heightens the ethical concern by suggesting a deliberate strategy to neutralize Doe's adverse findings.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-26T15:59:05.604936
was generated by: ProEthica Case 72 Extraction

Conclusion_204
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 104
answers question2: 402
cited provision1: NSPE Code of Ethics - Section 2 (Public Safety, Health, and Welfare)
cited provision2: NSPE Code of Ethics - Section 2(a) (Paramount Duty to Public Welfare)
cited provision3: Engineer Public Safety Escalation Standard (§2/§2(a)/§2(c) Application)
conclusion number: 204
conclusion text: Doe's ethical obligation to proactively disclose his findings to the State Pollution Control Authority arose before the public hearing was scheduled — specifically, at the moment XYZ Corporation instructed him to suppress the written report and terminated his contract. The public hearing was a triggering event only in the sense that it made the consequences of Doe's silence acute and publicly visible; it was not the origin of the duty. Once Doe concluded that the discharge would violate established environmental standards and once his client demonstrated an intent to suppress those findings rather than remediate the problem, the conditions for proactive regulatory disclosure were already satisfied. The Proactive Risk Disclosure Obligation to the State Pollution Control Authority does not require a public hearing as a precondition — it requires a confirmed finding of public safety risk and a client posture that forecloses voluntary compliance. Both conditions were present at the moment of contract termination.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-26T15:59:05.605357
was generated by: ProEthica Case 72 Extraction

Conclusion_205
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 201
answers question2: 202
cited provision1: NSPE Code of Ethics - Section 1 (Faithful Agent or Trustee)
cited provision2: NSPE Code of Ethics - Section 2 (Public Safety, Health, and Welfare)
cited provision3: NSPE Code of Ethics - Section 2(a) (Paramount Duty to Public Welfare)
cited provision4: NSPE Code of Ethics - Section 7 (Confidential Information)
conclusion number: 205
conclusion text: The tension between Doe's faithful agent obligation and his public safety disclosure obligation is resolved by the sequential structure of those duties, not by a simple override. Doe fulfilled his faithful agent obligation when he verbally advised XYZ Corporation of his adverse findings — that communication discharged his duty to inform his client honestly and completely. At that point, the faithful agent relationship had run its legitimate course. When XYZ Corporation responded by terminating the contract and instructing Doe to suppress the written report, it effectively released Doe from any further client loyalty obligation while simultaneously activating his paramount public safety duty. The two obligations do not conflict in a way that requires Doe to choose between them; rather, the client's own conduct sequentially exhausted the faithful agent duty and triggered the public safety escalation duty. Doe's obligation to report to the authority is therefore not a betrayal of his client role — it is the natural successor obligation that arises when the client relationship ends in a manner that leaves a confirmed public safety risk unaddressed.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-26T15:59:05.605448
was generated by: ProEthica Case 72 Extraction

Conclusion_206
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 203
answers question2: 404
cited provision1: NSPE Code of Ethics - Section 2(c) (Plans/Specifications Safety and Reporting Unprofessional Conduct)
cited provision2: NSPE Code of Ethics - Section 2(a) (Paramount Duty to Public Welfare)
cited provision3: Engineer Public Safety Escalation Standard (§2/§2(a)/§2(c) Application)
conclusion number: 206
conclusion text: Doe's disclosure obligation is both reactive and proactive, and the distinction matters for the scope of what he must disclose. The reactive dimension — triggered by XYZ Corporation's presentation of misleading data at the public hearing — obligates Doe to correct the false record before the authority, because allowing a regulatory proceeding to proceed on the basis of data he knows to be contradicted by his own completed studies would make him complicit in the deception. The proactive dimension — grounded in his completed technical findings and the confirmed standards violation — obligates him to report those findings to the authority regardless of what XYZ Corporation presented at the hearing, because the public safety risk exists independently of the hearing record. The scope of disclosure under the reactive duty is at minimum coextensive with the misleading data XYZ presented; the scope under the proactive duty encompasses all of Doe's findings relevant to the discharge standards question. In practice, the proactive duty is broader, and Doe should not limit his disclosure to merely rebutting XYZ's hearing presentation — he must affirmatively report his complete findings.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-26T15:59:05.605542
was generated by: ProEthica Case 72 Extraction

Conclusion_207
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 204
cited provision1: NSPE Code of Ethics - Section 2(c) (Plans/Specifications Safety and Reporting Unprofessional Conduct)
cited provision2: BER Case No. 67-10
conclusion number: 207
conclusion text: The NSPE Board's expansive interpretation of 'instruments of service' under Section 2(c) to encompass Doe's verbal findings and mental conclusions cuts exclusively in favor of disclosure and does not expand the scope of what XYZ Corporation could legitimately instruct Doe to withhold. The expansive interpretation is purposively directed at preventing engineers from evading their public safety reporting obligations by characterizing their work product narrowly. It would be internally contradictory to apply that same expansive interpretation to enlarge the client's power to suppress — doing so would use a disclosure-protective canon to achieve a disclosure-suppressive result. The correct reading is that the expansive interpretation of instruments of service defines the floor of what Doe must be prepared to disclose, not the ceiling of what XYZ may legitimately claim as proprietary. XYZ's instruction to suppress the written report was already impermissible under a narrow reading of the Code; the Board's expansive interpretation only reinforces that conclusion by making clear that even Doe's unwritten conclusions are subject to the public safety reporting obligation.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-26T15:59:05.605628
was generated by: ProEthica Case 72 Extraction

Conclusion_208
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 301
cited provision1: NSPE Code of Ethics - Section 2 (Public Safety, Health, and Welfare)
cited provision2: NSPE Code of Ethics - Section 2(a) (Paramount Duty to Public Welfare)
conclusion number: 208
conclusion text: From a deontological perspective, Doe's categorical duty to public safety was not discharged by his verbal advisory to XYZ Corporation. The Kantian framework requires that the maxim underlying Doe's conduct be universalizable: if every engineer in Doe's position were to confine adverse public safety findings to a private verbal communication with a client who then suppressed them, the entire regulatory system for environmental protection would be systematically undermined. That outcome is not universalizable as a professional norm. Doe's duty to produce and submit findings to the authority is therefore categorical — it does not depend on the consequences of disclosure, on the client's preferences, or on whether a public hearing happens to be scheduled. The verbal advisory was a necessary but not sufficient act; the categorical duty independently required Doe to ensure that his findings reached the regulatory authority charged with protecting the public interest.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-26T15:59:05.605701
was generated by: ProEthica Case 72 Extraction

Conclusion_209
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 302
cited provision1: NSPE Code of Ethics - Section 2 (Public Safety, Health, and Welfare)
cited provision2: NSPE Code of Ethics - Section 2(a) (Paramount Duty to Public Welfare)
conclusion number: 209
conclusion text: From a consequentialist perspective, the aggregate harm calculus strongly favors disclosure. The harms from non-disclosure are concrete, ongoing, and borne by the public: degraded water quality below established environmental standards, a regulatory proceeding proceeding on false data, and the long-term public health consequences of a discharge that Doe's own studies confirmed to be non-compliant. The harms from disclosure are primarily commercial and reputational, borne by XYZ Corporation and to a lesser extent by Doe's professional relationship with that client. That relationship was already terminated, which substantially reduces even the relational harm of disclosure. Moreover, XYZ Corporation's presentation of misleading data at the public hearing compounds the harm of non-disclosure by actively deceiving the regulatory authority, making Doe's silence not merely passive omission but effective facilitation of that deception. No plausible consequentialist calculus supports Doe's continued silence once he learns of the misleading hearing presentation.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-26T15:59:05.605787
was generated by: ProEthica Case 72 Extraction

Conclusion_210
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 303
cited provision1: NSPE Code of Ethics - Section 2 (Public Safety, Health, and Welfare)
cited provision2: NSPE Code of Ethics - Section 2(c) (Plans/Specifications Safety and Reporting Unprofessional Conduct)
conclusion number: 210
conclusion text: From a virtue ethics perspective, professional integrity and courage are not demonstrated by accepting contract termination and remaining silent when a client proceeds to present misleading data to a regulatory authority. The virtuous engineer in Doe's position is characterized not merely by technical competence and client loyalty, but by the moral courage to come forward when the public interest is at stake and when silence would make him complicit in a deception before a regulatory body. Doe's acceptance of the verbal advisory as his final act was understandable as an initial response to client pressure, but virtue ethics demands more than the minimum required to avoid explicit wrongdoing — it demands the positive exercise of professional integrity. A virtuous engineer does not wait to be compelled by a public hearing to act; he recognizes that his completed findings carry a professional and moral weight that survives the termination of the client relationship, and he acts accordingly.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-26T15:59:05.605859
was generated by: ProEthica Case 72 Extraction

Conclusion_211
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 401
cited provision1: NSPE Code of Ethics - Section 2(c) (Plans/Specifications Safety and Reporting Unprofessional Conduct)
cited provision2: Professional-Report-Integrity-Standard
conclusion number: 211
conclusion text: If Doe had insisted on producing and delivering a written report to XYZ Corporation before accepting contract termination, the corporation would have faced a documented adverse finding in its possession — a record that would have complicated, though not necessarily prevented, its subsequent presentation of misleading data at the public hearing. More significantly, a written report in XYZ's hands would have created a discoverable document in any regulatory proceeding, reducing the corporation's ability to control the information environment. Doe's subsequent obligation to report to the authority would not have been eliminated by the existence of a written report delivered to XYZ, because the public safety obligation runs to the authority, not merely to the client. However, the existence of a written report would have strengthened Doe's position in any subsequent disclosure by providing a contemporaneous, documented record of his findings rather than a retrospective verbal account, and it would have made XYZ's suppression of that report a more explicit and documentable act of misconduct.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-26T15:59:05.605931
was generated by: ProEthica Case 72 Extraction

Conclusion_212
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 402
answers question2: 104
cited provision1: NSPE Code of Ethics - Section 2 (Public Safety, Health, and Welfare)
cited provision2: NSPE Code of Ethics - Section 2(a) (Paramount Duty to Public Welfare)
cited provision3: Engineer Public Safety Escalation Standard (§2/§2(a)/§2(c) Application)
conclusion number: 212
conclusion text: If Doe had proactively reported his adverse findings to the State Pollution Control Authority immediately after contract termination and before the public hearing was scheduled, that earlier disclosure would have been ethically required and would have been the most complete discharge of his public safety obligation. The public hearing was not a necessary precondition for Doe's reporting duty — it was merely the event that made his silence most visibly consequential. An earlier disclosure would have been sufficient to discharge his ongoing public safety obligation because it would have placed the authority in possession of Doe's findings before any misleading data was presented, enabling the authority to conduct its own investigation and make an informed permitting decision. The fact that Doe did not act at that earlier point does not eliminate his obligation upon learning of the hearing — it simply means that the obligation, which arose at termination, remained unfulfilled and became more urgent as the hearing proceeded on false data.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-26T15:59:05.606013
was generated by: ProEthica Case 72 Extraction

Conclusion_213
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 404
cited provision1: NSPE Code of Ethics - Section 2 (Public Safety, Health, and Welfare)
cited provision2: NSPE Code of Ethics - Section 2(a) (Paramount Duty to Public Welfare)
cited provision3: NSPE Code of Ethics - Section 2(c) (Plans/Specifications Safety and Reporting Unprofessional Conduct)
conclusion number: 213
conclusion text: If XYZ Corporation had presented accurate data at the public hearing — data consistent with Doe's adverse findings — Doe would still have retained an ethical obligation to report his findings to the authority, though the urgency and character of that obligation would have differed. The obligation arising from XYZ's misleading hearing presentation is reactive and corrective: Doe must prevent a regulatory proceeding from being decided on false data. But the underlying proactive obligation — grounded in Doe's completed findings of a confirmed standards violation — exists independently of what XYZ presented at the hearing. Even if XYZ had been fully candid, the authority would benefit from receiving Doe's independent technical assessment, and Doe's professional obligation to ensure that his findings on a public safety matter reach the appropriate regulatory body does not depend on the client's honesty or dishonesty. The misleading presentation intensifies and makes more urgent an obligation that already existed; it does not create an obligation that would otherwise be absent.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-26T15:59:05.606119
was generated by: ProEthica Case 72 Extraction

Conclusion_214
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 404
cited provision1: NSPE Code of Ethics Section 2(a)
cited provision2: NSPE Code of Ethics Section 2
conclusion number: 214
conclusion text: In response to Q404: If Doe had disclosed his findings to the State Pollution Control Authority immediately after XYZ Corporation terminated his contract and instructed him to suppress the written report — rather than waiting until he learned of the public hearing — that earlier disclosure would have been not only ethically permissible but ethically required. The suppression instruction itself was the clearest possible signal that XYZ intended to conceal the adverse findings from the regulatory authority, and Doe's knowledge of that intent, combined with his confirmed findings of a standards violation, created an immediate and compelling obligation to escalate. Earlier disclosure would also have been more effective in protecting public health: it would have given the authority the opportunity to act before the public hearing, potentially preventing the misleading testimony from being entered into the public record at all. The delay between contract termination and the public hearing represents a period during which Doe's silence, however understandable as a matter of professional caution, was ethically unjustified given the confirmed nature of his findings and the evident suppression intent of his former client.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-28T20:06:26.315650
was generated by: ProEthica Case 72 Extraction

Conclusion_301
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 201
answers question2: 202
cited provision1: NSPE Code of Ethics Section 1
cited provision2: NSPE Code of Ethics Section 2
cited provision3: NSPE Code of Ethics Section 2(a)
conclusion number: 301
conclusion text: The tension between the Faithful Agent Obligation and the Public Welfare Paramount principle was resolved not by treating them as equal competing duties but by establishing a clear lexical hierarchy: Doe's faithful agent obligation to XYZ Corporation was fully discharged — and exhausted — by his verbal advisory of adverse findings, at which point the public welfare paramount principle became the sole operative duty. The case teaches that faithful agency is a bounded, satisfiable obligation: once Doe honestly communicated his findings to the client, he had nothing further to withhold on the client's behalf. The public safety obligation, by contrast, is not satisfiable by client-directed action alone and persists independently of the client relationship's termination. The resolution is therefore sequential rather than balancing: faithful agency runs first and is completed; public welfare paramountcy then governs all subsequent conduct without competition.
conclusion type: principle_synthesis
generated at time: 2026-02-26T15:59:05.606226
was generated by: ProEthica Case 72 Extraction

Conclusion_302
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 101
answers question2: 202
cited provision1: NSPE Code of Ethics Section 7
cited provision2: NSPE Code of Ethics Section 2(c)
conclusion number: 302
conclusion text: The Client Report Suppression Prohibition and the Confidentiality Non-Applicability to Public Danger Disclosure principle interact in this case to produce a compounding rather than merely additive ethical obligation. XYZ Corporation's instruction to Doe not to render a written report was not a legitimate exercise of client authority over work product but rather an attempt to weaponize the confidentiality relationship against the very public the engineering profession exists to protect. Because the confidentiality norm does not apply where public danger is at stake, XYZ's suppression instruction carried no ethical weight from the moment it was issued. The case therefore teaches that a client cannot launder an ethically impermissible suppression instruction through the confidentiality framework: the instruction was void as against public policy from the outset, and Doe's compliance with it — even temporarily — did not create a legitimate expectation of continued silence that could survive the public hearing. The two principles together establish that both the mechanism of suppression (the client instruction) and the shield invoked to justify it (confidentiality) were simultaneously inapplicable.
conclusion type: principle_synthesis
generated at time: 2026-02-26T15:59:05.606305
was generated by: ProEthica Case 72 Extraction

Conclusion_303
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 203
answers question2: 204
cited provision1: NSPE Code of Ethics Section 2(c)
cited provision2: NSPE Code of Ethics Section 2(a)
cited provision3: BER Case No. 67-10
conclusion number: 303
conclusion text: The Misleading Data Correction Obligation Triggered by XYZ's Hearing Presentation and the Fact-Based Disclosure Obligation Grounded in Completed Studies are distinct in origin but convergent in outcome, and their interaction reveals an important principle about the scope of what Doe must disclose. The reactive correction duty — arising from XYZ's presentation of contradictory data at the public hearing — is bounded by the specific falsehood being corrected: Doe must contradict XYZ's claim that the discharge meets minimum standards. The proactive disclosure duty — grounded in Doe's independently completed technical studies — is broader: it requires Doe to present the full substance of his findings, not merely to negate XYZ's data point. The case teaches that when both duties are simultaneously triggered, the proactive duty sets the floor for disclosure and the reactive duty sets the minimum threshold that makes inaction unconscionable. Doe cannot satisfy his obligations by merely saying XYZ's data is wrong; he must affirmatively report what his studies found. Furthermore, the Ethics Code Expansive Interpretation Canon Applied to Plans and Specifications — extending the concept of engineering instruments of service to include Doe's verbal findings and mental conclusions — cuts exclusively in favor of disclosure: it expands the subject matter Doe is obligated to report but does not correspondingly expand XYZ's authority to suppress, because suppression authority derives from the client relationship, which is itself subordinate to the public welfare paramount principle.
conclusion type: principle_synthesis
generated at time: 2026-02-26T15:59:05.606388
was generated by: ProEthica Case 72 Extraction

Confidentiality Non-Applicability to Public Danger Disclosure Applied to Doe Testimony
type: ConfidentialityNon-ApplicabilitytoPublicDangerDisclosure
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: §7 confidentiality provision as potential bar to Doe's testimony at the public hearing
balancingwith: Client Loyalty
balancingwith: Confidentiality Principle
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer Doe's disclosure to the State Pollution Control Authority that XYZ's discharge will violate established minimum standards does not constitute disclosure of XYZ's 'technical processes or business affairs' within the meaning of §7, because the disclosure serves the public welfare purpose of the ethics code rather than revealing protected confidential information
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 72
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T12:05:13.603514+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 72
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T12:05:13.603514+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The confidentiality provision of §7 does not shield the client from disclosure of public safety violations to proper authorities; advising the authority of apparent danger to the public interest falls outside the protected category of technical processes or business affairs
invokedby: Engineer Doe Public Interest Environmental Witness Engineer
principleclass: Confidentiality Non-Applicability to Public Danger Disclosure
sourcetext: Section 7 of the code does not give us pause because the action of the engineer in advising proper authority of the apparent danger to the public interest will not in this case be disclosing the technical processes or business affairs of the client.
tensionresolution: Confidentiality does not apply because the disclosure of public danger to proper authorities is categorically distinct from disclosure of protected business or technical information
textreferences: Section 7 of the code does not give us pause because the action of the engineer in advising proper authority of the apparent danger to the public interest will not in this case be disclosing the technical processes or business affairs of the client.
textreferences: Section 7-'The Engineer will not disclose confidential information concerning the business affairs or technical processes of any present or former client or employer without his consent.'
wasattributedto: Case 72 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T12:15:43.076230
was generated by: ProEthica Case 72 Extraction

Confidentiality Scope Limitation Doe XYZ Discharge Findings Disclosure
type: ConfidentialityScopeLimitationforPublicDangerDisclosureObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: After contract termination, Doe possessed completed findings that XYZ's discharge would violate established standards. The question arose whether §7 confidentiality barred him from disclosing these findings to the State Pollution Control Authority.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 72
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T12:07:06.185123+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 72
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T12:07:06.185123+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer Doe
obligationclass: Confidentiality Scope Limitation for Public Danger Disclosure Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer Doe was obligated to recognize that §7 confidentiality did not bar his disclosure of findings that XYZ's discharge would violate established minimum standards, because such disclosure concerns a regulatory violation and public danger — not XYZ's technical processes or business affairs — and therefore the confidentiality provision did not apply to prevent his reporting to the State Pollution Control Authority.
sourcetext: Section 7 of the code does not give us pause because the action of the engineer in advising proper authority of the apparent danger to the public interest will not in this case be disclosing the technical processes or business affairs of the client.
temporalscope: Upon considering whether to disclose findings to the State Pollution Control Authority after contract termination
textreferences: Section 7 of the code does not give us pause because the action of the engineer in advising proper authority of the apparent danger to the public interest will not in this case be disclosing the technical processes or business affairs of the client.
wasattributedto: Case 72 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T12:15:43.077490
was generated by: ProEthica Case 72 Extraction

Contract Terminated With Payment
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Event
generated at time: 2026-02-26T12:15:43.080452
was generated by: ProEthica Case 72 Extraction

DP1
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP1
decision question: Upon learning that XYZ Corporation presented data at the public hearing asserting the discharge meets minimum standards — directly contradicting his completed findings — what action must Engineer Doe take with respect to the State Pollution Control Authority?
focus: Engineer Doe's obligation to report adverse findings to the State Pollution Control Authority upon learning that XYZ Corporation presented contradictory data at the public hearing — and whether that obligation arose earlier, at the moment of contract termination and suppression instruction.
option1: Come forward at or after the public hearing to present completed adverse findings to the State Pollution Control Authority, affirmatively correcting XYZ's misleading data and submitting the full substance of the technical studies to the regulatory record
option2: Limit post-hearing action to submitting a targeted written rebuttal correcting only the specific data points XYZ misrepresented, without volunteering the full scope of completed study findings beyond what is necessary to contradict the false compliance claim
option3: Refrain from contacting the authority directly and instead report XYZ's misleading hearing presentation to the relevant professional engineering licensing board, allowing that body to determine whether referral to the State Pollution Control Authority is warranted
role label: Engineer Doe Faithful Agent Trustee Engineer
generated at time: 2026-02-26T15:59:05.607760
was generated by: ProEthica Case 72 Extraction

DP2
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP2
decision question: When XYZ Corporation terminated Doe's contract with full payment and instructed him not to render a written report of his adverse findings, what was Doe's professional obligation with respect to documenting and preserving those findings?
focus: Engineer Doe's obligation to resist XYZ Corporation's instruction to suppress the written report of his adverse findings — and whether his verbal advisory to the client was sufficient to discharge his professional documentation duty or whether a separate, non-waivable obligation to produce and preserve a written record persisted independently of the client's instruction.
option1: Resist XYZ's suppression instruction by producing and preserving a written report of adverse findings, delivering it to XYZ Corporation and retaining a copy, and notifying the State Pollution Control Authority of the findings and the suppression instruction
option2: Produce and retain an internal written memorandum documenting the adverse findings for professional records purposes without delivering it to XYZ or the authority, treating the verbal advisory as having discharged the client-facing obligation while preserving a contemporaneous record for potential future use
option3: Accept contract termination and the instruction not to render a written report, treating the verbal advisory as sufficient discharge of the professional obligation to inform the client, on the basis that no written report was contractually required and the client's scope-of-work authority extended to the form of deliverables
role label: Engineer Doe Faithful Agent Trustee Engineer
generated at time: 2026-02-26T15:59:05.607844
was generated by: ProEthica Case 72 Extraction

DP3
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP3
decision question: When XYZ Corporation instructed Doe to suppress his written report and subsequently presented contradictory data at the public hearing, did Doe's professional confidentiality obligations under §7 bar him from disclosing his findings to the State Pollution Control Authority, and did those obligations survive contract termination?
focus: The interaction between the Confidentiality Non-Applicability principle and the Client Report Suppression Prohibition in determining whether XYZ Corporation's suppression instruction carried any ethical weight — and whether the confidentiality framework could legitimately shield that instruction from the public welfare paramount obligation.
option1: Disclose completed adverse findings to the State Pollution Control Authority without client authorization, treating the public danger exception to §7 as applicable to a confirmed regulatory standards violation and the suppression instruction as void as against public policy
option2: Seek written authorization from XYZ Corporation to disclose findings to the authority before making any disclosure, treating §7 confidentiality as surviving contract termination and requiring client consent unless and until a formal regulatory subpoena or legal compulsion is issued
option3: Disclose findings to the authority only in response to a direct request or subpoena from the State Pollution Control Authority, treating the public danger exception as requiring a formal regulatory inquiry to activate rather than arising from the engineer's unilateral judgment that a standards violation constitutes sufficient public danger
role label: Client
generated at time: 2026-02-26T15:59:05.607938
was generated by: ProEthica Case 72 Extraction

DP4
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP4
decision question: Upon learning that XYZ Corporation presented false compliance data at the public hearing, should Engineer Doe report his adverse findings to the State Pollution Control Authority, and if so, in what form and scope?
focus: Doe's obligation to report adverse findings to the State Pollution Control Authority upon learning that XYZ Corporation presented false compliance data at the public hearing — and whether that obligation was already latent from the moment his studies concluded and the suppression instruction was issued.
option1: Submit a complete written report of all adverse findings to the State Pollution Control Authority and offer to testify at the public hearing, affirmatively correcting XYZ's misleading data and placing the full technical record before the authority
option2: Appear at the public hearing solely to contradict the specific false data points presented by XYZ Corporation, limiting disclosure to the minimum necessary to correct the misleading record without submitting the full study findings
option3: Notify XYZ Corporation in writing that its hearing presentation contradicts Doe's findings and demand that XYZ itself correct the record before the authority, treating the client notification as the primary mechanism of compliance before taking any direct action toward the authority
role label: Engineer Doe
generated at time: 2026-02-26T15:59:05.608012
was generated by: ProEthica Case 72 Extraction

DP5
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP5
decision question: When XYZ Corporation instructed Doe not to produce a written report and terminated his contract, was Doe obligated to resist that suppression instruction by insisting on producing and delivering a written report of his adverse findings, independently of any subsequent obligation triggered by the public hearing?
focus: Whether XYZ Corporation's instruction to Doe not to produce a written report constituted an independently wrongful act that Doe was obligated to resist at the time of contract termination — and whether Doe's verbal-only advisory was sufficient to discharge his professional duty to document and communicate findings bearing on public safety.
option1: Refuse to accept contract termination without first producing and delivering a complete written report of adverse findings to XYZ Corporation, and report XYZ's suppression instruction to the appropriate professional body or regulatory authority
option2: Accept contract termination and the instruction not to produce a written report, treating the verbal advisory as a complete discharge of professional obligations, while retaining personal notes of findings for potential future use if a regulatory proceeding arises
option3: Accept contract termination but prepare and retain a complete internal written record of findings without delivering it to XYZ or the authority, treating the written documentation as a professional preservation measure while deferring any disclosure decision until a concrete regulatory trigger — such as a public hearing — arises
role label: Engineer Doe
generated at time: 2026-02-26T15:59:05.608086
was generated by: ProEthica Case 72 Extraction

DP6
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP6
decision question: At what point in the timeline did Doe's ethical obligation to disclose his adverse findings to the State Pollution Control Authority arise, and does the answer affect the scope and sufficiency of the disclosure he must now make?
focus: Whether Doe's proactive disclosure obligation to the State Pollution Control Authority arose at the moment his adverse findings were concluded and the suppression instruction was issued — before any public hearing was scheduled — and whether the hearing was merely a confirmatory trigger of a pre-existing duty or the origin of a new one, with implications for the timing, scope, and ethical sufficiency of any disclosure Doe ultimately makes.
option1: Immediately upon learning of the hearing, submit a complete written report of adverse findings to the State Pollution Control Authority and acknowledge that this disclosure should have been made at the time of contract termination, offering the authority a full account of the timeline including the suppression instruction
option2: Treat the public hearing as the operative triggering event and limit disclosure to correcting the specific false data XYZ presented at the hearing, without volunteering information about the earlier suppression instruction or characterizing the disclosure as satisfaction of a pre-existing duty
option3: Seek guidance from the NSPE or a professional ethics board before disclosing to the authority, treating the ambiguity about the timing and scope of the disclosure obligation as a genuine professional uncertainty that warrants formal ethical consultation before action
role label: Engineer Doe
generated at time: 2026-02-26T15:59:05.608159
was generated by: ProEthica Case 72 Extraction

Deciding Whether to Report Findings to Authority
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
generated at time: 2026-02-26T12:15:43.080338
was generated by: ProEthica Case 72 Extraction

Discharge Below Environmental Standards — Confirmed Finding
type: ConfirmedRiskWithoutAdequateSafeguardsState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Doe's conclusion through resolution of regulatory proceeding and any corrective action
affectedparties: Engineer Doe
affectedparties: Public
affectedparties: State Pollution Control Authority
affectedparties: XYZ Corporation
concept category: State
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 72
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T11:54:51.837082+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 72
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T11:54:51.837082+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Doe concludes that the discharge from the plant will lower the quality of the receiving body of water below established standards
stateclass: Confirmed Risk Without Adequate Safeguards State
subject: Receiving body of water subject to XYZ Corporation's manufacturing waste discharge
terminatedby: Implementation of adequate corrective measures by XYZ Corporation or regulatory enforcement action
textreferences: Doe concludes that the discharge from the plant will lower the quality of the receiving body of water below established standards
textreferences: He further concludes that corrective action will be very costly
triggeringevent: Doe concludes that discharge will lower water quality below established environmental standards and that corrective action will be very costly
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 72 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T12:15:43.064564
was generated by: ProEthica Case 72 Extraction

Discharged Engineer Continued Public Safety Reporting Doe XYZ Discharge Violation
type: DischargedEngineerContinuedPublicSafetyReportingObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: XYZ Corporation terminated Doe's contract with full payment after receiving adverse verbal findings, then presented contradictory data at a public regulatory hearing. Doe's paramount duty to public welfare survived the contract termination.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 72
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T12:07:06.185123+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 72
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T12:07:06.185123+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer Doe
obligationclass: Discharged Engineer Continued Public Safety Reporting Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer Doe, having been discharged from his consulting engagement with XYZ Corporation following disclosure of adverse findings, was obligated to continue fulfilling his reporting obligations to the State Pollution Control Authority notwithstanding the termination of the client relationship, given his credible technical evidence that XYZ's discharge would violate established minimum standards detrimental to public health and safety.
sourcetext: The termination of Doe's contract with full payment for services rendered is a business decision which we will presume is permitted by the terms of the engineering services contract between Doe and his client.
temporalscope: Following contract termination and throughout the regulatory hearing process
textreferences: In this case, it is presumed that a failure to meet the minimum standards established by law is detrimental to the public health and safety.
textreferences: Section 2(a) requires that his duty to the public be paramount.
textreferences: The termination of Doe's contract with full payment for services rendered is a business decision which we will presume is permitted by the terms of the engineering services contract between Doe and his client.
wasattributedto: Case 72 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T12:15:43.078079
was generated by: ProEthica Case 72 Extraction

Doe Client-Funded Study Independence Maintenance XYZ Adverse Findings
type: Client-FundedStudyIndependenceMaintenanceCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Client-Funded Study Independence Maintenance Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer Doe maintained professional independence throughout his client-funded engagement with XYZ Corporation, reaching and communicating adverse findings that contradicted the client's desired regulatory outcome despite the client having funded the study.
casecontext: XYZ Corporation retained Doe to produce a report supporting its permit application; Doe instead reached and reported adverse findings, resulting in contract termination.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.91
demonstratedthrough: Doe's honest verbal disclosure to XYZ Corporation that his studies indicated established standards would be violated — an adverse finding that led to his contract termination.
discoveredincase: 72
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T12:09:23.984049+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 72
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T12:09:23.984049+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer Doe Environmental Engineering Consultant
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: In this spirit Engineer Doe has advised the XYZ Corporation that the results of his studies indicate that the established standards will in his opinion be violated.
textreferences: In this spirit Engineer Doe has advised the XYZ Corporation that the results of his studies indicate that the established standards will in his opinion be violated.
textreferences: The termination of Doe's contract with full payment for services rendered is a business decision which we will presume is permitted by the terms of the engineering services contract between Doe and his client.
wasattributedto: Case 72 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T12:15:43.079697
was generated by: ProEthica Case 72 Extraction

Doe Client-Funded Study Independence Maintenance XYZ Engagement
type: Client-FundedStudyIndependenceMaintenanceCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Client-Funded Study Independence Maintenance Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer Doe possessed the capability to maintain professional independence throughout his client-funded study for XYZ Corporation, reaching and communicating adverse findings that directly contradicted the client's desired regulatory outcome
casecontext: XYZ Corporation retained Doe specifically to produce findings supporting its permit application; Doe maintained independence and reported adverse findings
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.86
demonstratedthrough: Despite being retained specifically to support XYZ Corporation's permit application, Doe independently concluded and verbally reported that the discharge would violate established standards
discoveredincase: 72
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T12:02:50.779986+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 72
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T12:02:50.779986+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer Doe
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: In an effort to convince the authority that the receiving body of water after receiving the manufacturing wastes will still meet established environmental standards, the corporation employs Engineer Doe
textreferences: Doe concludes that the discharge from the plant will lower the quality of the receiving body of water below established standards
textreferences: Doe verbally advises the XYZ Corporation of his findings
textreferences: In an effort to convince the authority that the receiving body of water after receiving the manufacturing wastes will still meet established environmental standards, the corporation employs Engineer Doe
wasattributedto: Case 72 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T12:15:43.074144
was generated by: ProEthica Case 72 Extraction

Doe Client Report Suppression Instruction Recognition
type: ClientReportSuppressionInstructionRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Client Report Suppression Instruction Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer Doe possessed the awareness capability to recognize that XYZ Corporation's instruction not to render a written report — coupled with full payment and contract termination — was a suspicious directive warranting professional scrutiny rather than passive compliance.
casecontext: After completing environmental studies showing XYZ's discharge would violate established standards and verbally advising the client, Doe was instructed not to render a written report and had his contract terminated with full payment.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.87
demonstratedthrough: Doe's recognition that the corporation's specific stipulation against a written report raised professional questions about his obligations, as reflected in the Board's analysis of why the instruction was ethically significant.
discoveredincase: 72
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T12:09:23.984049+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 72
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T12:09:23.984049+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer Doe Environmental Engineering Consultant
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Doe, however, has reason to question why the corporation specifically stipulates that he not render a written report.
textreferences: Doe, however, has reason to question why the corporation specifically stipulates that he not render a written report.
textreferences: The client's action instructing Doe to not render a written report when coupled with XYZ's testimony at the hearing raises the question of Doe's obligation under §2(c).
wasattributedto: Case 72 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T12:15:43.078239
was generated by: ProEthica Case 72 Extraction

Doe Client Report Suppression Resistance XYZ Corporation Written Report Instruction
type: ClientReportSuppressionResistanceObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: After Doe verbally advised XYZ Corporation that the discharge would lower water quality below established standards, the corporation terminated his contract with full payment and explicitly instructed him not to render a written report.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 72
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T12:00:28.165820+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 72
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T12:00:28.165820+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer Doe
obligationclass: Client Report Suppression Resistance Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer Doe was obligated to resist XYZ Corporation's instruction not to render a written report, recognizing that the client's payment of fees and contract termination did not extinguish his duty to document and preserve his adverse findings regarding discharge standards violation.
sourcetext: the corporation terminates the contract with Doe with full payment for services performed, and instructs Doe not to render a written report to the corporation
temporalscope: Upon receipt of XYZ Corporation's instruction not to render a written report, following verbal disclosure of adverse findings
textreferences: Doe verbally advises the XYZ Corporation of his findings
textreferences: the corporation terminates the contract with Doe with full payment for services performed, and instructs Doe not to render a written report to the corporation
wasattributedto: Case 72 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T12:15:43.070285
was generated by: ProEthica Case 72 Extraction

Doe Client Unprofessional Conduct Instruction Identification XYZ Suppression
type: ClientUnprofessionalConductInstructionIdentificationandReportingCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Client Unprofessional Conduct Instruction Identification and Reporting Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer Doe was required to possess the capability to identify XYZ Corporation's instruction not to render a written report as a request for unprofessional conduct under §2(c), and to report that instruction to proper authorities.
casecontext: XYZ Corporation instructed Doe not to render a written report after receiving adverse verbal findings, then presented contradictory data at a public hearing.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: The Board's analysis that §2(c)'s reporting obligation for unprofessional conduct instructions was triggered by XYZ's suppression instruction, and that it would be unprofessional conduct for Doe not to take further action.
discoveredincase: 72
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T12:09:23.984049+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 72
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T12:09:23.984049+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer Doe Environmental Engineering Consultant
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: That portion of §2(c) which requires the engineer to report any request for 'unprofessional' conduct to 'proper authorities' is particularly pertinent in the situation before us.
textreferences: That portion of §2(c) which requires the engineer to report any request for 'unprofessional' conduct to 'proper authorities' is particularly pertinent in the situation before us.
textreferences: We interpret the language in the context of the facts to mean that it would now be 'unprofessional conduct' for Doe to not take further action to protect the public interest.
wasattributedto: Case 72 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T12:15:43.078527
was generated by: ProEthica Case 72 Extraction

Doe Competing Duties — Faithful Agent vs. Public Safety Paramount
type: CompetingDutiesState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Doe's learning of the public hearing through his decision to notify proper authorities
affectedparties: Engineer Doe
affectedparties: General public
affectedparties: XYZ Corporation
concept category: State
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 72
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T11:56:02.471819+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 72
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T11:56:02.471819+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Section 1 of the code is clear in providing that the engineer 'will act in professional matters for each client or employer as a faithful agent or trustee'
stateclass: Competing Duties State
subject: Engineer Doe's simultaneous obligations as faithful agent/trustee to XYZ Corporation and as professional with paramount duty to public safety
terminatedby: Doe's resolution to prioritize public safety obligation per §2(a) and notify proper authorities
textreferences: Section 1 of the code is clear in providing that the engineer 'will act in professional matters for each client or employer as a faithful agent or trustee'
textreferences: Section 2(a) requires that his duty to the public be paramount
textreferences: We interpret the language in the context of the facts to mean that it would now be 'unprofessional conduct' for Doe to not take further action to protect the public interest
triggeringevent: XYZ Corporation's public hearing testimony contradicting Doe's suppressed findings, forcing Doe to choose between client loyalty and public safety duty
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 72 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T12:15:43.068438
was generated by: ProEthica Case 72 Extraction

Doe Confidentiality Instruction Suppressing Safety Report
type: ConfidentialityInstructionSuppressingSafetyReportState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From contract termination with suppression instruction through Doe's decision to notify proper authorities
affectedparties: Engineer Doe
affectedparties: General public
affectedparties: Regulatory authority
affectedparties: XYZ Corporation
concept category: State
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 72
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T11:56:02.471819+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 72
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T11:56:02.471819+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: The client's action instructing Doe to not render a written report when coupled with XYZ's testimony at the hearing raises the question of Doe's obligation under §2(c)
stateclass: Confidentiality Instruction Suppressing Safety Report State
subject: XYZ Corporation's instruction to Engineer Doe not to produce a written report of his findings
terminatedby: Doe's notification of proper authorities per §2(c) obligation
textreferences: The client's action instructing Doe to not render a written report when coupled with XYZ's testimony at the hearing raises the question of Doe's obligation under §2(c)
textreferences: We interpret the language in the context of the facts to mean that it would now be 'unprofessional conduct' for Doe to not take further action to protect the public interest
triggeringevent: XYZ Corporation's stipulation that Doe not render a written report, coupled with XYZ's testimony at the public hearing presenting contradictory data
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 72 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T12:15:43.067896
was generated by: ProEthica Case 72 Extraction

Doe Confidentiality Non-Applicability Assessment XYZ Discharge Disclosure
type: ConfidentialityPre-emptionbyPublicSafetyRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Confidentiality Pre-emption by Public Safety Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer Doe possessed the capability to assess that §7 confidentiality did not bar his disclosure of findings to the State Pollution Control Authority, because the disclosure concerned apparent danger to the public interest rather than the client's technical processes or business affairs.
casecontext: Before reporting to the State Pollution Control Authority, Doe needed to assess whether §7 confidentiality barred disclosure of his findings about XYZ's discharge.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.86
demonstratedthrough: The Board's determination that §7 posed no obstacle to Doe's regulatory disclosure, as the disclosure would not reveal confidential business information but rather public danger findings.
discoveredincase: 72
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T12:09:23.984049+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 72
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T12:09:23.984049+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer Doe Environmental Engineering Consultant
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Section 7 of the code does not give us pause because the action of the engineer in advising proper authority of the apparent danger to the public interest will not in this case be disclosing the technical processes or business affairs of the client.
textreferences: Section 7 of the code does not give us pause because the action of the engineer in advising proper authority of the apparent danger to the public interest will not in this case be disclosing the technical processes or business affairs of the client.
wasattributedto: Case 72 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T12:15:43.078677
was generated by: ProEthica Case 72 Extraction

Doe Confidentiality Pre-emption by Public Safety Recognition XYZ Discharge
type: ConfidentialityPre-emptionbyPublicSafetyRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Confidentiality Pre-emption by Public Safety Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer Doe possessed the capability to recognize that XYZ Corporation's instruction to suppress his written report — functioning as a de facto confidentiality instruction — was pre-empted by his professional obligation to protect public health, safety, and environmental welfare
casecontext: XYZ Corporation's instruction not to render a written report functioned as a confidentiality directive that Doe was required to recognize as pre-empted by public safety obligations
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstratedthrough: Doe's obligation to report environmental standards violations to the State Pollution Control Authority despite the client's instruction not to render a written report, recognizing that the severity of the public health risk pre-empted any confidentiality obligation
discoveredincase: 72
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T12:02:50.779986+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 72
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T12:02:50.779986+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer Doe
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: instructs Doe not to render a written report to the corporation
textreferences: Doe concludes that the discharge from the plant will lower the quality of the receiving body of water below established standards
textreferences: instructs Doe not to render a written report to the corporation
wasattributedto: Case 72 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T12:15:43.074306
was generated by: ProEthica Case 72 Extraction

Doe Contract Termination Non-Extinguishment of Duty Recognition
type: ContractTerminationNon-ExtinguishmentofDutyRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Contract Termination Non-Extinguishment of Duty Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer Doe possessed the capability to recognize that XYZ Corporation's termination of his contract with full payment did not extinguish his professional obligations to report environmental standards violations to the State Pollution Control Authority
casecontext: XYZ Corporation terminated Doe's contract with full payment and instructed him not to produce a written report, requiring Doe to recognize that these client actions did not extinguish his post-termination professional duties
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.87
demonstratedthrough: Doe's continued obligation to report his findings to the regulatory authority after contract termination, recognizing that public welfare duties are owed to the public rather than to the client and cannot be extinguished by client action
discoveredincase: 72
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T12:02:50.779986+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 72
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T12:02:50.779986+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer Doe
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: the corporation terminates the contract with Doe with full payment for services performed, and instructs Doe not to render a written report to the corporation
textreferences: Engineer Doe, having been discharged from the XYZ Corporation project following his disclosure of adverse environmental findings, was obligated to continue reporting
textreferences: the corporation terminates the contract with Doe with full payment for services performed, and instructs Doe not to render a written report to the corporation
wasattributedto: Case 72 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T12:15:43.074003
was generated by: ProEthica Case 72 Extraction

Doe Contract Termination Non-Extinguishment of Duty Recognition XYZ Discharge
type: ContractTerminationNon-ExtinguishmentofDutyRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Contract Termination Non-Extinguishment of Duty Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer Doe was required to recognize that the termination of his contract with XYZ Corporation — including full payment for services rendered — did not extinguish his professional obligations to public health, safety, and welfare that arose during the engagement.
casecontext: XYZ Corporation terminated Doe's contract with full payment after receiving adverse verbal findings, but Doe's professional obligations to report to regulatory authorities persisted.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.94
demonstratedthrough: The Board's ruling that post-termination professional duties persisted independently of the contractual relationship, particularly given the public welfare implications of Doe's completed findings.
discoveredincase: 72
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T12:09:23.984049+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 72
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T12:09:23.984049+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer Doe Environmental Engineering Consultant
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: The termination of Doe's contract with full payment for services rendered is a business decision which we will presume is permitted by the terms of the engineering services contract between Doe and his client.
textreferences: The termination of Doe's contract with full payment for services rendered is a business decision which we will presume is permitted by the terms of the engineering services contract between Doe and his client.
textreferences: Upon learning of the hearing, he is squarely confronted with his obligations to the public concerning its safety, health, and welfare.
wasattributedto: Case 72 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T12:15:43.079972
was generated by: ProEthica Case 72 Extraction

Doe Contradictory Hearing Data Correction Testimony XYZ Public Hearing
type: ContradictoryHearingDataCorrectionTestimonyObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Doe's completed studies concluded that the discharge would lower water quality below established standards. XYZ Corporation presented contradictory data at a public hearing before the State Pollution Control Authority. Doe learned of this contradictory presentation after the fact.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 72
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T12:00:28.165820+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 72
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T12:00:28.165820+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer Doe
obligationclass: Contradictory Hearing Data Correction Testimony Obligation
obligationstatement: Upon learning that XYZ Corporation presented data at the public hearing asserting that the present discharge meets minimum standards — directly contradicting Doe's completed findings — Doe was obligated to come forward and present his accurate findings to the State Pollution Control Authority to correct the misleading record.
sourcetext: Doe learns that the authority has called a public hearing and that the XYZ Corporation has presented data to support its view that the present discharge meets minimum standards
temporalscope: Upon learning that XYZ Corporation presented contradictory data at the public hearing; obligation persists until the regulatory authority has received accurate information
textreferences: Doe concludes that the discharge from the plant will lower the quality of the receiving body of water below established standards
textreferences: Doe learns that the authority has called a public hearing and that the XYZ Corporation has presented data to support its view that the present discharge meets minimum standards
wasattributedto: Case 72 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T12:15:43.070586
was generated by: ProEthica Case 72 Extraction

Doe Contradictory Public Hearing Data Correction
type: ContradictoryPublicHearingDataCorrectionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Contradictory Public Hearing Data Correction Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer Doe possessed the capability to recognize that XYZ Corporation's presentation of contradictory data at the public hearing triggered an affirmative obligation to bring his completed findings to the regulatory authority and correct the public record
casecontext: Doe learned that XYZ Corporation presented contradictory data at a public hearing before the State Pollution Control Authority, creating an obligation to correct the public record with his completed technical findings
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstratedthrough: Upon learning that XYZ Corporation presented data asserting the discharge meets minimum standards — directly contradicting his own completed findings — Doe was obligated to appear at or submit findings to the public hearing
discoveredincase: 72
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T12:02:50.779986+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 72
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T12:02:50.779986+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer Doe
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Doe learns that the authority has called a public hearing and that the XYZ Corporation has presented data to support its view that the present discharge meets minimum standards
textreferences: Doe concludes that the discharge from the plant will lower the quality of the receiving body of water below established standards
textreferences: Doe learns that the authority has called a public hearing and that the XYZ Corporation has presented data to support its view that the present discharge meets minimum standards
wasattributedto: Case 72 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T12:15:43.073862
was generated by: ProEthica Case 72 Extraction

Doe Contradictory Public Hearing Data Correction XYZ Public Hearing
type: ContradictoryPublicHearingDataCorrectionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Contradictory Public Hearing Data Correction Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer Doe possessed the capability to recognize that XYZ Corporation's presentation of data at the public hearing directly contradicted his completed findings, and to take affirmative corrective action — including appearing at or submitting findings to the hearing — to ensure the regulatory record contained accurate technical information.
casecontext: After contract termination, Doe learned that XYZ Corporation presented data at the public hearing asserting the discharge met minimum standards — directly contradicting his own completed findings.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.93
demonstratedthrough: The Board's determination that Doe was obligated to bring his findings to the State Pollution Control Authority upon learning that XYZ presented contradictory data at the public hearing.
discoveredincase: 72
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T12:09:23.984049+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 72
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T12:09:23.984049+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer Doe Environmental Engineering Consultant
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Upon learning of the hearing, he is squarely confronted with his obligations to the public concerning its safety, health, and welfare.
textreferences: Professional Inaction Avoidance Upon Contradictory Public Hearing Data Obligation
textreferences: Upon learning of the hearing, he is squarely confronted with his obligations to the public concerning its safety, health, and welfare.
wasattributedto: Case 72 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T12:15:43.080108
was generated by: ProEthica Case 72 Extraction

Doe Discharged Engineer Continued Public Safety Reporting XYZ Discharge
type: DischargedEngineerContinuedPublicSafetyReportingObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Doe was discharged after providing adverse verbal findings. The State Pollution Control Authority subsequently held a public hearing at which XYZ Corporation presented data contradicting Doe's findings. Doe's discharge did not extinguish his duty to report to the regulatory authority.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 72
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T12:00:28.165820+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 72
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T12:00:28.165820+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer Doe
obligationclass: Discharged Engineer Continued Public Safety Reporting Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer Doe, having been discharged from the XYZ Corporation project following his disclosure of adverse environmental findings, was obligated to continue to fulfill his reporting obligations to the State Pollution Control Authority notwithstanding the termination of the client relationship.
sourcetext: the corporation terminates the contract with Doe with full payment for services performed
temporalscope: From contract termination through the public hearing and beyond, until the regulatory authority has received accurate information
textreferences: Doe concludes that the discharge from the plant will lower the quality of the receiving body of water below established standards
textreferences: Doe learns that the authority has called a public hearing and that the XYZ Corporation has presented data to support its view that the present discharge meets minimum standards
textreferences: the corporation terminates the contract with Doe with full payment for services performed
wasattributedto: Case 72 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T12:15:43.071003
was generated by: ProEthica Case 72 Extraction

Doe Discharged Engineer Post-Termination Reporting Persistence XYZ Discharge
type: DischargedEngineerPost-TerminationReportingPersistenceCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Discharged Engineer Post-Termination Reporting Persistence Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer Doe possessed the capability to recognize that his discharge from the XYZ Corporation project and the client's instruction not to write a report did not extinguish his obligation to report identified environmental standards violations to the State Pollution Control Authority
casecontext: After being discharged with full payment and instructed not to produce a written report, Doe was required to persist in reporting his adverse environmental findings to the regulatory authority
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.95
demonstratedthrough: Doe's obligation to report his completed findings to the State Pollution Control Authority despite contract termination, full payment, and explicit client instruction to the contrary
discoveredincase: 72
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T12:02:50.779986+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 72
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T12:02:50.779986+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer Doe
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: the corporation terminates the contract with Doe with full payment for services performed, and instructs Doe not to render a written report to the corporation
textreferences: Engineer Doe, having been discharged from the XYZ Corporation project following his disclosure of adverse environmental findings, was obligated to report
textreferences: the corporation terminates the contract with Doe with full payment for services performed, and instructs Doe not to render a written report to the corporation
wasattributedto: Case 72 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T12:15:43.078962
was generated by: ProEthica Case 72 Extraction

Doe Environmental Standards Violation Technical Assessment XYZ Discharge
type: EnvironmentalStandardsViolationTechnicalAssessmentCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Environmental Standards Violation Technical Assessment Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer Doe possessed expert-level technical capability to conduct engineering studies evaluating whether XYZ Corporation's manufacturing waste discharge would meet or violate established environmental quality standards
casecontext: Retained by XYZ Corporation to perform consulting engineering services and submit a detailed report on whether manufacturing waste discharge would meet established environmental standards
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.92
demonstratedthrough: Doe completed engineering studies concluding that the discharge would lower receiving water quality below established standards and that corrective action would be very costly
discoveredincase: 72
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T12:02:50.779986+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 72
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T12:02:50.779986+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer Doe
proficiencylevel: expert
sourcetext: XYZ Corporation employs Engineer Doe to perform consulting engineering services and submit a detailed report
textreferences: Doe concludes that the discharge from the plant will lower the quality of the receiving body of water below established standards
textreferences: He further concludes that corrective action will be very costly
textreferences: XYZ Corporation employs Engineer Doe to perform consulting engineering services and submit a detailed report
wasattributedto: Case 72 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T12:15:43.079557
was generated by: ProEthica Case 72 Extraction

Doe Fact-Grounded Technical Opinion XYZ Discharge Regulatory Hearing
type: Fact-GroundedTechnicalOpinionObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Doe's studies were complete and his conclusions were definitive — the discharge would lower water quality below established standards. XYZ Corporation presented contradictory data at the public hearing. Doe's obligation to ground public technical opinion in established facts required him to correct the record.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 72
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T12:00:28.165820+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 72
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T12:00:28.165820+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer Doe
obligationclass: Fact-Grounded Technical Opinion Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer Doe was obligated to ensure that any public technical opinion regarding XYZ Corporation's discharge was grounded in his completed studies and definitive findings, and to present those findings to the regulatory authority so that the public hearing record reflected accurate and complete technical information.
sourcetext: After completion of his studies but before completion of any written report, Doe concludes that the discharge from the plant will lower the quality of the receiving body of water below established standards
temporalscope: Upon learning of the contradictory data presentation at the public hearing
textreferences: After completion of his studies but before completion of any written report, Doe concludes that the discharge from the plant will lower the quality of the receiving body of water below established standards
textreferences: XYZ Corporation has presented data to support its view that the present discharge meets minimum standards
wasattributedto: Case 72 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T12:15:43.071180
was generated by: ProEthica Case 72 Extraction

Doe Facts-Versus-Adversarial-Interests Distinction XYZ Hearing
type: Facts-Versus-Adversarial-InterestsDistinctionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Facts-Versus-Adversarial-Interests Distinction Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer Doe possessed the capability to recognize that his completed technical findings were objective facts — not adversarial positions — and that XYZ Corporation's contrary public hearing data did not transform his findings into a partisan position, enabling him to present his findings to the regulatory authority as objective technical information
casecontext: XYZ Corporation's presentation of contrary data at the public hearing created an apparent adversarial dynamic that Doe was required to navigate by presenting his findings as objective technical facts rather than as advocacy
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.85
demonstratedthrough: Doe's obligation to bring his completed technical findings to the public hearing as objective fact-grounded testimony, distinguishing his professional findings from the adversarial posture of XYZ Corporation's contrary data presentation
discoveredincase: 72
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T12:02:50.779986+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 72
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T12:02:50.779986+00:00
importance: medium
possessedby: Engineer Doe
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: XYZ Corporation has presented data to support its view that the present discharge meets minimum standards
textreferences: Doe was obligated to ensure that any public technical opinion regarding XYZ Corporation's discharge was grounded in his completed studies
textreferences: XYZ Corporation has presented data to support its view that the present discharge meets minimum standards
wasattributedto: Case 72 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T12:15:43.074884
was generated by: ProEthica Case 72 Extraction

Doe Faithful Agent Obligation Fulfilled XYZ Corporation Verbal Disclosure
type: FaithfulAgentObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Doe was retained by XYZ Corporation to perform consulting engineering services and submit a detailed report. He completed his studies and verbally advised the corporation of his adverse findings before any written report was produced.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 72
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T12:00:28.165820+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 72
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T12:00:28.165820+00:00
importance: medium
obligatedparty: Engineer Doe
obligationclass: Faithful Agent Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer Doe fulfilled his faithful agent obligation to XYZ Corporation by completing his studies and honestly advising the corporation verbally of his adverse findings before the written report was completed, acting as a trustee of the client's interests within ethical limits.
sourcetext: XYZ is also advised of the minimum standard that must be met
temporalscope: From engagement through verbal disclosure of adverse findings to XYZ Corporation
textreferences: After completion of his studies but before completion of any written report, Doe concludes that the discharge from the plant will lower the quality of the receiving body of water below established standards
textreferences: Doe verbally advises the XYZ Corporation of his findings
textreferences: XYZ is also advised of the minimum standard that must be met
wasattributedto: Case 72 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T12:15:43.070722
was generated by: ProEthica Case 72 Extraction

Doe Faithful Agent Obligation Scope Boundary Recognition XYZ Verbal Advice
type: FaithfulAgentObligationScopeBoundaryRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Faithful Agent Obligation Scope Boundary Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer Doe demonstrated the capability to recognize that his faithful agent obligation to XYZ Corporation was fulfilled by honestly advising the client verbally of adverse findings, and that the faithful agent role did not require him to suppress those findings or refrain from subsequent regulatory reporting.
casecontext: Doe completed his studies, verbally advised XYZ Corporation that established standards would be violated, and then faced the question of whether further action was consistent with his faithful agent role.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.86
demonstratedthrough: The Board's analysis that Doe's verbal advice met the letter and spirit of §§1 and 1(c), establishing that the faithful agent obligation was satisfied before the public safety obligations arose.
discoveredincase: 72
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T12:09:23.984049+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 72
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T12:09:23.984049+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer Doe Environmental Engineering Consultant
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: In this spirit Engineer Doe has advised the XYZ Corporation that the results of his studies indicate that the established standards will in his opinion be violated.
textreferences: His verbal advice to the corporation would seem to meet the letter and spirit of §§1 and 1(c).
textreferences: In this spirit Engineer Doe has advised the XYZ Corporation that the results of his studies indicate that the established standards will in his opinion be violated.
wasattributedto: Case 72 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T12:15:43.079262
was generated by: ProEthica Case 72 Extraction

Doe Learns Of False Presentation
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Event
generated at time: 2026-02-26T12:15:43.080559
was generated by: ProEthica Case 72 Extraction

Doe Non-Acquiescence to Client Safety Override XYZ Report Suppression
type: Non-AcquiescencetoClientSafetyOverrideObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: XYZ Corporation's instruction not to render a written report was motivated by the economic cost of corrective action and the desire to obtain a discharge permit without disclosing the standards violation. Doe's acquiescence to this instruction constituted subordination of public safety to client economic interests.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.89
discoveredincase: 72
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T12:00:28.165820+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 72
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T12:00:28.165820+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer Doe
obligationclass: Non-Acquiescence to Client Safety Override Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer Doe was obligated not to acquiesce to XYZ Corporation's instruction to suppress the written report of his adverse findings, recognizing that the client's economic interest in avoiding costly corrective action did not override the engineer's paramount obligation to protect public health and environmental welfare.
sourcetext: the corporation terminates the contract with Doe with full payment for services performed, and instructs Doe not to render a written report to the corporation
temporalscope: Upon receipt of XYZ Corporation's instruction not to render a written report
textreferences: He further concludes that corrective action will be very costly
textreferences: the corporation terminates the contract with Doe with full payment for services performed, and instructs Doe not to render a written report to the corporation
wasattributedto: Case 72 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T12:15:43.071603
was generated by: ProEthica Case 72 Extraction

Doe Post-Client-Override Regulatory Escalation Assessment XYZ Discharge
type: Post-Client-OverrideRegulatoryEscalationAssessmentCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Post-Client-Override Regulatory Escalation Assessment Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer Doe possessed the capability to assess whether XYZ Corporation's rejection of his adverse findings and instruction to suppress his report — constituting a client override of his professional recommendations — required escalation to the State Pollution Control Authority, and to determine that the gravity of the environmental standards violation met the threshold for mandatory regulatory escalation
casecontext: XYZ Corporation's termination and suppression instruction constituted a client override of Doe's professional findings, triggering the need to assess whether regulatory escalation was required
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.91
demonstratedthrough: After XYZ Corporation terminated his contract and instructed him not to produce a written report, Doe was required to assess whether the environmental risk warranted escalation to the State Pollution Control Authority independent of the client relationship
discoveredincase: 72
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T12:02:50.779986+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 72
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T12:02:50.779986+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer Doe
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: the corporation terminates the contract with Doe with full payment for services performed, and instructs Doe not to render a written report to the corporation
textreferences: Engineer Doe was obligated to escalate his findings regarding the discharge's violation of established environmental standards to the State Pollution Control Authority
textreferences: the corporation terminates the contract with Doe with full payment for services performed, and instructs Doe not to render a written report to the corporation
wasattributedto: Case 72 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T12:15:43.075176
was generated by: ProEthica Case 72 Extraction

Doe Post-Discharge Continuing Safety Obligation
type: Post-DischargeContinuingSafetyObligationState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From termination of Doe's contract through resolution of the public safety risk via notification of proper authorities
affectedparties: Engineer Doe
affectedparties: General public
affectedparties: Regulatory authority
affectedparties: XYZ Corporation
concept category: State
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 72
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T11:56:02.471819+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 72
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T11:56:02.471819+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: The termination of Doe's contract with full payment for services rendered is a business decision
stateclass: Post-Discharge Continuing Safety Obligation State
subject: Engineer Doe's ongoing public safety obligation after contract termination by XYZ Corporation
terminatedby: Doe's notification of proper authorities regarding the standards violation findings
textreferences: Section 2(a) requires that his duty to the public be paramount
textreferences: The termination of Doe's contract with full payment for services rendered is a business decision
textreferences: Upon learning of the hearing, he is squarely confronted with his obligations to the public concerning its safety, health, and welfare
triggeringevent: Termination of Doe's engineering services contract with full payment, leaving public safety risk unresolved
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 72 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T12:15:43.068083
was generated by: ProEthica Case 72 Extraction

Doe Post-Termination Environmental Risk Reporting XYZ Discharge Findings
type: Post-TerminationEnvironmentalRiskReportingObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Doe completed his studies and reached a definitive conclusion that the discharge would violate established environmental standards. XYZ Corporation terminated his contract and suppressed the written report. The State Pollution Control Authority subsequently held a public hearing at which XYZ presented contradictory data.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 72
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T12:00:28.165820+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 72
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T12:00:28.165820+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer Doe
obligationclass: Post-Termination Environmental Risk Reporting Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer Doe was obligated, after contract termination, to report his completed findings that XYZ Corporation's discharge would lower water quality below established standards to the State Pollution Control Authority, notwithstanding the termination of the client relationship and the instruction not to render a written report.
sourcetext: the corporation terminates the contract with Doe with full payment for services performed, and instructs Doe not to render a written report
temporalscope: From the moment of contract termination and instruction not to report, and with heightened urgency upon learning of the public hearing and contradictory data presentation
textreferences: Doe concludes that the discharge from the plant will lower the quality of the receiving body of water below established standards
textreferences: Doe learns that the authority has called a public hearing and that the XYZ Corporation has presented data to support its view that the present discharge meets minimum standards
textreferences: the corporation terminates the contract with Doe with full payment for services performed, and instructs Doe not to render a written report
wasattributedto: Case 72 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T12:15:43.070428
was generated by: ProEthica Case 72 Extraction

Doe Precedent-Based Public Safety Reporting Obligation Recognition XYZ Case 67-10
type: Precedent-BasedPublicSafetyReportingObligationRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Precedent-Based Public Safety Reporting Obligation Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: The NSPE Board of Ethical Review applied precedent from BER Case No. 67-10 to reinforce the principle that engineers must devote their interests to public welfare, using that precedent to support the conclusion that Doe's reporting obligation persisted despite contract termination.
casecontext: The Board used prior BER precedent to support its interpretation of the paramount public welfare duty in the context of Doe's post-termination reporting obligations.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: The Board's citation of Case No. 67-10 for the proposition that 'it is basic to the entire concept of a profession that its members will devote their interests to the public welfare.'
discoveredincase: 72
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T12:09:23.984049+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 72
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T12:09:23.984049+00:00
importance: medium
possessedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
proficiencylevel: expert
sourcetext: As we noted in Case No. 67-10, even though involving unrelated facts and circumstances, 'It is basic to the entire concept of a profession that its members will devote their interests to the public welfare, as is made abundantly clear in §2 and §2(a) of the code.'
textreferences: As we noted in Case No. 67-10, even though involving unrelated facts and circumstances, 'It is basic to the entire concept of a profession that its members will devote their interests to the public welfare, as is made abundantly clear in §2 and §2(a) of the code.'
wasattributedto: Case 72 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T12:15:43.079398
was generated by: ProEthica Case 72 Extraction

Doe Precedent-Informed Environmental Reporting Obligation Recognition XYZ Discharge
type: Precedent-InformedEnvironmentalReportingObligationRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Precedent-Informed Environmental Reporting Obligation Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer Doe possessed the capability to recognize — drawing on established BER precedent — that his professional reporting obligations to the State Pollution Control Authority persisted after contract termination and despite client instructions to the contrary, and that XYZ Corporation's contradictory public hearing testimony created an independent obligation to report
casecontext: The combination of contract termination, client suppression instruction, and subsequent contradictory public testimony by XYZ Corporation triggered Doe's precedent-grounded reporting obligation
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.92
demonstratedthrough: Doe's obligation to report his completed findings to the State Pollution Control Authority after learning that XYZ Corporation presented contradictory data at the public hearing, consistent with BER Case 76-4 precedent
discoveredincase: 72
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T12:02:50.779986+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 72
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T12:02:50.779986+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer Doe
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Doe learns that the authority has called a public hearing and that the XYZ Corporation has presented data to support its view that the present discharge meets minimum standards
textreferences: Doe learns that the authority has called a public hearing and that the XYZ Corporation has presented data to support its view that the present discharge meets minimum standards
textreferences: Engineer Doe was obligated, after contract termination, to report his completed findings that XYZ Corporation's discharge would lower water quality below established standards
wasattributedto: Case 72 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T12:15:43.074747
was generated by: ProEthica Case 72 Extraction

Doe Public Interest Environmental Testimony XYZ Discharge Public Hearing
type: PublicInterestEnvironmentalTestimonyObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Doe possessed completed technical findings that the discharge would violate established environmental standards. XYZ Corporation presented contradictory data at a public regulatory hearing. Doe's specialized technical knowledge created an obligation to testify or otherwise present his findings to the regulatory authority.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 72
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T12:00:28.165820+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 72
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T12:00:28.165820+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer Doe
obligationclass: Public Interest Environmental Testimony Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer Doe was obligated, upon learning that XYZ Corporation presented contradictory data at the public hearing, to bring his completed technical findings forward at or after the public hearing to protect the public's interest in environmental protection and accurate regulatory decision-making.
sourcetext: Doe learns that the authority has called a public hearing and that the XYZ Corporation has presented data to support its view that the present discharge meets minimum standards
temporalscope: Upon learning of the public hearing and XYZ Corporation's contradictory data presentation
textreferences: Doe concludes that the discharge from the plant will lower the quality of the receiving body of water below established standards
textreferences: Doe learns that the authority has called a public hearing and that the XYZ Corporation has presented data to support its view that the present discharge meets minimum standards
textreferences: He further concludes that corrective action will be very costly
wasattributedto: Case 72 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T12:15:43.071327
was generated by: ProEthica Case 72 Extraction

Doe Public Safety Escalation State Pollution Control Authority XYZ Discharge
type: PublicSafetyEscalationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Public Safety Escalation Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer Doe was required to escalate his completed findings about XYZ Corporation's discharge to the State Pollution Control Authority, recognizing that the identified environmental standards violation exceeded the client relationship and required regulatory notification.
casecontext: Having completed studies showing XYZ's discharge would violate established minimum standards, and having been discharged and instructed to silence, Doe needed to escalate to the regulatory authority.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.94
demonstratedthrough: The Board's determination that Doe was obligated to bring his findings to the State Pollution Control Authority and to appear at or submit findings to the public hearing.
discoveredincase: 72
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T12:09:23.984049+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 72
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T12:09:23.984049+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer Doe Environmental Engineering Consultant
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Section 2 — 'He will notify the proper authority of any observed conditions which endanger public safety and health.'
textreferences: Doe Public Welfare Safety Escalation XYZ Discharge Regulatory Authority
textreferences: Section 2 — 'He will notify the proper authority of any observed conditions which endanger public safety and health.'
wasattributedto: Case 72 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T12:15:43.079099
was generated by: ProEthica Case 72 Extraction

Doe Public Safety Escalation XYZ Discharge State Authority
type: PublicSafetyEscalationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Public Safety Escalation Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer Doe possessed the capability to recognize that his findings regarding XYZ Corporation's discharge exceeding established environmental standards required escalation to the State Pollution Control Authority, beyond the terminated client relationship
casecontext: Having identified that XYZ Corporation's discharge would violate established environmental standards, Doe was required to escalate to the State Pollution Control Authority that had issued the permit notice
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.93
demonstratedthrough: Doe's obligation to escalate his completed findings to the State Pollution Control Authority, the regulatory body with jurisdiction over the discharge permit, despite the termination of his client contract
discoveredincase: 72
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T12:02:50.779986+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 72
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T12:02:50.779986+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer Doe
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Doe concludes that the discharge from the plant will lower the quality of the receiving body of water below established standards
textreferences: Doe concludes that the discharge from the plant will lower the quality of the receiving body of water below established standards
textreferences: Engineer Doe was obligated to escalate his findings regarding the discharge's violation of established environmental standards to the State Pollution Control Authority
wasattributedto: Case 72 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T12:15:43.074469
was generated by: ProEthica Case 72 Extraction

Doe Public Safety at Risk — Standards Violation
type: PublicSafetyatRisk
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Doe's determination that established standards will be violated through regulatory authority action
affectedparties: Engineer Doe
affectedparties: General public
affectedparties: Regulatory authority
affectedparties: XYZ Corporation
concept category: State
confidence: 0.97
discoveredincase: 72
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T11:56:02.471819+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 72
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T11:56:02.471819+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: It is presumed that a failure to meet the minimum standards established by law is detrimental to the public health and safety
stateclass: Public Safety at Risk
subject: Public health and safety risk arising from XYZ Corporation's apparent failure to meet minimum legally established standards
terminatedby: Regulatory authority taking corrective action following notification
textreferences: Engineer Doe has advised the XYZ Corporation that the results of his studies indicate that the established standards will in his opinion be violated
textreferences: He will notify the proper authority of any observed conditions which endanger public safety and health
textreferences: It is presumed that a failure to meet the minimum standards established by law is detrimental to the public health and safety
triggeringevent: Doe's study results indicating established standards will in his opinion be violated by XYZ Corporation
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 72 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T12:15:43.068277
was generated by: ProEthica Case 72 Extraction

Doe Public Welfare Paramountcy Recognition XYZ Client Conflict
type: PublicWelfareParamountcyRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Public Welfare Paramountcy Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer Doe possessed the capability to recognize that his professional obligation to public health, safety, and environmental welfare was paramount over his faithful agent obligations to XYZ Corporation when the client's interests directly conflicted with public welfare
casecontext: The conflict between XYZ Corporation's commercial interest in suppressing adverse findings and the public's interest in accurate environmental standards compliance information required Doe to prioritize public welfare
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.93
demonstratedthrough: Doe's recognition that XYZ Corporation's instruction to suppress adverse findings and the termination of his contract could not override his paramount duty to report environmental standards violations to the regulatory authority
discoveredincase: 72
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T12:02:50.779986+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 72
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T12:02:50.779986+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer Doe
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: the corporation terminates the contract with Doe with full payment for services performed, and instructs Doe not to render a written report
textreferences: Doe concludes that the discharge from the plant will lower the quality of the receiving body of water below established standards
textreferences: the corporation terminates the contract with Doe with full payment for services performed, and instructs Doe not to render a written report
wasattributedto: Case 72 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T12:15:43.074609
was generated by: ProEthica Case 72 Extraction

Doe Public Welfare Paramountcy Recognition XYZ Discharge Hearing
type: PublicWelfareParamountcyRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Public Welfare Paramountcy Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer Doe was required to recognize that upon learning of the public hearing, his paramount duty to public safety, health, and welfare under §2(a) overrode his client loyalty obligations and required affirmative action.
casecontext: Upon learning that XYZ Corporation presented contradictory data at the public hearing, Doe faced a direct conflict between client loyalty and public welfare obligations.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.95
demonstratedthrough: The Board's analysis that §2(a) required Doe's duty to the public to be paramount, and that a failure to meet minimum standards was detrimental to public health and safety.
discoveredincase: 72
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T12:09:23.984049+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 72
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T12:09:23.984049+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer Doe Environmental Engineering Consultant
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Upon learning of the hearing, he is squarely confronted with his obligations to the public concerning its safety, health, and welfare.
textreferences: In this case, it is presumed that a failure to meet the minimum standards established by law is detrimental to the public health and safety.
textreferences: Section 2(a) requires that his duty to the public be paramount.
textreferences: Upon learning of the hearing, he is squarely confronted with his obligations to the public concerning its safety, health, and welfare.
wasattributedto: Case 72 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T12:15:43.078823
was generated by: ProEthica Case 72 Extraction

Doe Public Welfare Safety Escalation XYZ Discharge Regulatory Authority
type: PublicWelfareSafetyEscalationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: After Doe disclosed adverse findings to XYZ Corporation, the corporation terminated his contract and suppressed the report rather than taking corrective action. The State Pollution Control Authority — the appropriate regulatory body — was the proper escalation target.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 72
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T12:00:28.165820+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 72
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T12:00:28.165820+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer Doe
obligationclass: Public Welfare Safety Escalation Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer Doe was obligated to escalate his findings regarding the discharge's violation of established environmental standards to the State Pollution Control Authority when XYZ Corporation refused to act on his disclosed findings and suppressed the written report.
sourcetext: the corporation terminates the contract with Doe with full payment for services performed, and instructs Doe not to render a written report to the corporation
temporalscope: Upon XYZ Corporation's refusal to act and suppression of the written report; escalating urgency upon learning of the public hearing
textreferences: Doe learns that the authority has called a public hearing
textreferences: He further concludes that corrective action will be very costly
textreferences: the corporation terminates the contract with Doe with full payment for services performed, and instructs Doe not to render a written report to the corporation
wasattributedto: Case 72 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T12:15:43.070859
was generated by: ProEthica Case 72 Extraction

Doe Regulatory Authority Proactive Risk Disclosure Without Client Authorization XYZ Discharge
type: RegulatoryAuthorityProactiveRiskDisclosureWithoutClientAuthorizationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: XYZ Corporation terminated Doe's contract and explicitly instructed him not to render a written report, effectively withdrawing authorization for any disclosure. Doe's completed findings indicated a definitive violation of established environmental standards — a material public welfare risk requiring proactive regulatory disclosure.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 72
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T12:00:28.165820+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 72
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T12:00:28.165820+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer Doe
obligationclass: Regulatory Authority Proactive Risk Disclosure Without Client Authorization Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer Doe was obligated to proactively disclose his completed findings of environmental standards violation to the State Pollution Control Authority independent of XYZ Corporation's authorization, recognizing that the paramount duty to protect public health, safety, and welfare required disclosure to regulators even after the client terminated the contract and withheld authorization for a written report.
sourcetext: the corporation terminates the contract with Doe with full payment for services performed, and instructs Doe not to render a written report to the corporation
temporalscope: From the moment of contract termination and suppression instruction; with heightened urgency upon learning of the public hearing
textreferences: Doe concludes that the discharge from the plant will lower the quality of the receiving body of water below established standards
textreferences: the XYZ Corporation has presented data to support its view that the present discharge meets minimum standards
textreferences: the corporation terminates the contract with Doe with full payment for services performed, and instructs Doe not to render a written report to the corporation
wasattributedto: Case 72 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T12:15:43.071469
was generated by: ProEthica Case 72 Extraction

Doe Trustee Advisory Role Faithful Execution XYZ Corporation
type: TrusteeAdvisoryRoleFaithfulExecutionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Trustee Advisory Role Faithful Execution Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer Doe possessed the capability to execute his trustee advisory role faithfully for XYZ Corporation by completing his studies and honestly advising the corporation of adverse findings, subordinating any commercial interest in retaining the client to the obligation to provide complete and objective professional advice
casecontext: Doe was retained as a consulting engineer with a trustee advisory role; he fulfilled this role by honestly reporting adverse findings to XYZ Corporation before the contract was terminated
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: Doe completed his engineering studies and verbally advised XYZ Corporation that the discharge would violate established standards, fulfilling his faithful agent obligation even though the findings were adverse to the client's interests
discoveredincase: 72
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T12:02:50.779986+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 72
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T12:02:50.779986+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer Doe
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Doe verbally advises the XYZ Corporation of his findings
textreferences: Doe verbally advises the XYZ Corporation of his findings
textreferences: Engineer Doe fulfilled his faithful agent obligation to XYZ Corporation by completing his studies and honestly advising the corporation verbally of his findings
wasattributedto: Case 72 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T12:15:43.075037
was generated by: ProEthica Case 72 Extraction

Doe Verbal-Only Safety Advisory Without Written Record
type: Verbal-OnlySafetyAdvisoryWithoutWrittenRecordState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From XYZ Corporation's instruction not to render a written report through Doe's learning of the public hearing
affectedparties: Engineer Doe
affectedparties: General public
affectedparties: Regulatory authority
affectedparties: XYZ Corporation
concept category: State
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 72
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T11:56:02.471819+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 72
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T11:56:02.471819+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Doe has reason to question why the corporation specifically stipulates that he not render a written report
stateclass: Verbal-Only Safety Advisory Without Written Record State
subject: Engineer Doe's advisory relationship with XYZ Corporation regarding standards violation findings
terminatedby: Doe's decision to take further action to notify proper authorities upon learning of the hearing
textreferences: Doe has reason to question why the corporation specifically stipulates that he not render a written report
textreferences: His verbal advice to the corporation would seem to meet the letter and spirit of §§1 and 1(c)
textreferences: Upon learning of the hearing, he is squarely confronted with his obligations to the public concerning its safety, health, and welfare
triggeringevent: XYZ Corporation's explicit stipulation that Doe not render a written report upon terminating his contract
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 72 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T12:15:43.066842
was generated by: ProEthica Case 72 Extraction

Doe Verbal-to-Written Finding Conversion Obligation Recognition
type: Verbal-to-WrittenFindingConversionObligationRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Verbal-to-Written Finding Conversion Obligation Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer Doe possessed the capability to recognize that his completed verbal findings carried the same professional weight as written findings and that XYZ Corporation's instruction not to render a written report was professionally impermissible
casecontext: After completing his studies and verbally advising XYZ Corporation of adverse findings, Doe was instructed not to produce a written report — requiring him to recognize that this instruction was impermissible
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: Doe's obligation to resist XYZ Corporation's instruction not to render a written report, recognizing that the client's payment of fees and termination of contract did not extinguish his duty to document and report adverse environmental findings
discoveredincase: 72
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T12:02:50.779986+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 72
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T12:02:50.779986+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer Doe
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: the corporation terminates the contract with Doe with full payment for services performed, and instructs Doe not to render a written report to the corporation
textreferences: After completion of his studies but before completion of any written report, Doe concludes that the discharge from the plant will lower the quality of the receiving body of water below established standards
textreferences: the corporation terminates the contract with Doe with full payment for services performed, and instructs Doe not to render a written report to the corporation
wasattributedto: Case 72 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T12:15:43.073728
was generated by: ProEthica Case 72 Extraction

Doe Verbal-to-Written Finding Conversion Obligation Recognition XYZ Suppression
type: Verbal-to-WrittenFindingConversionObligationRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Verbal-to-Written Finding Conversion Obligation Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer Doe was required to recognize that his completed technical findings — communicated verbally to XYZ Corporation — carried the same professional weight as written findings, and that XYZ's instruction not to render a written report did not extinguish his obligation to document and report those findings.
casecontext: After verbally advising XYZ Corporation of adverse findings, Doe was instructed not to render a written report and had his contract terminated.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.93
demonstratedthrough: The Board's analysis that the client's instruction not to render a written report was professionally significant and did not discharge Doe's obligations, particularly given the public safety implications of the findings.
discoveredincase: 72
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T12:09:23.984049+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 72
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T12:09:23.984049+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer Doe Environmental Engineering Consultant
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Doe, however, has reason to question why the corporation specifically stipulates that he not render a written report.
textreferences: Doe, however, has reason to question why the corporation specifically stipulates that he not render a written report.
textreferences: The client's action instructing Doe to not render a written report when coupled with XYZ's testimony at the hearing raises the question of Doe's obligation under §2(c).
wasattributedto: Case 72 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T12:15:43.079837
was generated by: ProEthica Case 72 Extraction

Doe XYZ 60-Day Permit Deadline Non-Exculpation for Suppression
type: RegulatoryPermitDeadlineNon-ExculpationforSafetySuppressionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: XYZ Corporation was under a 60-day regulatory deadline to apply for a discharge permit when it employed Doe; the deadline created pressure that may have motivated the instruction to suppress Doe's adverse findings
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.84
constrainedentity: Engineer Doe
constraintclass: Regulatory Permit Deadline Non-Exculpation for Safety Suppression Constraint
constraintstatement: XYZ Corporation's 60-day regulatory deadline to apply for a discharge permit did not constitute a justification for Engineer Doe to suppress, withhold, or delay disclosure of his completed findings that the discharge would violate established environmental standards — the temporal pressure of the permit application window did not diminish Doe's obligation to disclose adverse findings promptly.
discoveredincase: 72
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T12:02:34.127865+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 72
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T12:02:34.127865+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics §2(a); State Pollution Control Authority Discharge Permit Regulation; Temporal Disclosure Urgency Constraint
sourcetext: XYZ Corporation has been advised by a State Pollution Control Authority that it has 60 days to apply for a permit to discharge manufacturing wastes into a receiving body of water
temporalscope: During the 60-day permit application window
textreferences: XYZ Corporation has been advised by a State Pollution Control Authority that it has 60 days to apply for a permit to discharge manufacturing wastes into a receiving body of water
textreferences: the corporation terminates the contract with Doe with full payment for services performed, and instructs Doe not to render a written report to the corporation
wasattributedto: Case 72 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T12:15:43.072972
was generated by: ProEthica Case 72 Extraction

Doe XYZ Client Loyalty Public Safety Priority
type: ClientLoyaltyvs.PublicSafetyPriorityConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer Doe faced competing duties as faithful agent to XYZ Corporation and as a professional with paramount duty to public safety when XYZ instructed suppression of adverse findings and presented contradictory data at the public hearing
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.93
constrainedentity: Engineer Doe
constraintclass: Client Loyalty vs. Public Safety Priority Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer Doe's obligation as faithful agent and trustee to XYZ Corporation was constrained by and subordinate to his paramount duty to public safety, health, and welfare — such that when XYZ Corporation's instruction to suppress findings and its misrepresentation at the public hearing conflicted with public safety, Doe was required to prioritize public safety over client loyalty.
discoveredincase: 72
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T12:02:34.127865+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 72
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T12:02:34.127865+00:00
importance: critical
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics §1 (Faithful Agent or Trustee); §2(a) (Paramount Duty to Public Welfare); Agent-Trustee Distinction Framework
sourcetext: Doe verbally advises the XYZ Corporation of his findings
temporalscope: Throughout the engagement and following contract termination
textreferences: Doe verbally advises the XYZ Corporation of his findings
textreferences: XYZ Corporation has presented data to support its view that the present discharge meets minimum standards
textreferences: the corporation terminates the contract with Doe with full payment for services performed, and instructs Doe not to render a written report to the corporation
wasattributedto: Case 72 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T12:15:43.072521
was generated by: ProEthica Case 72 Extraction

Doe XYZ Confidentiality Non-Bar to Safety Disclosure
type: ConfidentialityNon-BartoSafety-CriticalRegulatoryDisclosureConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: XYZ Corporation's instruction not to render a written report implicitly invoked confidentiality; the NSPE Board found that §7 confidentiality did not bar Doe's disclosure to the regulatory authority given the public safety stakes
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.88
constrainedentity: Engineer Doe
constraintclass: Confidentiality Non-Bar to Safety-Critical Regulatory Disclosure Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer Doe's obligation to maintain confidentiality of XYZ Corporation's business affairs and technical processes under NSPE Code §7 was constrained by and defeasible in the face of his paramount duty to public safety under §2(a), such that confidentiality did not bar disclosure of his completed findings of environmental standards violation to the State Pollution Control Authority.
discoveredincase: 72
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T12:02:34.127865+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 72
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T12:02:34.127865+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics §7 (Confidential Information); §2(a) (Paramount Duty to Public Welfare); BER Case 76-4
sourcetext: the corporation terminates the contract with Doe with full payment for services performed, and instructs Doe not to render a written report to the corporation
temporalscope: From contract termination through the public hearing
textreferences: Doe concludes that the discharge from the plant will lower the quality of the receiving body of water below established standards
textreferences: the corporation terminates the contract with Doe with full payment for services performed, and instructs Doe not to render a written report to the corporation
wasattributedto: Case 72 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T12:15:43.072366
was generated by: ProEthica Case 72 Extraction

Doe XYZ Environmental Standards Violation Regulatory Disclosure
type: EnvironmentalStandardsViolationRegulatoryDisclosureConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Doe's completed studies established that XYZ Corporation's discharge would lower water quality below the minimum standards established by the State Pollution Control Authority, and corrective action would be very costly
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.9
constrainedentity: Engineer Doe
constraintclass: Environmental Standards Violation Regulatory Disclosure Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer Doe was constrained to disclose his completed findings that XYZ Corporation's discharge would lower water quality below established environmental standards to the State Pollution Control Authority, even without client authorization and following contract termination, as the confirmed environmental standards violation posed a risk to public health and welfare that superseded confidentiality and contractual obligations.
discoveredincase: 72
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T12:02:34.127865+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 72
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T12:02:34.127865+00:00
importance: critical
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics §2(a); State Pollution Control Authority Discharge Permit Regulation; Engineer Public Safety Escalation Standard
sourcetext: Doe concludes that the discharge from the plant will lower the quality of the receiving body of water below established standards
temporalscope: From completion of studies through the public hearing and permit decision
textreferences: Doe concludes that the discharge from the plant will lower the quality of the receiving body of water below established standards
textreferences: He further concludes that corrective action will be very costly
textreferences: XYZ Corporation has been advised by a State Pollution Control Authority that it has 60 days to apply for a permit
wasattributedto: Case 72 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T12:15:43.072201
was generated by: ProEthica Case 72 Extraction

Doe XYZ Fact-Grounded Technical Opinion Public Hearing
type: Fact-GroundedOpinionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Doe had completed his studies and reached definitive conclusions before contract termination, providing the factual grounding required for any public technical opinion at the regulatory hearing
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.88
constrainedentity: Engineer Doe
constraintclass: Fact-Grounded Opinion Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer Doe was constrained to ground any public technical opinion regarding XYZ Corporation's discharge in his completed studies and established findings, prohibiting him from expressing unverified concerns or speculative assessments at the public hearing — but his completed studies provided the factual foundation required to support disclosure of his findings to the regulatory authority.
discoveredincase: 72
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T12:02:34.127865+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 72
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T12:02:34.127865+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics §2; Professional Report Integrity Standard; Fact-Grounded Opinion Constraint
sourcetext: After completion of his studies but before completion of any written report, Doe concludes that the discharge from the plant will lower the quality of the receiving body of water below established standards
temporalscope: At and following the public hearing
textreferences: After completion of his studies but before completion of any written report, Doe concludes that the discharge from the plant will lower the quality of the receiving body of water below established standards
textreferences: Doe learns that the authority has called a public hearing
wasattributedto: Case 72 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T12:15:43.072681
was generated by: ProEthica Case 72 Extraction

Doe XYZ Non-Acquiescence Client Economic Override Report Suppression
type: Non-AcquiescencetoClientEconomicOverrideConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Doe concluded that corrective action would be very costly; XYZ Corporation's instruction to suppress the written report was plausibly motivated by the economic burden of required corrective action
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.86
constrainedentity: Engineer Doe
constraintclass: Non-Acquiescence to Client Economic Override Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer Doe was constrained from acquiescing to XYZ Corporation's economically motivated instruction to suppress his written report — the corporation's conclusion that corrective action would be very costly and its consequent instruction to suppress adverse findings constituted an economic override that Doe was prohibited from accepting as a basis for abandoning his public safety obligations.
discoveredincase: 72
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T12:02:34.127865+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 72
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T12:02:34.127865+00:00
importance: critical
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics §2(a); Non-Acquiescence to Client Economic Override Constraint; BER Case 76-4
sourcetext: He further concludes that corrective action will be very costly
temporalscope: From the moment XYZ Corporation issued the suppression instruction
textreferences: He further concludes that corrective action will be very costly
textreferences: the corporation terminates the contract with Doe with full payment for services performed, and instructs Doe not to render a written report to the corporation
wasattributedto: Case 72 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T12:15:43.073420
was generated by: ProEthica Case 72 Extraction

Doe XYZ Post-Client-Override Regulatory Escalation
type: Post-Client-OverridePublicSafetyRegulatoryEscalationConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: XYZ Corporation terminated Doe's contract and instructed suppression of his written report after he disclosed adverse findings verbally; XYZ then presented contradictory data at a public regulatory hearing
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.92
constrainedentity: Engineer Doe
constraintclass: Post-Client-Override Public Safety Regulatory Escalation Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer Doe was constrained, after XYZ Corporation overrode his professional findings by instructing suppression of the written report and terminating his contract, to escalate his completed findings to the State Pollution Control Authority — the gravity of the environmental standards violation and the client's subsequent misrepresentation at the public hearing warranted escalation beyond passive acceptance of the client's override.
discoveredincase: 72
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T12:02:34.127865+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 72
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T12:02:34.127865+00:00
importance: critical
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics §2; §2(a); §2(c); Engineer Public Safety Escalation Standard; BER Case 76-4
sourcetext: the corporation terminates the contract with Doe with full payment for services performed, and instructs Doe not to render a written report to the corporation
temporalscope: From contract termination through the public hearing
textreferences: Doe learns that the authority has called a public hearing and that the XYZ Corporation has presented data to support its view that the present discharge meets minimum standards
textreferences: the corporation terminates the contract with Doe with full payment for services performed, and instructs Doe not to render a written report to the corporation
wasattributedto: Case 72 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T12:15:43.073112
was generated by: ProEthica Case 72 Extraction

Doe XYZ Public Hearing Contradictory Data Correction Obligation Constraint
type: Client-SuppressedFindingsPublicHearingCorrectionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: After contract termination, Doe learned that XYZ Corporation presented data at a public hearing asserting the discharge meets minimum standards, directly contradicting Doe's completed findings that it would lower water quality below established standards
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.91
constrainedentity: Engineer Doe
constraintclass: Client-Suppressed Findings Public Hearing Correction Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer Doe was constrained to appear at or submit findings to the State Pollution Control Authority's public hearing to correct XYZ Corporation's presentation of data asserting that the present discharge meets minimum standards — data directly contradicted by Doe's completed technical findings — and was prohibited from remaining silent when the client's misrepresentation could result in regulatory approval of a below-standard discharge.
discoveredincase: 72
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T12:02:34.127865+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 72
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T12:02:34.127865+00:00
importance: critical
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics §2(a); §2(c); BER Case 76-4; Engineer Public Safety Escalation Standard
sourcetext: Doe learns that the authority has called a public hearing and that the XYZ Corporation has presented data to support its view that the present discharge meets minimum standards
temporalscope: Upon learning of XYZ Corporation's contradictory data presentation at the public hearing
textreferences: Doe concludes that the discharge from the plant will lower the quality of the receiving body of water below established standards
textreferences: Doe learns that the authority has called a public hearing and that the XYZ Corporation has presented data to support its view that the present discharge meets minimum standards
wasattributedto: Case 72 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T12:15:43.071906
was generated by: ProEthica Case 72 Extraction

Doe XYZ Regulatory Authority Inaction Escalation Boundary
type: RegulatoryAuthorityInactionEscalationBoundaryConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The State Pollution Control Authority was the designated regulatory body with jurisdiction over the discharge permit; notification to this authority represented the appropriate escalation endpoint for Doe's professional ethical obligation
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.83
constrainedentity: Engineer Doe
constraintclass: Regulatory Authority Inaction Escalation Boundary Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer Doe's professional ethical obligation was satisfied upon clear and complete notification to the State Pollution Control Authority of his completed findings — once the regulatory authority had been fully informed, further escalation through political, media, or other channels was a personal rather than professional ethical obligation, establishing the boundary of Doe's formal reporting duty.
discoveredincase: 72
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T12:02:34.127865+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 72
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T12:02:34.127865+00:00
importance: medium
severity: medium
source: NSPE Code of Ethics §2(c); Regulatory Authority Inaction Escalation Boundary Constraint; BER Case 76-4
sourcetext: XYZ Corporation has been advised by a State Pollution Control Authority that it has 60 days to apply for a permit
temporalscope: Following disclosure of findings to the State Pollution Control Authority
textreferences: Doe learns that the authority has called a public hearing
textreferences: XYZ Corporation has been advised by a State Pollution Control Authority that it has 60 days to apply for a permit
wasattributedto: Case 72 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T12:15:43.073586
was generated by: ProEthica Case 72 Extraction

Doe XYZ Temporal Disclosure Urgency Post-Hearing Discovery
type: TemporalDisclosureUrgencyConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The public hearing created a time-sensitive window during which Doe's disclosure of contradictory findings could correct the regulatory record before a permit decision was made
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.87
constrainedentity: Engineer Doe
constraintclass: Temporal Disclosure Urgency Constraint
constraintstatement: Upon learning that XYZ Corporation had presented contradictory data at the public hearing, Engineer Doe was constrained to disclose his completed findings to the State Pollution Control Authority promptly — the active regulatory proceeding created a time-sensitive disclosure obligation that prohibited deferral of safety-relevant communications.
discoveredincase: 72
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T12:02:34.127865+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 72
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T12:02:34.127865+00:00
importance: critical
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics §2(a); §2(c); Temporal Disclosure Urgency Constraint
sourcetext: Doe learns that the authority has called a public hearing and that the XYZ Corporation has presented data to support its view that the present discharge meets minimum standards
temporalscope: Immediately upon learning of XYZ Corporation's contradictory data presentation at the public hearing
textreferences: Doe learns that the authority has called a public hearing and that the XYZ Corporation has presented data to support its view that the present discharge meets minimum standards
wasattributedto: Case 72 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T12:15:43.073254
was generated by: ProEthica Case 72 Extraction

Doe XYZ Terminated Contract Post-Disclosure Regulatory Reporting
type: TerminatedContractPost-DisclosureReportingConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: XYZ Corporation terminated Doe's contract after his verbal disclosure of adverse findings, instructed him not to produce a written report, and then presented contradictory data at a public regulatory hearing
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.95
constrainedentity: Engineer Doe
constraintclass: Terminated Contract Post-Disclosure Reporting Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer Doe was constrained, following contract termination by XYZ Corporation and the client's subsequent presentation of contradictory data at the public hearing, to report his completed findings to the State Pollution Control Authority, as contract termination and the instruction not to file a written report did not discharge his professional obligation to protect public health, safety, and welfare.
discoveredincase: 72
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T12:02:34.127865+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 72
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T12:02:34.127865+00:00
importance: critical
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics §2; §2(a); §2(c); BER Case 76-4
sourcetext: the corporation terminates the contract with Doe with full payment for services performed, and instructs Doe not to render a written report to the corporation
temporalscope: From contract termination through the public hearing and permit decision
textreferences: Doe learns that the authority has called a public hearing and that the XYZ Corporation has presented data to support its view that the present discharge meets minimum standards
textreferences: the corporation terminates the contract with Doe with full payment for services performed, and instructs Doe not to render a written report to the corporation
wasattributedto: Case 72 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T12:15:43.072052
was generated by: ProEthica Case 72 Extraction

Doe XYZ Verbal Advisory Written Report Non-Suppression
type: WrittenReportCompletenessConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Doe verbally advised XYZ Corporation of his findings but was instructed not to render a written report; the NSPE Board interpreted §2(c) broadly to cover all engineering instruments of service, not merely plans and specifications
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.87
constrainedentity: Engineer Doe
constraintclass: Written Report Completeness Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer Doe was constrained from treating his verbal advisory to XYZ Corporation as a complete discharge of his professional reporting obligation — the verbal communication of adverse findings did not substitute for the written documentation required to create a complete and accurate professional record, and the client's instruction not to produce a written report did not eliminate this constraint.
discoveredincase: 72
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T12:02:34.127865+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 72
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T12:02:34.127865+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics §2(c); Professional Report Integrity Standard; BER Case 76-4
sourcetext: Doe verbally advises the XYZ Corporation of his findings
temporalscope: From completion of studies through the public hearing
textreferences: After completion of his studies but before completion of any written report
textreferences: Doe verbally advises the XYZ Corporation of his findings
textreferences: instructs Doe not to render a written report to the corporation
wasattributedto: Case 72 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T12:15:43.072829
was generated by: ProEthica Case 72 Extraction

Doe XYZ Written Report Suppression Instruction Prohibition
type: ClientInstructionReportSuppressionProhibitionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: XYZ Corporation terminated Doe's contract with full payment and instructed him not to render a written report after he verbally disclosed that the discharge would violate environmental standards
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.92
constrainedentity: Engineer Doe
constraintclass: Client Instruction Report Suppression Prohibition Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer Doe was constrained from complying with XYZ Corporation's instruction not to render a written report of his completed findings that the discharge would lower water quality below established standards, as the instruction to suppress a completed safety-adverse report cannot override the engineer's professional obligation to document and disclose findings bearing on public health.
discoveredincase: 72
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T12:02:34.127865+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 72
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T12:02:34.127865+00:00
importance: critical
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics §2 (Public Safety, Health, and Welfare); §2(a) (Paramount Duty); §2(c) (Reporting Unprofessional Conduct); BER Case 76-4
sourcetext: the corporation terminates the contract with Doe with full payment for services performed, and instructs Doe not to render a written report to the corporation
temporalscope: From the moment XYZ Corporation issued the suppression instruction through the public hearing and permit process
textreferences: the corporation terminates the contract with Doe with full payment for services performed, and instructs Doe not to render a written report to the corporation
wasattributedto: Case 72 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T12:15:43.071746
was generated by: ProEthica Case 72 Extraction

Doe's Contract Termination by XYZ
type: EmploymentTerminated
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From XYZ's termination of contract onward
affectedparties: Engineer Doe
affectedparties: XYZ Corporation
concept category: State
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 72
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T11:54:51.837082+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 72
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T11:54:51.837082+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: the corporation terminates the contract with Doe with full payment for services performed
stateclass: Employment Terminated
subject: Engineer Doe's consulting engagement with XYZ Corporation
terminatedby: Not terminated — persists as post-contractual state
textreferences: the corporation terminates the contract with Doe with full payment for services performed
triggeringevent: XYZ Corporation terminates consulting contract with Doe following his verbal disclosure of unfavorable findings
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 72 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T12:15:43.065107
was generated by: ProEthica Case 72 Extraction

Doe's Post-Discharge Continuing Safety Obligation
type: Post-DischargeContinuingSafetyObligationState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From contract termination through resolution of the public hearing and regulatory determination
affectedparties: Engineer Doe
affectedparties: Public
affectedparties: State Pollution Control Authority
affectedparties: XYZ Corporation
concept category: State
confidence: 0.94
discoveredincase: 72
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T11:54:51.837082+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 72
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T11:54:51.837082+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: the corporation terminates the contract with Doe
stateclass: Post-Discharge Continuing Safety Obligation State
subject: Engineer Doe's professional obligations following contract termination
terminatedby: Doe discloses findings to the authority, or regulatory proceeding concludes with accurate information
textreferences: Doe learns that the authority has called a public hearing and that the XYZ Corporation has presented data to support its view that the present discharge meets minimum standards
textreferences: the corporation terminates the contract with Doe
triggeringevent: Doe is discharged after verbally reporting findings; public risk remains unresolved and XYZ presents contrary data at public hearing
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 72 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T12:15:43.065262
was generated by: ProEthica Case 72 Extraction

Doe's completion of studies before Doe's verbal advisement to XYZ
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T12:15:43.080871
was generated by: ProEthica Case 72 Extraction

Doe's completion of studies before Doe's written report (never completed)
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T12:15:43.080811
was generated by: ProEthica Case 72 Extraction

Doe's verbal advisement to XYZ meets XYZ termination of Doe's contract
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T12:15:43.080841
was generated by: ProEthica Case 72 Extraction

Engineer-Public-Safety-Escalation-Standard
type: EngineerPublicSafetyEscalationStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.92
createdby: Professional engineering ethics community / NSPE Board of Ethical Review
discoveredincase: 72
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: Professional Norms Governing Engineer Duty to Escalate Public Safety Concerns Beyond the Client
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T11:54:07.489159+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 72
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T11:54:07.489159+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Engineer Public Safety Escalation Standard
sourcetext: the corporation terminates the contract with Doe with full payment for services performed, and instructs Doe not to render a written report
textreferences: Doe learns that the authority has called a public hearing and that the XYZ Corporation has presented data to support its view that the present discharge meets minimum standards
textreferences: the corporation terminates the contract with Doe with full payment for services performed, and instructs Doe not to render a written report
usedby: Engineer Doe
usedincontext: Governs whether Doe, after being terminated and instructed not to submit a written report, retains an obligation to disclose his findings to the State Pollution Control Authority or the public, given that XYZ Corporation is presenting data contradicting his conclusions at a public hearing
version: Current at time of case
wasattributedto: Case 72 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T12:15:43.063615
was generated by: ProEthica Case 72 Extraction

Engineer Doe Environmental Engineering Consultant
type: EnvironmentalEngineeringConsultant
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'license': 'Professional Engineer (implied)', 'specialty': 'Environmental/water quality engineering', 'contract_status': 'Terminated with full payment'}
caseinvolvement: Retained by XYZ Corporation to perform consulting engineering studies and submit a detailed report on whether manufacturing waste discharge would meet environmental standards. Concluded discharge would lower water quality below established standards, verbally advised the client, was then terminated and instructed not to produce a written report.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 72
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T11:54:11.902611+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 72
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T11:54:11.902611+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'client', 'target': 'XYZ Corporation'}
relationships: {'type': 'regulatory_audience', 'target': 'State Pollution Control Authority'}
rolecategory: provider_client
roleclass: Environmental Engineering Consultant
sourcetext: the corporation employs Engineer Doe to perform consulting engineering services and submit a detailed report
textreferences: Doe concludes that the discharge from the plant will lower the quality of the receiving body of water below established standards
textreferences: Doe verbally advises the XYZ Corporation of his findings
textreferences: the corporation employs Engineer Doe to perform consulting engineering services and submit a detailed report
textreferences: the corporation terminates the contract with Doe with full payment for services performed
wasattributedto: Case 72 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T12:15:43.063050
was generated by: ProEthica Case 72 Extraction

Engineer Doe Faithful Agent Trustee Engineer
type: FaithfulAgentTrusteeEngineer
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'license': 'Professional Engineer', 'specialty': 'Engineering studies and compliance assessment', 'engagement_type': 'Consulting contract'}
caseinvolvement: Engineer Doe conducted studies for XYZ Corporation, advised the client verbally that established standards would be violated, and acted as faithful agent and trustee in the client relationship per §§1 and 1(c) of the code.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 72
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T11:55:36.074826+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 72
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T11:55:36.074826+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'owes_duty_to', 'target': 'The Public'}
relationships: {'type': 'serves_as_agent_for', 'target': 'XYZ Corporation Client'}
rolecategory: provider_client
roleclass: Faithful Agent Trustee Engineer
sourcetext: the engineer 'will act in professional matters for each client or employer as a faithful agent or trustee'
textreferences: Engineer Doe has advised the XYZ Corporation that the results of his studies indicate that the established standards will in his opinion be violated
textreferences: His verbal advice to the corporation would seem to meet the letter and spirit of §§1 and 1(c)
textreferences: the engineer 'will act in professional matters for each client or employer as a faithful agent or trustee'
wasattributedto: Case 72 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T12:15:43.066249
was generated by: ProEthica Case 72 Extraction

Engineer Doe Public Health Risk Reporting Engineer
type: PublicHealthRiskReportingEngineer
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'license': 'Professional Engineer (implied)', 'finding': 'Discharge will lower water quality below established environmental standards', 'suppression_instruction': 'Corporation instructed Doe not to render a written report'}
caseinvolvement: Having identified that the discharge will lower water quality below established standards — a public health and environmental risk — Doe bears obligations to escalate beyond the client relationship, including potential written notification to the regulatory authority, even after being discharged and instructed to suppress his written report.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 72
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T11:54:11.902611+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 72
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T11:54:11.902611+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'former_client', 'target': 'XYZ Corporation'}
relationships: {'type': 'regulatory_authority', 'target': 'State Pollution Control Authority'}
rolecategory: public_responsibility
roleclass: Public Health Risk Reporting Engineer
sourcetext: Doe concludes that the discharge from the plant will lower the quality of the receiving body of water below established standards
textreferences: Doe concludes that the discharge from the plant will lower the quality of the receiving body of water below established standards
textreferences: Doe further concludes that corrective action will be very costly
textreferences: instructs Doe not to render a written report to the corporation
wasattributedto: Case 72 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T12:15:43.063916
was generated by: ProEthica Case 72 Extraction

Engineer Doe Public Interest Environmental Witness Engineer
type: PublicInterestEnvironmentalWitnessEngineer
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'license': 'Professional Engineer (implied)', 'trigger': 'Discovery that client presented misleading data at public hearing', 'contract_status': 'Discharged'}
caseinvolvement: After contract termination, Doe learns that XYZ Corporation has presented data at a public hearing that contradicts his own findings. This creates an obligation for Doe to consider acting as a private citizen/professional to present accurate technical information to the public regulatory body.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 72
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T11:54:11.902611+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 72
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T11:54:11.902611+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'former_client', 'target': 'XYZ Corporation'}
relationships: {'type': 'regulatory_audience', 'target': 'State Pollution Control Authority'}
rolecategory: public_responsibility
roleclass: Public Interest Environmental Witness Engineer
sourcetext: Doe learns that the authority has called a public hearing
textreferences: Doe learns that the authority has called a public hearing
textreferences: the XYZ Corporation has presented data to support its view that the present discharge meets minimum standards
wasattributedto: Case 72 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T12:15:43.063188
was generated by: ProEthica Case 72 Extraction

Engineer Public Safety Escalation Standard (§2/§2(a)/§2(c) Application)
type: EngineerPublicSafetyEscalationStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.92
createdby: National Society of Professional Engineers (distilled from §§2, 2(a), 2(c))
discoveredincase: 72
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: Professional Norms for Engineer Escalation of Public Safety Concerns Beyond the Client
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T11:55:48.909724+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 72
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T11:55:48.909724+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Engineer Public Safety Escalation Standard
sourcetext: Upon learning of the hearing, he is squarely confronted with his obligations to the public concerning its safety, health, and welfare.
textreferences: That particular reference must be read in light of the overall thrust of §§2 and 2(a), both of which indicate clearly that the paramount duty of the engineer is to protect the public safety, health and welfare in a broad context.
textreferences: Upon learning of the hearing, he is squarely confronted with his obligations to the public concerning its safety, health, and welfare.
textreferences: We interpret the language in the context of the facts to mean that it would now be 'unprofessional conduct' for Doe to not take further action to protect the public interest.
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review in determining Doe's affirmative duty
usedincontext: Operative standard governing Doe's obligation to appear at the public hearing and disclose the standards violation after being terminated and instructed not to produce a written report; the Board interprets §2(c) broadly to require action whenever client conduct would endanger the public
version: N/A
wasattributedto: Case 72 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T12:15:43.067737
was generated by: ProEthica Case 72 Extraction

Engineering Instrument Expansive Interpretation Board XYZ Doe Written Report
type: EngineeringInstrumentScopeExpansiveInterpretationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The Board considered whether §2(c)'s reference to 'plans and specifications' applied to Doe's written environmental engineering report, which was not a traditional set of construction plans or specifications.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 72
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T12:07:06.185123+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 72
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T12:07:06.185123+00:00
importance: medium
obligatedparty: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
obligationclass: Engineering Instrument Scope Expansive Interpretation Obligation
obligationstatement: The NSPE Board of Ethical Review was obligated to interpret 'plans and specifications' in §2(c) expansively to include all engineering instruments of service — including Doe's written report — so that the protective intent of §2(c) was not frustrated by a narrow textual reading that would exclude written environmental engineering reports from the scope of the provision.
sourcetext: It is not material, in our view, that the subject matter does not involve plans and specifications as stipulated in §2(c).
temporalscope: At the time of ethics opinion issuance
textreferences: It is not material, in our view, that the subject matter does not involve plans and specifications as stipulated in §2(c).
textreferences: That particular reference must be read in light of the overall thrust of §§2 and 2(a), both of which indicate clearly that the paramount duty of the engineer is to protect the public safety, health and welfare in a broad context.
textreferences: We interpret 'plans and specifications' in this section to include all engineering instruments of service.
wasattributedto: Case 72 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T12:15:43.077635
was generated by: ProEthica Case 72 Extraction

Environmental Hazard — Below-Standard Discharge
type: EnvironmentalHazardPresent
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Doe's findings through implementation of corrective action or regulatory intervention
affectedparties: Downstream water users
affectedparties: Ecosystem of receiving water body
affectedparties: General public
concept category: State
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 72
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T11:54:51.837082+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 72
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T11:54:51.837082+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: the discharge from the plant will lower the quality of the receiving body of water below established standards
stateclass: Environmental Hazard Present
subject: Receiving body of water and downstream public health
terminatedby: Corrective action implemented by XYZ Corporation or regulatory enforcement preventing discharge
textreferences: the discharge from the plant will lower the quality of the receiving body of water below established standards
triggeringevent: Doe's engineering analysis confirms discharge will degrade water quality below established environmental standards
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 72 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T12:15:43.064733
was generated by: ProEthica Case 72 Extraction

Environmental Stewardship Invoked By Doe Regarding Receiving Water Quality
type: EnvironmentalStewardshipinEngineeringPractice
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Manufacturing waste discharge into receiving body of water
appliedto: State Pollution Control Authority permit application process
balancingwith: Client confidentiality
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Doe's assessment that the manufacturing waste discharge will lower the quality of the receiving body of water below established environmental standards invokes his domain-specific obligation as an environmental engineer to protect the receiving water body from degradation
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 72
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T11:58:47.868529+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 72
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T11:58:47.868529+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Environmental stewardship requires Doe not only to accurately assess the environmental impact of the discharge but to ensure that his findings reach the regulatory authority responsible for protecting the receiving water body, even when the client has suppressed the written report
invokedby: Engineer Doe Environmental Engineering Consultant
principleclass: Environmental Stewardship in Engineering Practice
sourcetext: Doe concludes that the discharge from the plant will lower the quality of the receiving body of water below established standards
tensionresolution: Environmental stewardship as a domain-specific principle reinforces the public welfare paramount obligation; the receiving body of water is an environmental resource that Doe's expertise uniquely positions him to protect through disclosure
textreferences: Doe concludes that the discharge from the plant will lower the quality of the receiving body of water below established standards
textreferences: XYZ is also advised of the minimum standard that must be met
wasattributedto: Case 72 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T12:15:43.069298
was generated by: ProEthica Case 72 Extraction

Ethics Code Expansive Interpretation Canon Applied to Plans and Specifications
type: EthicsCodeExpansiveInterpretationCanon
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: §2(c) of the NSPE Code of Ethics as applied to Engineer Doe's written report findings
balancingwith: Strict textual reading of ethics code provisions
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The Board interprets §2(c)'s reference to 'plans and specifications' expansively to include all engineering instruments of service — including written reports — so that the provision's public welfare protective purpose is not defeated by the fact that Doe's work product was a report rather than formal plans
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 72
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T12:05:13.603514+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 72
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T12:05:13.603514+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The specific enumeration of 'plans and specifications' in §2(c) must be read in light of the overall thrust of §§2 and 2(a); the provision applies to all engineering instruments of service, not only formal design documents
invokedby: Engineer Doe Public Health Risk Reporting Engineer
principleclass: Ethics Code Expansive Interpretation Canon
sourcetext: We interpret 'plans and specifications' in this section to include all engineering instruments of service.
tensionresolution: The purposive interpretation prevails over the literal text; the protective purpose of the provision encompasses all engineering instruments of service
textreferences: It is not material, in our view, that the subject matter does not involve plans and specifications as stipulated in §2(c).
textreferences: That particular reference must be read in light of the overall thrust of §§2 and 2(a), both of which indicate clearly that the paramount duty of the engineer is to protect the public safety, health and welfare in a broad context.
textreferences: We interpret 'plans and specifications' in this section to include all engineering instruments of service.
wasattributedto: Case 72 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T12:15:43.076069
was generated by: ProEthica Case 72 Extraction

Fact-Based Disclosure Obligation Grounded In Completed Studies
type: Fact-BasedDisclosureObligation
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Doe's completed engineering assessment of discharge impacts
appliedto: State Pollution Control Authority permit review
balancingwith: Client confidentiality
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Doe's studies are complete and his conclusions are definite — he has concluded (not merely suspected) that the discharge will violate established standards and that corrective action will be very costly — establishing the factual predicate for mandatory disclosure despite the absence of a written report
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 72
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T11:58:47.868529+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 72
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T11:58:47.868529+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The absence of a written report does not diminish the epistemic status of Doe's findings; his studies are complete, his conclusions are definite, and he has already communicated them verbally to the client — the factual predicate for mandatory disclosure is fully established
invokedby: Engineer Doe Environmental Engineering Consultant
principleclass: Fact-Based Disclosure Obligation
sourcetext: After completion of his studies but before completion of any written report, Doe concludes that the discharge from the plant will lower the quality of the receiving body of water below established standards
tensionresolution: The fact-based disclosure obligation is fully triggered because Doe's findings are confirmed, not merely suspected; the verbal communication to the client demonstrates that the findings are sufficiently complete to support disclosure to the regulatory authority
textreferences: After completion of his studies but before completion of any written report, Doe concludes that the discharge from the plant will lower the quality of the receiving body of water below established standards
textreferences: Doe verbally advises the XYZ Corporation of his findings
textreferences: He further concludes that corrective action will be very costly
wasattributedto: Case 72 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T12:15:43.069803
was generated by: ProEthica Case 72 Extraction

Fact-Based Disclosure Obligation Grounded in Completed Doe Studies
type: Fact-BasedDisclosureObligation
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Doe's completed engineering studies on XYZ Corporation's manufacturing waste discharge
balancingwith: Proactive Risk Disclosure
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer Doe's disclosure obligation is grounded in his completed engineering studies — not mere speculation or unverified concern — which established that XYZ's discharge would violate minimum standards; the fact-based character of the findings both triggers and justifies the disclosure obligation
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 72
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T12:05:13.603514+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 72
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T12:05:13.603514+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The disclosure obligation is anchored in confirmed professional findings; Doe is not speculating about potential violations but reporting the results of completed studies, which places his disclosure squarely within the fact-based disclosure category rather than the prudential concern category
invokedby: Engineer Doe Public Health Risk Reporting Engineer
principleclass: Fact-Based Disclosure Obligation
sourcetext: In this case, it is presumed that a failure to meet the minimum standards established by law is detrimental to the public health and safety.
tensionresolution: Because the findings are completed and confirmed, the disclosure obligation is mandatory rather than discretionary; the fact-based character of the findings removes any ambiguity about whether disclosure is appropriate
textreferences: His verbal advice to the corporation would seem to meet the letter and spirit of §§1 and 1(c).
textreferences: In this case, it is presumed that a failure to meet the minimum standards established by law is detrimental to the public health and safety.
textreferences: Section 1-'The Engineer will be guided in all his professional relations by the highest standards of integrity, and will act in professional matters for each client or employer as a faithful agent or trustee.'
wasattributedto: Case 72 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T12:15:43.077014
was generated by: ProEthica Case 72 Extraction

Faithful Agent Obligation Fulfilled Then Superseded By Ethical Limits
type: FaithfulAgentObligationWithinEthicalLimits
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Doe's consulting engagement with XYZ Corporation
appliedto: Verbal communication of adverse findings to client
balancingwith: Client Report Suppression Prohibition
balancingwith: Public Welfare Paramount
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Doe fulfilled his faithful agent obligation by completing his studies and honestly advising XYZ Corporation of his adverse findings; the ethical limits of that obligation were reached when the client instructed him to suppress the written report and then presented contradictory data at the public hearing
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 72
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T11:58:47.868529+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 72
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T11:58:47.868529+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Faithful agent obligation required Doe to complete his studies diligently and communicate findings honestly to the client; it did not require him to suppress those findings when the client terminated the contract and presented false data at a regulatory hearing
invokedby: Engineer Doe Faithful Agent Trustee Engineer
principleclass: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
sourcetext: Doe verbally advises the XYZ Corporation of his findings
tensionresolution: The faithful agent obligation was fully discharged when Doe completed his studies and advised the client of his findings; the subsequent instruction to suppress the report and the client's presentation of contradictory data at the public hearing activated the overriding public welfare obligation
textreferences: Doe verbally advises the XYZ Corporation of his findings
textreferences: the corporation employs Engineer Doe to perform consulting engineering services and submit a detailed report
textreferences: the corporation terminates the contract with Doe with full payment for services performed
wasattributedto: Case 72 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T12:15:43.069096
was generated by: ProEthica Case 72 Extraction

Faithful Agent Obligation Fulfilled by Verbal Advice to XYZ
type: FaithfulAgentObligationWithinEthicalLimits
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Doe's verbal communication of adverse findings to XYZ Corporation prior to contract termination
balancingwith: Public Welfare Paramount
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer Doe fulfilled his faithful agent obligation to XYZ Corporation by verbally advising the client that his studies indicated the established standards would be violated — satisfying both the letter and spirit of §§1 and 1(c)
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 72
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T12:05:13.603514+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 72
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T12:05:13.603514+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The faithful agent obligation requires the engineer to advise the client of project risks, including adverse findings; Doe's verbal advice satisfied this obligation even though no written report was produced
invokedby: Engineer Doe Faithful Agent Trustee Engineer
principleclass: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
sourcetext: His verbal advice to the corporation would seem to meet the letter and spirit of §§1 and 1(c).
tensionresolution: The faithful agent obligation was satisfied by verbal advice; the subsequent public welfare obligation arose independently upon learning of the hearing and XYZ's contradictory testimony
textreferences: His verbal advice to the corporation would seem to meet the letter and spirit of §§1 and 1(c).
textreferences: Section 1(c)-'He will advise his client or employer when he believes a project will not be successful.'
textreferences: Section 1-'The Engineer will be guided in all his professional relations by the highest standards of integrity, and will act in professional matters for each client or employer as a faithful agent or trustee.'
wasattributedto: Case 72 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T12:15:43.075568
was generated by: ProEthica Case 72 Extraction

Faithful Agent Verbal Advice Fulfillment Doe XYZ Corporation
type: FaithfulAgentObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Doe completed consulting engineering studies for XYZ Corporation on whether manufacturing waste discharge would meet minimum standards, and verbally communicated his adverse findings to the client before the contract was terminated.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 72
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T12:07:06.185123+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 72
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T12:07:06.185123+00:00
importance: medium
obligatedparty: Engineer Doe
obligationclass: Faithful Agent Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer Doe fulfilled his faithful agent obligation to XYZ Corporation by verbally advising the corporation that his studies indicated the established discharge standards would in his opinion be violated, satisfying the letter and spirit of §§1 and 1(c) of the historical ethics code.
sourcetext: In this spirit Engineer Doe has advised the XYZ Corporation that the results of his studies indicate that the established standards will in his opinion be violated.
temporalscope: Upon completion of engineering studies and before contract termination
textreferences: His verbal advice to the corporation would seem to meet the letter and spirit of §§1 and 1(c).
textreferences: In this spirit Engineer Doe has advised the XYZ Corporation that the results of his studies indicate that the established standards will in his opinion be violated.
wasattributedto: Case 72 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T12:15:43.077197
was generated by: ProEthica Case 72 Extraction

False Data Presented Publicly
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Event
generated at time: 2026-02-26T12:15:43.080523
was generated by: ProEthica Case 72 Extraction

Hiring Doe for Compliance Study
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
generated at time: 2026-02-26T12:15:43.080151
was generated by: ProEthica Case 72 Extraction

Hiring Doe for Compliance Study → Adverse Findings Concluded
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T12:15:43.080593
was generated by: ProEthica Case 72 Extraction

Misleading Data Correction Obligation Triggered By XYZ Hearing Presentation
type: MisleadingDataCorrectionObligationatRegulatoryHearing
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: State Pollution Control Authority permit decision process
appliedto: XYZ Corporation's data presentation at State Pollution Control Authority public hearing
balancingwith: Client confidentiality
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Upon learning that XYZ Corporation has presented data at the public hearing asserting that the present discharge meets minimum standards — directly contradicting Doe's completed finding that it will lower water quality below established standards — Doe bears an affirmative obligation to correct the regulatory record through testimony, written submission, or direct notification to the authority
confidence: 0.87
discoveredincase: 72
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T11:58:47.868529+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 72
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T11:58:47.868529+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The discovery that a former client has presented data at a regulatory hearing that directly contradicts the engineer's completed findings is the paradigmatic triggering condition for the misleading data correction obligation; the regulatory authority's ability to make an informed permit decision depends on Doe correcting the record
invokedby: Engineer Doe Public Interest Environmental Witness Engineer
principleclass: Misleading Data Correction Obligation at Regulatory Hearing
sourcetext: Doe learns that the authority has called a public hearing and that the XYZ Corporation has presented data to support its view that the present discharge meets minimum standards
tensionresolution: The misleading data correction obligation overrides any residual confidentiality or loyalty obligation because the former client has weaponized the suppressed report by presenting contradictory data at a public hearing; the client's own conduct has forfeited any claim to Doe's silence
textreferences: Doe concludes that the discharge from the plant will lower the quality of the receiving body of water below established standards
textreferences: Doe learns that the authority has called a public hearing and that the XYZ Corporation has presented data to support its view that the present discharge meets minimum standards
wasattributedto: Case 72 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T12:15:43.070125
was generated by: ProEthica Case 72 Extraction

Misleading Data Correction Obligation at Regulatory Hearing Applied to XYZ Testimony
type: MisleadingDataCorrectionObligationatRegulatoryHearing
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: XYZ Corporation's presentation of contradictory data at the State Pollution Control Authority hearing
balancingwith: Client Report Suppression Prohibition
balancingwith: Confidentiality Non-Applicability to Public Danger Disclosure
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Upon learning that XYZ Corporation presented data at the public hearing that contradicted his own completed findings, Engineer Doe is obligated to take affirmative steps — including voluntary testimony before the State Pollution Control Authority — to correct the false record and prevent regulatory approval of a discharge that violates established minimum standards
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 72
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T12:05:13.603514+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 72
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T12:05:13.603514+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Doe's possession of completed technical findings directly contradicting XYZ's hearing testimony, combined with the public health stakes of the permit decision, creates an affirmative obligation to correct the record — not merely a permission to do so
invokedby: Engineer Doe Public Interest Environmental Witness Engineer
principleclass: Misleading Data Correction Obligation at Regulatory Hearing
sourcetext: Upon learning of the hearing, he is squarely confronted with his obligations to the public concerning its safety, health, and welfare.
tensionresolution: The obligation to correct the misleading record at the regulatory hearing is grounded in both the public welfare paramount principle and the broad interpretation of §2(c); confidentiality does not bar the disclosure
textreferences: Section 2-'He will notify the proper authority of any observed conditions which endanger public safety and health.'
textreferences: Upon learning of the hearing, he is squarely confronted with his obligations to the public concerning its safety, health, and welfare.
textreferences: We interpret the language in the context of the facts to mean that it would now be 'unprofessional conduct' for Doe to not take further action to protect the public interest.
wasattributedto: Case 72 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T12:15:43.076388
was generated by: ProEthica Case 72 Extraction

NSPE-Code-of-Ethics
type: ProfessionalCode
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.97
createdby: National Society of Professional Engineers
discoveredincase: 72
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T11:54:07.489159+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 72
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T11:54:07.489159+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Professional Code
sourcetext: Doe concludes that the discharge from the plant will lower the quality of the receiving body of water below established standards
textreferences: Doe concludes that the discharge from the plant will lower the quality of the receiving body of water below established standards
textreferences: XYZ Corporation has presented data to support its view that the present discharge meets minimum standards
textreferences: the corporation terminates the contract with Doe with full payment for services performed, and instructs Doe not to render a written report
usedby: Engineer Doe
usedincontext: Primary normative authority governing Engineer Doe's obligations when his client (XYZ Corporation) suppresses his findings and presents contrary data to a public authority, implicating canons on public safety, honesty, and professional integrity
version: Current at time of case
wasattributedto: Case 72 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T12:15:43.063331
was generated by: ProEthica Case 72 Extraction

NSPE BER Code Provision Purposive Scope Interpretation XYZ Doe
type: CodeProvisionPurposiveScopeInterpretationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Code Provision Purposive Scope Interpretation Capability
capabilitystatement: The NSPE Board of Ethical Review demonstrated expert-level capability to interpret 'plans and specifications' in §2(c) expansively and purposively to include all engineering instruments of service, reading the specific term in light of the overall paramount duty expressed in §§2 and 2(a).
casecontext: The Board was required to interpret whether §2(c)'s reference to 'plans and specifications' limited the reporting obligation to those specific instruments, or whether it extended to all engineering outputs including study findings.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.91
demonstratedthrough: The Board's ruling that §2(c) applies to engineering studies and verbal findings — not only to plans and specifications — based on the overall thrust of the code's public safety mandate.
discoveredincase: 72
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T12:09:23.984049+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 72
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T12:09:23.984049+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
proficiencylevel: expert
sourcetext: It is not material, in our view, that the subject matter does not involve plans and specifications as stipulated in §2(c).
textreferences: It is not material, in our view, that the subject matter does not involve plans and specifications as stipulated in §2(c).
textreferences: That particular reference must be read in light of the overall thrust of §§2 and 2(a), both of which indicate clearly that the paramount duty of the engineer is to protect the public safety, health and welfare in a broad context.
textreferences: We interpret 'plans and specifications' in this section to include all engineering instruments of service.
wasattributedto: Case 72 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T12:15:43.078385
was generated by: ProEthica Case 72 Extraction

NSPE Board Broad Instrument of Service Interpretation Activation
type: BroadInstrumentofServiceInterpretationActivationState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From issuance of this Board opinion forward as precedent
affectedparties: All engineers subject to NSPE Code
affectedparties: Engineer Doe
affectedparties: General public
affectedparties: Regulatory authorities
concept category: State
confidence: 0.82
discoveredincase: 72
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T11:56:02.471819+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 72
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T11:56:02.471819+00:00
importance: medium
sourcetext: It is not material, in our view, that the subject matter does not involve plans and specifications as stipulated in §2(c)
stateclass: Broad Instrument of Service Interpretation Activation State
subject: NSPE Board of Ethical Review's interpretive ruling expanding §2(c) 'plans and specifications' to all engineering instruments of service
terminatedby: Code revision or superseding ruling
textreferences: It is not material, in our view, that the subject matter does not involve plans and specifications as stipulated in §2(c)
textreferences: That particular reference must be read in light of the overall thrust of §§2 and 2(a), both of which indicate clearly that the paramount duty of the engineer is to protect the public safety, health and welfare in a broad context
textreferences: We interpret 'plans and specifications' in this section to include all engineering instruments of service
triggeringevent: Board's need to apply §2(c) to a case where findings were communicated verbally rather than through formal plans and specifications
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 72 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T12:15:43.068605
was generated by: ProEthica Case 72 Extraction

NSPE Code of Ethics - Section 1 (Faithful Agent or Trustee)
type: ProfessionalCode
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.97
createdby: National Society of Professional Engineers
discoveredincase: 72
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers – Section 1
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T11:55:48.909724+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 72
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T11:55:48.909724+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Professional Code
sourcetext: Section 1 of the code is clear in providing that the engineer 'will act in professional matters for each client or employer as a faithful agent or trustee.'
textreferences: His verbal advice to the corporation would seem to meet the letter and spirit of §§1 and 1(c).
textreferences: Section 1 of the code is clear in providing that the engineer 'will act in professional matters for each client or employer as a faithful agent or trustee.'
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review in analyzing Engineer Doe's obligations
usedincontext: Establishes the engineer's duty to act as a faithful agent or trustee for each client or employer; cited to affirm that Doe's verbal advice to XYZ Corporation met the letter and spirit of the obligation
version: Historical version (section no longer exists in current code)
wasattributedto: Case 72 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T12:15:43.062555
was generated by: ProEthica Case 72 Extraction

NSPE Code of Ethics - Section 1(c) (Advise Client of Unsuccessful Project)
type: ProfessionalCode
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.95
createdby: National Society of Professional Engineers
discoveredincase: 72
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers – Section 1(c)
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T11:55:48.909724+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 72
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T11:55:48.909724+00:00
importance: medium
resourceclass: Professional Code
sourcetext: His verbal advice to the corporation would seem to meet the letter and spirit of §§1 and 1(c).
textreferences: His verbal advice to the corporation would seem to meet the letter and spirit of §§1 and 1(c).
textreferences: Section 1(c)—'He will advise his client or employer when he believes a project will not be successful.'
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
usedincontext: Requires the engineer to advise the client when a project will not be successful; cited to confirm Doe's verbal warning to XYZ Corporation satisfied this obligation
version: Historical version (section no longer exists in current code)
wasattributedto: Case 72 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T12:15:43.062723
was generated by: ProEthica Case 72 Extraction

NSPE Code of Ethics - Section 2 (Public Safety, Health, and Welfare)
type: ProfessionalCode
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.97
createdby: National Society of Professional Engineers
discoveredincase: 72
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers – Section 2
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T11:55:48.909724+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 72
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T11:55:48.909724+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Professional Code
sourcetext: Upon learning of the hearing, he is squarely confronted with his obligations to the public concerning its safety, health, and welfare.
textreferences: Section 2—'The Engineer will have proper regard for the safety, health, and welfare of the public in the performance of his professional duties. If his engineering judgment is overruled by nontechnical authority, he will clearly point out the consequences. He will notify the proper authority of any observed conditions which endanger public safety and health.'
textreferences: Upon learning of the hearing, he is squarely confronted with his obligations to the public concerning its safety, health, and welfare.
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review in determining Doe's paramount duty
usedincontext: Requires the engineer to have proper regard for public safety, health, and welfare; to point out consequences when overruled; and to notify proper authority of conditions endangering public safety — central normative anchor for Doe's obligation to act at the hearing
version: Historical version (section no longer exists in current code)
wasattributedto: Case 72 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T12:15:43.062893
was generated by: ProEthica Case 72 Extraction

NSPE Code of Ethics - Section 2(a) (Paramount Duty to Public Welfare)
type: ProfessionalCode
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.97
createdby: National Society of Professional Engineers
discoveredincase: 72
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers – Section 2(a)
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T11:55:48.909724+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 72
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T11:55:48.909724+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Professional Code
sourcetext: Section 2(a) requires that his duty to the public be paramount.
textreferences: Section 2(a) requires that his duty to the public be paramount.
textreferences: Section 2(a)—'He will regard his duty to the public welfare as paramount.'
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
usedincontext: Establishes that the engineer's duty to the public welfare is paramount over client interests; directly invoked to override XYZ Corporation's instruction not to render a written report
version: Historical version (section no longer exists in current code)
wasattributedto: Case 72 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T12:15:43.067005
was generated by: ProEthica Case 72 Extraction

NSPE Code of Ethics - Section 2(c) (Plans/Specifications Safety and Reporting Unprofessional Conduct)
type: ProfessionalCode
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.97
createdby: National Society of Professional Engineers
discoveredincase: 72
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers – Section 2(c)
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T11:55:48.909724+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 72
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T11:55:48.909724+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Professional Code
sourcetext: We note that we have not heretofore during the entire existence of the board had occasion to interpret §2(c) of the code.
textreferences: Section 2(c)—'He will not complete, sign or seal plans and/or specifications that are not of a design safe to the public health and welfare and in conformity with accepted engineering standards. If the client or employer insists on such unprofessional conduct, he shall notify the proper authorities and withdraw from further service on the project.'
textreferences: That portion of §2(c) which requires the engineer to report any request for 'unprofessional' conduct to 'proper authorities' is particularly pertinent in the situation before us.
textreferences: We note that we have not heretofore during the entire existence of the board had occasion to interpret §2(c) of the code.
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review — first-ever interpretation of this section
usedincontext: Prohibits completing or sealing unsafe plans/specifications and requires reporting unprofessional conduct to proper authorities; interpreted broadly by the Board to cover all engineering instruments of service, triggering Doe's obligation to act at the public hearing
version: Historical version (section no longer exists in current code)
wasattributedto: Case 72 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T12:15:43.067180
was generated by: ProEthica Case 72 Extraction

NSPE Code of Ethics - Section 7 (Confidential Information)
type: ProfessionalCode
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.95
createdby: National Society of Professional Engineers
discoveredincase: 72
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers – Section 7
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T11:55:48.909724+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 72
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T11:55:48.909724+00:00
importance: medium
resourceclass: Professional Code
sourcetext: Section 7 of the code does not give us pause because the action of the engineer in advising proper authority of the apparent danger to the public interest will not in this case be disclosing the technical processes or business affairs of the client.
textreferences: Section 7 of the code does not give us pause because the action of the engineer in advising proper authority of the apparent danger to the public interest will not in this case be disclosing the technical processes or business affairs of the client.
textreferences: Section 7—'The Engineer will not disclose confidential information concerning the business affairs or technical processes of any present or former client or employer without his consent.'
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review in ruling out confidentiality as a barrier
usedincontext: Prohibits disclosure of confidential business affairs or technical processes without client consent; considered by the Board but found not to bar Doe's disclosure because advising proper authority of public danger does not reveal confidential technical or business information
version: Historical version (section no longer exists in current code)
wasattributedto: Case 72 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T12:15:43.067320
was generated by: ProEthica Case 72 Extraction

Post-Termination Environmental Risk Reporting Doe State Pollution Control Authority
type: Post-TerminationEnvironmentalRiskReportingObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Doe's contract was terminated with full payment after he verbally advised XYZ of adverse findings. XYZ then presented contradictory data at a public hearing before the State Pollution Control Authority to obtain a discharge permit.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 72
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T12:07:06.185123+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 72
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T12:07:06.185123+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer Doe
obligationclass: Post-Termination Environmental Risk Reporting Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer Doe was obligated to report his completed findings — that XYZ Corporation's discharge would violate established minimum standards — to the State Pollution Control Authority after contract termination and upon learning of XYZ's contradictory public hearing testimony, notwithstanding the termination of the client relationship.
sourcetext: Section 2(a) requires that his duty to the public be paramount.
temporalscope: After contract termination and upon learning of XYZ's contradictory public hearing testimony
textreferences: In this case, it is presumed that a failure to meet the minimum standards established by law is detrimental to the public health and safety.
textreferences: Section 2(a) requires that his duty to the public be paramount.
textreferences: Upon learning of the hearing, he is squarely confronted with his obligations to the public concerning its safety, health, and welfare.
wasattributedto: Case 72 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T12:15:43.077935
was generated by: ProEthica Case 72 Extraction

Presenting False Compliance Data at Hearing
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
generated at time: 2026-02-26T12:15:43.080278
was generated by: ProEthica Case 72 Extraction

Presenting False Compliance Data at Hearing → Deciding Whether to Report Findings to Authority
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T12:15:43.080687
was generated by: ProEthica Case 72 Extraction

Proactive Risk Disclosure Obligation To Regulatory Authority After Contract Termination
type: ProactiveRiskDisclosure
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Affected community relying on receiving water body
appliedto: State Pollution Control Authority permit review process
balancingwith: Client confidentiality
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: After XYZ Corporation suppressed the written report and terminated the contract, Doe's obligation to proactively disclose his completed findings of discharge standard violations to the State Pollution Control Authority arose independently of any contractual relationship
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 72
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T11:58:47.868529+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 72
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T11:58:47.868529+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Proactive risk disclosure requires Doe to notify the regulatory authority of his findings without waiting for a formal request, particularly because the client has actively suppressed the written report and the regulatory authority is proceeding on the basis of contradictory data
invokedby: Engineer Doe Public Health Risk Reporting Engineer
principleclass: Proactive Risk Disclosure
sourcetext: Doe concludes that the discharge from the plant will lower the quality of the receiving body of water below established standards
tensionresolution: The proactive disclosure obligation is activated by the combination of confirmed risk findings, client suppression of the report, and the regulatory authority's reliance on contradictory data; these factors collectively override any residual confidentiality obligation
textreferences: Doe concludes that the discharge from the plant will lower the quality of the receiving body of water below established standards
textreferences: the corporation terminates the contract with Doe with full payment for services performed, and instructs Doe not to render a written report
wasattributedto: Case 72 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T12:15:43.069644
was generated by: ProEthica Case 72 Extraction

Proactive Risk Disclosure Obligation to State Pollution Control Authority
type: ProactiveRiskDisclosure
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: State Pollution Control Authority's permit decision regarding XYZ Corporation's discharge
balancingwith: Confidentiality Non-Applicability to Public Danger Disclosure
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer Doe's obligation to proactively communicate his completed findings — that XYZ's discharge will violate established minimum standards — to the State Pollution Control Authority, without waiting for a formal request, because the public's health and safety are at risk and no other mechanism exists to bring the findings to the authority's attention
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 72
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T12:05:13.603514+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 72
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T12:05:13.603514+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The proactive disclosure obligation is triggered by the combination of completed findings, client suppression of the written report, and the authority's pending permit decision based on contradictory data
invokedby: Engineer Doe Public Health Risk Reporting Engineer
principleclass: Proactive Risk Disclosure
sourcetext: He will notify the proper authority of any observed conditions which endanger public safety and health.
tensionresolution: Proactive disclosure is required because the public cannot protect itself from the engineering decision, and no other mechanism exists to bring the safety-relevant findings to the authority's attention
textreferences: In this case, it is presumed that a failure to meet the minimum standards established by law is detrimental to the public health and safety.
textreferences: Section 2-'The Engineer will have proper regard for the safety, health, and welfare of the public in the performance of his professional duties. If his engineering judgment is overruled by nontechnical authority, he will clearly point out the consequences. He will notify the proper authority of any observed conditions which endanger public safety and health.'
wasattributedto: Case 72 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T12:15:43.076539
was generated by: ProEthica Case 72 Extraction

Professional-Report-Integrity-Standard
type: ProfessionalReportIntegrityStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.88
createdby: Professional engineering ethics community / NSPE Board of Ethical Review
discoveredincase: 72
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: Professional Norms Governing Accuracy and Completeness of Engineering Reports and Communications
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T11:54:07.489159+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 72
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T11:54:07.489159+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Professional Report Integrity Standard
sourcetext: instructs Doe not to render a written report to the corporation
textreferences: XYZ Corporation has presented data to support its view that the present discharge meets minimum standards
textreferences: instructs Doe not to render a written report to the corporation
usedby: Engineer Doe
usedincontext: Addresses Doe's obligation regarding the suppressed written report — whether the instruction not to render a written report, combined with the client's submission of contrary data to a public authority, constitutes a violation of professional integrity norms
version: Current at time of case
wasattributedto: Case 72 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T12:15:43.063773
was generated by: ProEthica Case 72 Extraction

Professional Inaction Avoidance Doe XYZ Public Hearing Contradictory Testimony
type: ProfessionalInactionAvoidanceUponContradictoryPublicHearingDataObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: After contract termination, Doe learned that XYZ Corporation presented data at the State Pollution Control Authority hearing asserting the discharge met minimum standards, directly contradicting Doe's completed findings that the standards would be violated.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.89
discoveredincase: 72
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T12:07:06.185123+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 72
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T12:07:06.185123+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer Doe
obligationclass: Professional Inaction Avoidance Upon Contradictory Public Hearing Data Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer Doe was obligated to take affirmative action — rather than remain passive — upon learning that XYZ Corporation presented data at the public hearing contradicting his completed findings, because inaction in the face of known contradictory public hearing testimony constitutes unprofessional conduct and violates his paramount duty to protect public health, safety, and welfare.
sourcetext: Upon learning of the hearing, he is squarely confronted with his obligations to the public concerning its safety, health, and welfare.
temporalscope: Upon learning of XYZ Corporation's contradictory testimony at the public regulatory hearing
textreferences: It is basic to the entire concept of a profession that its members will devote their interests to the public welfare, as is made abundantly clear in §2 and §2(a) of the code.
textreferences: Upon learning of the hearing, he is squarely confronted with his obligations to the public concerning its safety, health, and welfare.
textreferences: We interpret the language in the context of the facts to mean that it would now be 'unprofessional conduct' for Doe to not take further action to protect the public interest.
wasattributedto: Case 72 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T12:15:43.077774
was generated by: ProEthica Case 72 Extraction

Professional Inaction as Unprofessional Conduct Applied to Doe Post-Hearing
type: ProfessionalInactionasUnprofessionalConduct
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Doe's decision whether to act after learning of XYZ's contradictory testimony at the public hearing
balancingwith: Confidentiality Non-Applicability to Public Danger Disclosure
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Upon learning that XYZ Corporation presented data at the public hearing that contradicted his own completed findings, Engineer Doe's failure to take further affirmative action — such as notifying the State Pollution Control Authority — would itself constitute unprofessional conduct under §2(c), interpreted in light of §§2 and 2(a)
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 72
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T12:05:13.603514+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 72
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T12:05:13.603514+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The ethics code's requirement to report unprofessional conduct to proper authorities, read in light of the public welfare paramount principle, means that Doe's passive silence in the face of XYZ's false testimony would itself be unprofessional — the obligation to act is affirmative, not merely permissive
invokedby: Engineer Doe Public Interest Environmental Witness Engineer
principleclass: Professional Inaction as Unprofessional Conduct
sourcetext: We interpret the language in the context of the facts to mean that it would now be 'unprofessional conduct' for Doe to not take further action to protect the public interest.
tensionresolution: The public welfare paramount principle and the broad interpretation of §2(c) resolve in favor of affirmative action; inaction is characterized as itself unprofessional conduct
textreferences: Upon learning of the hearing, he is squarely confronted with his obligations to the public concerning its safety, health, and welfare.
textreferences: We interpret the language in the context of the facts to mean that it would now be 'unprofessional conduct' for Doe to not take further action to protect the public interest.
wasattributedto: Case 72 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T12:15:43.075891
was generated by: ProEthica Case 72 Extraction

Public Hearing Scheduled
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Event
generated at time: 2026-02-26T12:15:43.080489
was generated by: ProEthica Case 72 Extraction

Public Interest Engineering Testimony Obligation Triggered By Contradictory Hearing Data
type: PublicInterestEngineeringTestimonyObligation
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: State Pollution Control Authority public hearing
appliedto: XYZ Corporation's contradictory data presentation
balancingwith: Client confidentiality
balancingwith: Post-Reporting Advocacy as Personal Choice
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Upon learning that XYZ Corporation has presented data at the public hearing contradicting his completed findings, Doe bears a professional obligation to provide truthful, objective testimony at the hearing based on his completed engineering assessment, even though he is no longer a retained professional in the matter
confidence: 0.94
discoveredincase: 72
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T11:58:47.868529+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 72
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T11:58:47.868529+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The public hearing is precisely the forum where Doe's specialized technical knowledge is most needed; his obligation to testify is not contingent on being retained as an expert witness — it arises from his possession of completed findings that directly contradict data being used to obtain regulatory approval for a standard-violating discharge
invokedby: Engineer Doe Public Interest Environmental Witness Engineer
principleclass: Public Interest Engineering Testimony Obligation
sourcetext: Doe learns that the authority has called a public hearing and that the XYZ Corporation has presented data to support its view that the present discharge meets minimum standards
tensionresolution: The public interest testimony obligation is not merely a personal choice in this case because the contradictory data at the hearing creates an affirmative professional obligation to correct the record; the regulatory authority's ability to protect the public depends on accurate technical information
textreferences: Doe concludes that the discharge from the plant will lower the quality of the receiving body of water below established standards
textreferences: Doe learns that the authority has called a public hearing and that the XYZ Corporation has presented data to support its view that the present discharge meets minimum standards
wasattributedto: Case 72 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T12:15:43.069466
was generated by: ProEthica Case 72 Extraction

Public Safety at Risk — Water Quality Degradation
type: PublicSafetyatRisk
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Doe's confirmed findings through regulatory resolution and corrective action
affectedparties: Downstream communities
affectedparties: General public
affectedparties: Water body ecosystem
concept category: State
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 72
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T11:54:51.837082+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 72
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T11:54:51.837082+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: the discharge from the plant will lower the quality of the receiving body of water below established standards
stateclass: Public Safety at Risk
subject: Public health and welfare dependent on receiving water body quality
terminatedby: Corrective action implemented or discharge prevented by regulatory enforcement
textreferences: the discharge from the plant will lower the quality of the receiving body of water below established standards
triggeringevent: Doe's engineering analysis confirms discharge will lower water quality below established environmental standards
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 72 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T12:15:43.065569
was generated by: ProEthica Case 72 Extraction

Public Welfare Paramount Invoked By Doe Regarding Discharge Standard Violation
type: PublicWelfareParamount
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: State Pollution Control Authority public hearing
appliedto: XYZ Corporation's manufacturing waste discharge permit application
balancingwith: Client confidentiality
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Doe's completed finding that the discharge will lower water quality below established standards creates a paramount obligation to protect the public — including the affected community relying on the receiving body of water — that supersedes XYZ Corporation's instruction to suppress the written report
confidence: 0.97
discoveredincase: 72
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T11:58:47.868529+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 72
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T11:58:47.868529+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: In this context, public welfare paramount requires Doe to disclose his completed findings to the regulatory authority and to correct the false data presented at the public hearing, even though the client has paid in full and instructed him not to produce a written report
invokedby: Engineer Doe Public Health Risk Reporting Engineer
principleclass: Public Welfare Paramount
sourcetext: Doe concludes that the discharge from the plant will lower the quality of the receiving body of water below established standards
tensionresolution: Public welfare paramount overrides client loyalty and confidentiality when the client has suppressed safety-relevant findings and presented contradictory data at a regulatory hearing; the public's inability to independently assess the technical merits makes the engineer's disclosure obligation non-waivable
textreferences: Doe concludes that the discharge from the plant will lower the quality of the receiving body of water below established standards
textreferences: XYZ Corporation has presented data to support its view that the present discharge meets minimum standards
wasattributedto: Case 72 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T12:15:43.068770
was generated by: ProEthica Case 72 Extraction

Public Welfare Paramount Invoked in Doe Hearing Obligation
type: PublicWelfareParamount
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: XYZ Corporation's permit application hearing before the State Pollution Control Authority
balancingwith: Confidentiality Principle
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer Doe's paramount duty to the public safety, health, and welfare — established by §2(a) — overrides his terminated contractual relationship with XYZ Corporation and requires him to take affirmative action upon learning that XYZ presented contradictory data at the public hearing
confidence: 0.97
discoveredincase: 72
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T12:05:13.603514+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 72
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T12:05:13.603514+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The paramount duty to the public is not extinguished by contract termination; it persists as an independent professional obligation that activates whenever the engineer possesses knowledge of a threat to public safety, health, or welfare
invokedby: Engineer Doe Public Health Risk Reporting Engineer
principleclass: Public Welfare Paramount
sourcetext: Section 2(a) requires that his duty to the public be paramount.
tensionresolution: Public welfare paramount overrides both the terminated contractual relationship and any residual confidentiality concerns, because §2(a) explicitly establishes public welfare as the paramount duty
textreferences: In this case, it is presumed that a failure to meet the minimum standards established by law is detrimental to the public health and safety.
textreferences: It is basic to the entire concept of a profession that its members will devote their interests to the public welfare, as is made abundantly clear in §2 and §2(a) of the code.
textreferences: Section 2(a) requires that his duty to the public be paramount.
wasattributedto: Case 72 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T12:15:43.075393
was generated by: ProEthica Case 72 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_1
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T15:59:05.606569
was generated by: ProEthica Case 72 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_10
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T15:59:05.606830
was generated by: ProEthica Case 72 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_11
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T15:59:05.606859
was generated by: ProEthica Case 72 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_12
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T15:59:05.606887
was generated by: ProEthica Case 72 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_13
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T15:59:05.606915
was generated by: ProEthica Case 72 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_14
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T15:59:05.606943
was generated by: ProEthica Case 72 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_15
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T15:59:05.606973
was generated by: ProEthica Case 72 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_16
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T15:59:05.607001
was generated by: ProEthica Case 72 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_17
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T15:59:05.607046
was generated by: ProEthica Case 72 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_2
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T15:59:05.606598
was generated by: ProEthica Case 72 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_3
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T15:59:05.606627
was generated by: ProEthica Case 72 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_4
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T15:59:05.606657
was generated by: ProEthica Case 72 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_5
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T15:59:05.606685
was generated by: ProEthica Case 72 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_6
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T15:59:05.606714
was generated by: ProEthica Case 72 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_7
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T15:59:05.606742
was generated by: ProEthica Case 72 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_8
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T15:59:05.606771
was generated by: ProEthica Case 72 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_9
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T15:59:05.606802
was generated by: ProEthica Case 72 Extraction

Question_1
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 1
question text: Does Doe have an ethical obligation to report his findings to the authority upon learning of the hearing?
question type: board_explicit
generated at time: 2026-02-26T15:59:05.603378
was generated by: ProEthica Case 72 Extraction

Question_101
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 101
question text: Did XYZ Corporation's instruction to Doe not to produce a written report itself constitute unprofessional conduct that Doe had an independent obligation to report to the authority or a professional body, separate from any obligation arising from the public hearing?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-02-26T15:59:05.603476
was generated by: ProEthica Case 72 Extraction

Question_102
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 102
question text: Was Doe's verbal-only advisory to XYZ Corporation sufficient to discharge his professional duty to document and communicate findings, or did his obligation to produce a written record persist independently of the client's instruction to suppress it?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-02-26T15:59:05.603538
was generated by: ProEthica Case 72 Extraction

Question_103
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 103
question text: Does the fact that XYZ Corporation paid Doe in full upon termination create any ambiguity about the ownership of his findings, and could that payment be construed as an attempt to purchase Doe's silence in a manner that itself raises ethical concerns?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-02-26T15:59:05.603596
was generated by: ProEthica Case 72 Extraction

Question_104
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 104
question text: At what earlier point in the timeline — before the public hearing was scheduled — did Doe's ethical obligation to proactively disclose his findings to the State Pollution Control Authority arise, and was the hearing a triggering event or merely a confirmation of a pre-existing duty?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-02-26T15:59:05.603652
was generated by: ProEthica Case 72 Extraction

Question_201
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 201
question text: Does the Faithful Agent Obligation Fulfilled by Verbal Advice to XYZ conflict with the Fact-Based Disclosure Obligation Grounded in Completed Studies — that is, can Doe's duty as a faithful agent be satisfied by verbal communication alone when his completed technical studies independently ground a disclosure obligation that extends beyond the client relationship?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-02-26T15:59:05.603709
was generated by: ProEthica Case 72 Extraction

Question_202
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 202
question text: How should the tension between Confidentiality Non-Applicability to Public Danger Disclosure and the Faithful Agent Obligation be resolved when the danger arises not from an imminent physical hazard but from a regulatory standards violation that is serious but not immediately catastrophic — does the magnitude of harm affect where the confidentiality boundary falls?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-02-26T15:59:05.603762
was generated by: ProEthica Case 72 Extraction

Question_203
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 203
question text: Does the Misleading Data Correction Obligation Triggered by XYZ Hearing Presentation conflict with the Client Report Suppression Prohibition in terms of the mechanism of Doe's duty — is Doe obligated to act because XYZ presented false data (a reactive correction duty) or because his own completed findings independently demand disclosure (a proactive reporting duty), and does the distinction matter for the scope of what he must disclose?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-02-26T15:59:05.603816
was generated by: ProEthica Case 72 Extraction

Question_204
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 204
question text: Does the Scope-of-Work Limitation Defense Rejected for Contract Termination Mechanism conflict with the Ethics Code Expansive Interpretation Canon Applied to Plans and Specifications — specifically, if the Board expansively interprets 'instruments of service' to include Doe's verbal findings and mental conclusions, does that expansion also expand the scope of what XYZ could legitimately instruct Doe to withhold, or does the expansive interpretation cut only in favor of disclosure?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-02-26T15:59:05.603870
was generated by: ProEthica Case 72 Extraction

Question_301
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 301
question text: From a deontological perspective, did Engineer Doe fulfill his categorical duty to public safety by limiting his disclosure to a verbal advisory to XYZ Corporation, or did that duty independently require him to produce and submit a written report to the State Pollution Control Authority regardless of client instruction?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-02-26T15:59:05.603924
was generated by: ProEthica Case 72 Extraction

Question_302
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 302
question text: From a consequentialist perspective, does the aggregate harm to the public from degraded water quality — compounded by XYZ Corporation's presentation of misleading data at the public hearing — outweigh any harm to Doe's professional relationship with XYZ Corporation that would result from his reporting findings to the authority, thereby justifying and requiring disclosure?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-02-26T15:59:05.603978
was generated by: ProEthica Case 72 Extraction

Question_303
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 303
question text: From a virtue ethics perspective, did Engineer Doe demonstrate the professional integrity and courage characteristic of a virtuous engineer by confining his findings to a verbal advisory and accepting contract termination without further action, or does professional virtue demand that he come forward at the public hearing to correct the record established by XYZ Corporation's misleading data?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-02-26T15:59:05.604033
was generated by: ProEthica Case 72 Extraction

Question_304
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 304
question text: From a deontological perspective, does XYZ Corporation's instruction to Doe not to render a written report constitute an independently wrongful act — a violation of the professional norm against client suppression of engineering findings — such that Doe's duty to resist that instruction is separable from and prior to his duty to report to the authority?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-02-26T15:59:05.604085
was generated by: ProEthica Case 72 Extraction

Question_401
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 401
question text: If Engineer Doe had insisted on producing and delivering a written report to XYZ Corporation before accepting contract termination, would the corporation have been able to present misleading data at the public hearing, and would Doe's subsequent obligation to report to the authority have been diminished or eliminated?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T15:59:05.604161
was generated by: ProEthica Case 72 Extraction

Question_402
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 402
question text: What if Engineer Doe had proactively reported his adverse findings to the State Pollution Control Authority immediately after XYZ Corporation terminated his contract and instructed him to suppress the written report — before the public hearing was even scheduled — would that earlier disclosure have been ethically required, and would it have been sufficient to discharge his ongoing public safety obligation?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T15:59:05.604239
was generated by: ProEthica Case 72 Extraction

Question_403
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 403
question text: What if Engineer Doe had declined the engagement from the outset upon learning that XYZ Corporation sought a study specifically to support its position before the authority rather than to obtain an independent technical assessment — would that refusal have been ethically preferable to accepting the contract, completing the study, and then facing the dilemma of suppression?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T15:59:05.604299
was generated by: ProEthica Case 72 Extraction

Question_404
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 404
question text: If XYZ Corporation had presented accurate data at the public hearing — data consistent with Doe's adverse findings — rather than misleading data, would Doe still have had an ethical obligation to report his findings to the authority, or does the obligation arise specifically and only from the corporation's act of presenting contradictory and misleading information?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T15:59:05.604374
was generated by: ProEthica Case 72 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_1
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T15:59:05.607077
was generated by: ProEthica Case 72 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_10
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T15:59:05.607341
was generated by: ProEthica Case 72 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_11
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T15:59:05.607377
was generated by: ProEthica Case 72 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_12
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T15:59:05.607419
was generated by: ProEthica Case 72 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_13
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T15:59:05.607451
was generated by: ProEthica Case 72 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_14
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T15:59:05.607481
was generated by: ProEthica Case 72 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_15
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T15:59:05.607510
was generated by: ProEthica Case 72 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_16
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T15:59:05.607540
was generated by: ProEthica Case 72 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_17
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T15:59:05.607569
was generated by: ProEthica Case 72 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_18
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T15:59:05.607597
was generated by: ProEthica Case 72 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_19
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T15:59:05.607625
was generated by: ProEthica Case 72 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_2
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T15:59:05.607106
was generated by: ProEthica Case 72 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_20
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T15:59:05.607653
was generated by: ProEthica Case 72 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_21
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T20:06:26.316337
was generated by: ProEthica Case 72 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_3
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T15:59:05.607135
was generated by: ProEthica Case 72 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_4
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T15:59:05.607166
was generated by: ProEthica Case 72 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_5
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T15:59:05.607199
was generated by: ProEthica Case 72 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_6
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T15:59:05.607228
was generated by: ProEthica Case 72 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_7
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T15:59:05.607256
was generated by: ProEthica Case 72 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_8
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T15:59:05.607284
was generated by: ProEthica Case 72 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_9
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T15:59:05.607312
was generated by: ProEthica Case 72 Extraction

Scope-of-Work Limitation Defense Rejected For Contract Termination Mechanism
type: Scope-of-WorkLimitationasIncompleteEthicalDefense
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Doe's completed engineering assessment
appliedto: XYZ Corporation's contract termination and instruction not to produce written report
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: XYZ Corporation's use of contract termination and full payment as a mechanism to prevent the production of a written report does not constitute a legitimate scope-of-work limitation that excuses Doe from disclosing his completed findings to the regulatory authority
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 72
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T11:58:47.868529+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 72
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T11:58:47.868529+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The contract termination mechanism is functionally equivalent to a scope-of-work limitation imposed after the findings were made; the existing principle establishes that such limitations do not authorize suppression of findings already made within the investigation
invokedby: Engineer Doe Faithful Agent Trustee Engineer
principleclass: Scope-of-Work Limitation as Incomplete Ethical Defense
sourcetext: the corporation terminates the contract with Doe with full payment for services performed, and instructs Doe not to render a written report to the corporation
tensionresolution: The scope-of-work limitation defense is rejected because Doe's findings were complete before the contract was terminated; the termination cannot retroactively convert completed findings into findings outside the scope of the engagement
textreferences: After completion of his studies but before completion of any written report, Doe concludes that the discharge from the plant will lower the quality of the receiving body of water below established standards
textreferences: the corporation terminates the contract with Doe with full payment for services performed, and instructs Doe not to render a written report to the corporation
wasattributedto: Case 72 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T12:15:43.069954
was generated by: ProEthica Case 72 Extraction

State-Pollution-Control-Authority-Discharge-Permit-Regulation
type: WaterDischargePermitRegulation
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.9
createdby: State Pollution Control Authority
discoveredincase: 72
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: State Pollution Control Authority Discharge Permit Requirements and Minimum Standards
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T11:54:07.489159+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 72
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T11:54:07.489159+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Water Discharge Permit Regulation
sourcetext: advised by a State Pollution Control Authority that it has 60 days to apply for a permit to discharge manufacturing wastes into a receiving body of water
textreferences: advised by a State Pollution Control Authority that it has 60 days to apply for a permit to discharge manufacturing wastes into a receiving body of water
textreferences: advised of the minimum standard that must be met
textreferences: the authority has called a public hearing
usedby: XYZ Corporation (permit applicant), Engineer Doe (technical assessor), State Pollution Control Authority (regulator)
usedincontext: Defines the legal framework within which XYZ Corporation must operate, establishes the minimum water quality standards Doe's study was commissioned to assess, and triggers the public hearing process that creates Doe's escalating ethical obligations
version: Applicable at time of case
wasattributedto: Case 72 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T12:15:43.063478
was generated by: ProEthica Case 72 Extraction

State Pollution Control Authority Pollution Control Authority
type: PollutionControlAuthority
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'type': 'State regulatory body', 'authority': 'Permit issuance, standard-setting, public hearings', 'action': 'Called public hearing on XYZ Corporation discharge permit'}
caseinvolvement: Issued the 60-day permit application notice to XYZ Corporation, established minimum discharge standards, and convened a public hearing at which XYZ Corporation presented data. The authority is the regulatory body whose decisions directly affect public environmental welfare.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.97
discoveredincase: 72
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T11:54:11.902611+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 72
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T11:54:11.902611+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'regulated_entity', 'target': 'XYZ Corporation'}
relationships: {'type': 'technical_consultant', 'target': 'Engineer Doe'}
rolecategory: public_responsibility
roleclass: Pollution Control Authority
sourcetext: advised by a State Pollution Control Authority that it has 60 days to apply for a permit
textreferences: XYZ is also advised of the minimum standard that must be met
textreferences: advised by a State Pollution Control Authority that it has 60 days to apply for a permit
textreferences: the authority has called a public hearing
wasattributedto: Case 72 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T12:15:43.064238
was generated by: ProEthica Case 72 Extraction

State Pollution Control Authority advisement to XYZ before XYZ hiring of Engineer Doe
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T12:15:43.080749
was generated by: ProEthica Case 72 Extraction

Terminating Contract and Suppressing Written Report
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
generated at time: 2026-02-26T12:15:43.080227
was generated by: ProEthica Case 72 Extraction

Terminating Contract and Suppressing Written Report → False Data Presented Publicly
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T12:15:43.080655
was generated by: ProEthica Case 72 Extraction

The Public Affected Community
type: AffectedCommunity
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'risk_type': 'Public health and safety violation of established regulatory standards', 'protection_basis': '§2 and §2(a) of the NSPE Code of Ethics'}
caseinvolvement: The general public whose safety, health, and welfare are at risk due to XYZ Corporation's potential violation of established regulatory standards, and whose interests are paramount under §§2 and 2(a) of the code.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 72
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T11:55:36.074826+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 72
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T11:55:36.074826+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'protected_by', 'target': 'Engineer Doe Public Health Risk Reporting Engineer'}
rolecategory: public_responsibility
roleclass: Affected Community
sourcetext: his obligations to the public concerning its safety, health, and welfare
textreferences: a failure to meet the minimum standards established by law is detrimental to the public health and safety
textreferences: his obligations to the public concerning its safety, health, and welfare
textreferences: members will devote their interests to the public welfare
textreferences: the paramount duty of the engineer is to protect the public safety, health and welfare in a broad context
wasattributedto: Case 72 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T12:15:43.066665
was generated by: ProEthica Case 72 Extraction

Verbally Advising Client of Adverse Findings
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
generated at time: 2026-02-26T12:15:43.080190
was generated by: ProEthica Case 72 Extraction

Verbally Advising Client of Adverse Findings → Terminating Contract and Suppressing Written Report
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T12:15:43.080624
was generated by: ProEthica Case 72 Extraction

XYZ 60-Day Permit Application Deadline
type: RegulatoryPermitDeadlinePressureState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From issuance of State Pollution Control Authority notice through permit application deadline
affectedparties: Engineer Doe
affectedparties: Public users of receiving water body
affectedparties: State Pollution Control Authority
affectedparties: XYZ Corporation
concept category: State
confidence: 0.85
discoveredincase: 72
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T11:54:51.837082+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 72
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T11:54:51.837082+00:00
importance: medium
sourcetext: XYZ Corporation has been advised by a State Pollution Control Authority that it has 60 days to apply for a permit to discharge manufacturing wastes into a receiving body of water
stateclass: Regulatory Permit Deadline Pressure State
subject: XYZ Corporation's regulatory compliance obligation to State Pollution Control Authority
terminatedby: Permit application submission or deadline expiration
textreferences: XYZ Corporation has been advised by a State Pollution Control Authority that it has 60 days to apply for a permit to discharge manufacturing wastes into a receiving body of water
triggeringevent: State Pollution Control Authority advises XYZ Corporation of 60-day permit application requirement
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 72 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T12:15:43.064405
was generated by: ProEthica Case 72 Extraction

XYZ Corporation Client Suppressing Engineering Report
type: ClientSuppressingEngineeringReport
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'entity_type': 'Corporation', 'action': 'Terminated contract and prohibited written report after adverse findings', 'subsequent_conduct': 'Provided testimony at public hearing'}
caseinvolvement: XYZ Corporation terminated Engineer Doe's contract after receiving adverse verbal findings, explicitly instructed him not to produce a written report, and subsequently provided testimony at a public hearing that raised questions about the suppressed findings.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 72
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T11:55:36.074826+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 72
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T11:55:36.074826+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'retained', 'target': 'Engineer Doe Faithful Agent Trustee Engineer'}
relationships: {'type': 'suppressed_findings_of', 'target': 'Engineer Doe Public Health Risk Reporting Engineer'}
rolecategory: provider_client
roleclass: Client Suppressing Engineering Report
sourcetext: the corporation specifically stipulates that he not render a written report
textreferences: The client's action instructing Doe to not render a written report
textreferences: The termination of Doe's contract with full payment for services rendered
textreferences: XYZ's testimony at the hearing raises the question of Doe's obligation under §2(c)
textreferences: the corporation specifically stipulates that he not render a written report
wasattributedto: Case 72 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T12:15:43.066474
was generated by: ProEthica Case 72 Extraction

XYZ Corporation Industry Manufacturing Process Client
type: IndustryManufacturingProcessClient
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'type': 'Private industrial corporation', 'regulatory_context': '60-day permit application deadline for discharge into receiving body of water', 'conduct': 'Suppressed adverse engineering findings; presented contradictory data at public hearing'}
caseinvolvement: Retained Engineer Doe to produce a report supporting its permit application, then terminated the contract and suppressed the written report upon learning findings were unfavorable. Subsequently presented contradictory data at a public hearing before the State Pollution Control Authority.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 72
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T11:54:11.902611+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 72
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T11:54:11.902611+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'engineer', 'target': 'Engineer Doe'}
relationships: {'type': 'regulatory_authority', 'target': 'State Pollution Control Authority'}
rolecategory: provider_client
roleclass: Industry Manufacturing Process Client
sourcetext: The XYZ Corporation has been advised by a State Pollution Control Authority that it has 60 days to apply for a permit
textreferences: The XYZ Corporation has been advised by a State Pollution Control Authority that it has 60 days to apply for a permit
textreferences: instructs Doe not to render a written report
textreferences: the XYZ Corporation has presented data to support its view that the present discharge meets minimum standards
textreferences: the corporation employs Engineer Doe to perform consulting engineering services
textreferences: the corporation terminates the contract with Doe with full payment
wasattributedto: Case 72 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T12:15:43.064066
was generated by: ProEthica Case 72 Extraction

XYZ Instruction to Suppress Doe's Written Report
type: ConfidentialityInstructionSuppressingSafetyReportState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From contract termination and suppression instruction through Doe's decision on whether to disclose to the authority
affectedparties: Engineer Doe
affectedparties: Public
affectedparties: State Pollution Control Authority
affectedparties: XYZ Corporation
concept category: State
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 72
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T11:54:51.837082+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 72
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T11:54:51.837082+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: the corporation terminates the contract with Doe with full payment for services performed, and instructs Doe not to render a written report to the corporation
stateclass: Confidentiality Instruction Suppressing Safety Report State
subject: Engineer Doe's professional obligation to document and report findings
terminatedby: Doe's disclosure to the regulatory authority, or Doe's decision to remain silent
textreferences: the corporation terminates the contract with Doe with full payment for services performed, and instructs Doe not to render a written report to the corporation
triggeringevent: XYZ Corporation terminates Doe's contract and explicitly instructs him not to render a written report
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 72 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T12:15:43.064962
was generated by: ProEthica Case 72 Extraction

XYZ Misleading Data Presentation at Public Hearing
type: Client-SuppressedFindingsatPublicHearingState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From XYZ's presentation of data at the public hearing through Doe's decision to act or remain silent
affectedparties: Engineer Doe
affectedparties: Public
affectedparties: State Pollution Control Authority
affectedparties: XYZ Corporation
concept category: State
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 72
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T11:54:51.837082+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 72
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T11:54:51.837082+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Doe learns that the authority has called a public hearing and that the XYZ Corporation has presented data to support its view that the present discharge meets minimum standards
stateclass: Client-Suppressed Findings at Public Hearing State
subject: State Pollution Control Authority's public hearing record and Engineer Doe's knowledge of contradicting findings
terminatedby: Doe discloses findings to the authority, authority independently discovers the suppressed findings, or hearing concludes without correction
textreferences: Doe learns that the authority has called a public hearing and that the XYZ Corporation has presented data to support its view that the present discharge meets minimum standards
triggeringevent: Doe learns that XYZ has presented data to the authority at a public hearing claiming discharge meets minimum standards — directly contradicting Doe's findings
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 72 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T12:15:43.065412
was generated by: ProEthica Case 72 Extraction

XYZ Non-Compliance with Environmental Standards
type: Non-CompliantState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Doe's confirmed findings through corrective action or regulatory enforcement
affectedparties: Public
affectedparties: State Pollution Control Authority
affectedparties: XYZ Corporation
concept category: State
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 72
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T11:54:51.837082+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 72
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T11:54:51.837082+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Doe concludes that the discharge from the plant will lower the quality of the receiving body of water below established standards
stateclass: Non-Compliant State
subject: XYZ Corporation's manufacturing waste discharge relative to established environmental standards
terminatedby: XYZ implements corrective action to meet standards, or regulatory authority enforces compliance
textreferences: Doe concludes that the discharge from the plant will lower the quality of the receiving body of water below established standards
textreferences: XYZ Corporation has been advised of the minimum standard that must be met
triggeringevent: Doe concludes that XYZ's discharge will lower water quality below established minimum standards set by the State Pollution Control Authority
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 72 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T12:15:43.066057
was generated by: ProEthica Case 72 Extraction

XYZ hiring of Engineer Doe before Doe's completion of studies
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T12:15:43.080781
was generated by: ProEthica Case 72 Extraction

XYZ instruction not to render written report equals XYZ termination of Doe's contract
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T12:15:43.080930
was generated by: ProEthica Case 72 Extraction

XYZ presentation of data at hearing during public hearing by the authority
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T12:15:43.080989
was generated by: ProEthica Case 72 Extraction

XYZ termination of Doe's contract before public hearing by the authority
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T12:15:43.080901
was generated by: ProEthica Case 72 Extraction

public hearing by the authority after XYZ termination of Doe's contract
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T12:15:43.080959
was generated by: ProEthica Case 72 Extraction