ProEthica Case 74 Ontology
type: Ontology
created: 2026-02-26T23:37:27.700076
imports: cases
imports: intermediate

Army Official BER-98-8
type: StakeholderRole
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'organization': 'U.S. Army', 'authority_type': 'Institutional directing authority'}
caseinvolvement: Army official who requested Engineer A certify arms storage rooms and racks under specialized regulations outside Engineer A's competence.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.82
discoveredincase: 74
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T23:18:43.208878+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 74
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T23:18:43.208878+00:00
importance: medium
relationships: {'type': 'directs', 'target': 'Engineer A BER-98-8 Certifying Engineer'}
rolecategory: employer_relationship
roleclass: Stakeholder Role
sourcetext: An Army official requested that Engineer A certify that certain arms storage rooms and arms storage racks on the military installation were in accordance with certain specific, lengthy, and detailed Army physical security, arms, ammunition, and explosive regulations
textreferences: An Army official requested that Engineer A certify that certain arms storage rooms and arms storage racks on the military installation were in accordance with certain specific, lengthy, and detailed Army physical security, arms, ammunition, and explosive regulations
wasattributedto: Case 74 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:37:27.703197
was generated by: ProEthica Case 74 Extraction

BER_Case_85-3
type: BERCasePrecedent
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.97
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
discoveredincase: 74
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case 85-3
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T23:17:59.106452+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 74
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T23:17:59.106452+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: BER Case Precedent
sourcetext: In another case, BER Case 85-3, a local county ordinance required that the position of county surveyor be filled by a Professional Engineer.
textreferences: After considering the two earlier cases, the Board decided it was unethical for Engineer A to accept the position as county surveyor.
textreferences: In another case, BER Case 85-3, a local county ordinance required that the position of county surveyor be filled by a Professional Engineer.
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review as analogical precedent for the present case
usedincontext: Cited as precedent establishing that it is unethical for an engineer to accept a professional position (county surveyor) that requires competencies outside their area of expertise, distinguishing between consulting practice flexibility and employment context constraints
version: 1985
wasattributedto: Case 74 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:37:27.702518
was generated by: ProEthica Case 74 Extraction

BER Case 85-3 before BER Case 94-8
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: Case numbering convention implies 85-3 (1985) preceded 94-8 (1994); the Discussion references them in chronological order: 'After considering the two earlier cases...'
from entity text: BER Case 85-3
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: BER Case 94-8
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: BER_Case_94-8
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:37:27.718987
was generated by: ProEthica Case 74 Extraction

BER Case 94-8 before BER Case 98-8
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: Case numbering convention implies 94-8 (1994) preceded 98-8 (1998); both are cited as prior precedents in the Discussion section
from entity text: BER Case 94-8
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: BER Case 98-8
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: BER_Case_98-8
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:37:27.719019
was generated by: ProEthica Case 74 Extraction

Building Constructed
type: Event
type: NamedIndividual
activates constraint: Occupant_Safety_Baseline_Constraint
activates constraint: Post_Construction_Inspection_Obligation
causes state change: Deficient design is now physically instantiated; building enters service in a severe weather region without adequate structural parameters; the latent risk is now fully embedded in the built environment and will be triggered by the next severe weather event.
concept category: Event
creates obligation: Ongoing_Monitoring_In_Severe_Weather_Region
creates obligation: Post_Construction_Inspection
emergency status: medium
event type: outcome
temporal marker: Post-design phase; construction period concluding prior to occupancy
temporal sequence: 6
urgency level: medium
comment: The building is physically constructed in accordance with Engineer A's plans and specifications, materializing the structurally deficient design into a permanent built structure. Construction proceeds without identification of the design's non-conformance with current severe weather standards.
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:37:27.718428
was generated by: ProEthica Case 74 Extraction

Case 74 Timeline
type: NamedIndividual
type: TemporalEntity
action count: 3
event count: 6
total elements: 9
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:37:27.719116
was generated by: ProEthica Case 74 Extraction

CausalLink_Design Using Established Princ
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:50:19.478655
was generated by: ProEthica Case 74 Extraction

CausalLink_Proceed Without Literature Rev
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:50:19.478621
was generated by: ProEthica Case 74 Extraction

CausalLink_Release Design for Constructio
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:50:19.478686
was generated by: ProEthica Case 74 Extraction

Conclusion_1
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 1
conclusion number: 1
conclusion text: It was not unethical for Engineer A to fail to follow the most recent design parameters for structural design in severe weather areas published in the most recent technical literature.
conclusion type: board_explicit
extraction reasoning: Parsed from imported case text (no LLM)
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:50:19.480243
was generated by: ProEthica Case 74 Extraction

Conclusion_101
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 2
cites provision: II 2 a
answers question1: 101
answers question2: 103
answers question3: 202
cited provision1: II.2.
cited provision2: II.2.a.
conclusion number: 101
conclusion text: Beyond the Board's finding that Engineer A's failure to follow the most recent severe weather design parameters was not unethical, the analysis reveals a meaningful but underexplored distinction between the obligation to comply with formally adopted standards and the obligation to track emerging best practices. Because the severe weather design parameters existed only in recent technical literature and had not yet been promulgated as binding code requirements at the time of Engineer A's design, the Board correctly declined to treat their non-adoption as a per se ethical violation. However, this distinction should not be read as eliminating any affirmative currency obligation. The NSPE Code's continuing competence provisions impose an ongoing duty on engineers to remain current in their area of practice, and an engineer who knowingly practices in a high-risk severe weather zone bears a heightened — not merely average — duty of domain-targeted literature vigilance. The Board's conclusion is defensible on its facts, but it implicitly sets a precedent that 'generally attempting to stay current' satisfies the currency obligation even in specialized, high-risk practice environments. That precedent deserves qualification: the reasonableness of an engineer's currency efforts must be calibrated to the known risk profile of the practice domain, meaning that an engineer practicing in a severe weather zone should be held to a more proactive standard of literature review than one practicing in a low-hazard environment, even when new parameters have not yet achieved formal standardization.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:50:19.480332
was generated by: ProEthica Case 74 Extraction

Conclusion_102
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 8
cites provision: II 1
answers question1: 203
answers question2: 102
cited provision1: II.1.
cited provision2: III.8.
conclusion number: 102
conclusion text: The Board's conclusion that Engineer A did not act unethically rests substantially on the absence of intentional, reckless, or malicious conduct — a proportionality-in-misconduct framework that shields good-faith practitioners from ethical sanction when their knowledge gaps are inadvertent. While this framework is appropriate and consistent with prior Board precedent, it creates a tension with the Standard of Care as Ethical Floor principle, which holds that the ethical obligation to meet the standard of care exists independently of whether harm actually results or whether the practitioner acted in good faith. The Board's analysis does not adequately resolve this tension. A more complete analysis would acknowledge that the standard of care functions as an objective floor: an engineer's subjective good faith may mitigate the severity of the ethical finding or inform the appropriate remedy, but it does not dissolve the underlying obligation to meet that floor. Applied here, Engineer A's good faith is relevant to culpability and proportionate response, but it does not mean that his design met the standard of care. The Board's conclusion would be strengthened — and less susceptible to misapplication as a blanket currency excuse — if it explicitly stated that Engineer A's conduct, while not rising to an ethical violation given the pre-standardization status of the parameters and his general currency efforts, nonetheless fell short of the optimal standard of care, and that this shortfall carries professional lessons even if it does not carry ethical sanction.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:50:19.480430
was generated by: ProEthica Case 74 Extraction

Conclusion_103
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 8
cites provision: II 1
answers question1: 102
cited provision1: II.1.
cited provision2: III.8.
conclusion number: 103
conclusion text: The Board's conclusion, while exonerating Engineer A from an ethical violation, leaves unaddressed a significant post-failure obligation that flows directly from the Code's public welfare and personal responsibility provisions. Once the post-failure analysis established that following the recently published severe weather design parameters would have prevented the structural failure, Engineer A acquired an affirmative ethical obligation to acknowledge the missed opportunity, engage in honest self-assessment, and — consistent with the profession's broader duty to protect public welfare — communicate the lessons learned to other practitioners working in severe weather zones. This obligation is distinct from the question of whether Engineer A violated the Code in designing the building; it arises from the Code's requirement that engineers accept personal responsibility for their professional activities and from the public welfare paramount principle, which extends beyond the individual project to the broader engineering community. The Board's analysis, by focusing exclusively on whether Engineer A's pre-failure conduct was unethical, misses this forward-looking dimension entirely. A complete ethical analysis of this case should affirm that Engineer A, having now been made aware of the gap between his design assumptions and the available severe weather parameters, bears a professional obligation to ensure that this knowledge gap does not persist — either in his own future practice or, through appropriate professional channels, in the practice of peers who may face the same vulnerability. Failure to act on this post-failure obligation would itself constitute a departure from the ethical high road that the Board implicitly invites Engineer A to take.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:50:19.480509
was generated by: ProEthica Case 74 Extraction

Conclusion_104
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 1
cites provision: II 2
cites provision: II 2 a
answers question1: 204
answers question2: 103
cited provision1: II.2.
cited provision2: II.2.a.
cited provision3: II.1.
conclusion number: 104
conclusion text: Comparing the Board's reasoning in the present case to its holdings in BER 98-8 and BER 94-8 reveals a potentially inconsistent threshold between domain-boundary competence gaps and intra-domain currency gaps. In BER 98-8 and BER 94-8, the Board held engineers strictly accountable for accepting assignments that fell outside their demonstrated area of competence, treating the domain boundary as a bright ethical line. In the present case, however, the Board applies a more forgiving reasonableness standard to Engineer A's failure to incorporate recently published parameters within a domain he unquestionably occupies. The practical risk to building occupants in both scenarios may be equivalent — indeed, the present case resulted in actual structural failure — yet the ethical treatment diverges significantly. This asymmetry suggests that the Board's competence framework is more sensitive to categorical domain crossings than to qualitative currency failures within a domain, even when the latter produce equivalent or greater public harm. A more coherent and internally consistent framework would recognize that the ethical obligation of competence has two equally binding dimensions: the obligation not to practice outside one's domain, and the obligation to maintain sufficient currency within one's domain to deliver services that meet the evolving standard of care. The Board's present case analysis, while reaching a defensible outcome on its specific facts, would benefit from explicitly acknowledging this dual structure and clarifying that the reasonableness standard for currency does not create a lower tier of ethical obligation for intra-domain knowledge gaps in high-risk practice environments.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:50:19.480593
was generated by: ProEthica Case 74 Extraction

Conclusion_201
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 2
cites provision: II 2 a
answers question1: 101
cited provision1: II.2.
cited provision2: II.2.a.
conclusion number: 201
conclusion text: The Board's conclusion that Engineer A acted ethically does implicitly establish a precedent that engineers may rely on their existing expertise without systematic, domain-targeted monitoring of recent technical literature, provided their general effort to stay current is reasonable under the circumstances. However, this precedent sits in uncomfortable tension with the Code's continuing competence obligations. The Code's mandate that engineers perform services only in areas of their competence is not a static snapshot of competence at the time of licensure — it is a dynamic, ongoing obligation. In a rapidly evolving technical domain such as severe weather structural design, where the consequences of outdated methods are demonstrably catastrophic, 'generally attempting to stay current' may fall below the threshold that the continuing competence obligation actually demands. The Board's precedent, while defensible on proportionality grounds, risks normalizing a passive approach to professional currency that the Code's affirmative language does not clearly sanction. Engineers practicing in high-risk, rapidly evolving domains should not read this precedent as permission to rely on periodic, unfocused literature awareness when domain-specific developments with direct safety implications are being actively published.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:50:19.480669
was generated by: ProEthica Case 74 Extraction

Conclusion_202
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 8
cites provision: II 1
answers question1: 102
cited provision1: III.8.
cited provision2: II.1.
conclusion number: 202
conclusion text: After the structural failure is attributed to Engineer A's unfamiliarity with recently published severe weather design parameters, an affirmative ethical obligation to disclose lessons learned to the broader professional community arises, even though the Board did not explicitly address it. The Code's requirement that engineers accept personal responsibility for their professional activities, combined with the paramount obligation to protect public welfare, supports the conclusion that Engineer A bears a post-failure duty to communicate the nature of the knowledge gap and its consequences to peers practicing in severe weather zones. This obligation is not punitive — it does not retroactively convert an ethical act into an unethical one — but it is prospective and affirmative. The engineering profession's self-regulatory legitimacy depends in part on practitioners sharing failure-derived knowledge so that systemic gaps in practice currency can be corrected. Silence following a preventable structural failure, even one that does not rise to an ethical violation, would itself represent a failure of the professional integrity that the Code demands. Engineer A's most ethically constructive post-failure path is proactive disclosure through professional channels, not passive acceptance of the Board's exoneration.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:50:19.480740
was generated by: ProEthica Case 74 Extraction

Conclusion_203
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 1 b
cites provision: II 2
cites provision: II 2 a
answers question1: 103
cited provision1: II.1.b.
cited provision2: II.2.
cited provision3: II.2.a.
conclusion number: 203
conclusion text: The ethical analysis should meaningfully distinguish between an engineer's obligation to comply with formally promulgated mandatory standards and an obligation to track emerging best practices published in technical literature. These are not equivalent duties, and conflating them distorts the culpability calculus. Formal standards carry the force of legal and regulatory obligation; failure to comply with them is both a legal and ethical breach that requires no further causal analysis. Emerging best practices in technical literature occupy a different normative space: they represent the profession's evolving frontier of knowledge, and an engineer's obligation to engage with them is real but graduated by factors including the rate of publication, the accessibility of the literature, the domain's risk profile, and the degree to which the new parameters depart from established practice. In the present case, the severe weather design parameters had not achieved formal standardization, which appropriately reduces Engineer A's culpability. However, this distinction does not eliminate the ethical obligation entirely — it calibrates it. An engineer knowingly practicing in a high-risk severe weather zone bears a heightened duty to monitor domain-specific emerging literature precisely because the consequences of currency failure are foreseeable and severe. The pre-standardization status of the parameters mitigates but does not extinguish the ethical weight of Engineer A's knowledge gap.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:50:19.480817
was generated by: ProEthica Case 74 Extraction

Conclusion_204
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 8
cites provision: II 1
cites provision: II 2
answers question1: 104
cited provision1: II.1.
cited provision2: II.2.
cited provision3: III.8.
conclusion number: 204
conclusion text: The Board's analysis does not adequately address whether Engineer A bore an ongoing ethical obligation during the plan-review and construction-administration stages to revisit his design assumptions in light of newly available information. Engineering design is not a single discrete act — it extends through plan review, construction administration, and in some interpretations through the service life of the structure. If the severe weather design parameters were published and accessible before construction was completed, Engineer A had at least one additional opportunity to identify and correct the deficiency. The ethical obligation to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public does not terminate when drawings are sealed; it persists as long as the engineer retains a professional relationship with the project. The Board's silence on this ongoing duty is a significant analytical gap. Even accepting that Engineer A's initial design did not constitute an ethical violation, the failure to conduct any literature review during the construction period — particularly for a building in a known severe weather zone — may represent a separate and underexamined ethical shortcoming that the Board's single-question framing did not capture.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:50:19.480897
was generated by: ProEthica Case 74 Extraction

Conclusion_205
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 8
cites provision: II 1
answers question1: 201
cited provision1: II.1.
cited provision2: III.8.
conclusion number: 205
conclusion text: The Proportionality in Misconduct Characterization principle — which shields Engineer A from an unethical finding because his knowledge gap was neither intentional nor reckless — does conflict with the Public Welfare Paramount principle in a meaningful and unresolved way. The Public Welfare Paramount principle is outcome-oriented and agent-neutral: it demands that the safety of building occupants take precedence regardless of the engineer's subjective mental state. Proportionality in misconduct characterization, by contrast, is agent-centered and intent-sensitive. The Board resolves this tension by privileging the proportionality principle, effectively holding that good faith effort, even when it produces a preventable catastrophic outcome, is sufficient to satisfy the Code's ethical demands. This resolution is defensible as a matter of professional discipline — the Code cannot function as strict liability — but it is incomplete as a matter of ethical analysis. A fully adequate ethical framework would acknowledge that even where no violation is found, the outcome represents a failure of the profession's core commitment to public safety, and that the absence of moral culpability does not mean the outcome was ethically acceptable in any broader sense. The Board's conclusion is correct as a disciplinary matter but should not be read as an affirmation that Engineer A's conduct was optimal or that the public's interests were adequately served.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:50:19.480972
was generated by: ProEthica Case 74 Extraction

Conclusion_206
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 2
cites provision: II 2 a
answers question1: 202
cited provision1: II.2.
cited provision2: II.2.a.
conclusion number: 206
conclusion text: The Reasonableness Standard for Currency and the Continuing Competence Currency Obligation are not easily reconciled in the present case, and the Board's analysis does not fully confront the tension between them. The Reasonableness Standard excuses Engineer A's unfamiliarity with recently published literature on the grounds that his general effort to stay current was adequate. The Continuing Competence Currency Obligation, however, is not satisfied by general effort alone — it requires that engineers remain current in their area of practice, which in Engineer A's case is explicitly severe weather structural design in a severe weather zone. These two principles can be reconciled only if 'reasonableness' is defined with reference to the specific risk profile of the domain. A reasonable currency standard for a structural engineer practicing in a low-risk, stable technical environment is appropriately less demanding than one for an engineer who knowingly accepts commissions in a high-risk severe weather zone where design parameters are actively evolving. The Board's application of a uniform reasonableness standard, without calibrating it to the domain's risk profile and the engineer's known practice environment, understates the continuing competence obligation and sets a precedent that may be too permissive for high-risk specialty practice.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:50:19.481045
was generated by: ProEthica Case 74 Extraction

Conclusion_207
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 1
cites provision: II 1 b
cites provision: II 2
answers question1: 203
cited provision1: II.1.
cited provision2: II.2.
cited provision3: II.1.b.
conclusion number: 207
conclusion text: The Causal Nexus Requirement — which conditions an ethical violation finding on a demonstrated link between Engineer A's knowledge gap and the structural failure — does conflict with the Standard of Care as Ethical Floor principle, and the Board does not fully resolve this conflict. The Standard of Care as Ethical Floor holds that the ethical obligation to meet the standard of care exists independently of whether harm actually results. Under this principle, the absence of a causal nexus between Engineer A's knowledge gap and the structural failure would be irrelevant to the ethical analysis: if Engineer A failed to meet the standard of care, that failure is itself an ethical breach regardless of outcome. The Board's reliance on causal nexus as a threshold condition for finding a violation effectively converts the ethical analysis into a harm-based inquiry, which is more characteristic of tort law than professional ethics. The more principled approach would be to assess whether Engineer A's conduct met the standard of care at the time of design, and to treat the structural failure as evidence bearing on that question rather than as a necessary condition for finding a violation. The Board's causal nexus framing, while pragmatically defensible, risks conflating ethical obligation with legal liability in a way that weakens the Code's independent normative force.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:50:19.481141
was generated by: ProEthica Case 74 Extraction

Conclusion_208
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 2
cites provision: II 2 a
answers question1: 204
cited provision1: II.2.
cited provision2: II.2.a.
conclusion number: 208
conclusion text: Comparing the Board's treatment of domain-boundary competence gaps in BER 98-8 and BER 94-8 with its treatment of currency gaps within an acknowledged domain in the present case reveals an asymmetry that is difficult to justify on principled grounds. In BER 98-8 and BER 94-8, engineers were held strictly accountable for accepting assignments outside their demonstrated expertise — the ethical violation was found without requiring proof of harm or causal nexus. In the present case, Engineer A's currency gap within his acknowledged domain of severe weather structural design is excused on reasonableness grounds, even though the practical risk to building occupants was equivalent to or greater than the risks in the prior cases. The Board appears to apply a stricter threshold for domain-boundary competence gaps than for currency gaps within a domain, treating the former as categorically impermissible and the latter as subject to a reasonableness balancing test. This distinction may be defensible on the grounds that domain-boundary gaps are more readily identifiable and avoidable, while currency gaps are inherently gradual and contextual. However, when the currency gap is in a high-risk specialty domain and the engineer is knowingly practicing in that domain, the practical risk equivalence undermines the justification for differential treatment. The Board should either articulate a principled basis for the asymmetry or apply a more demanding currency standard to high-risk specialty practice.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:50:19.481235
was generated by: ProEthica Case 74 Extraction

Conclusion_209
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 1
cites provision: II 2
cites provision: II 2 a
answers question1: 301
cited provision1: II.1.
cited provision2: II.2.
cited provision3: II.2.a.
conclusion number: 209
conclusion text: From a deontological perspective, Engineer A's general effort to stay current does not fully satisfy the categorical duty to maintain competence currency when that duty is examined in light of the specific practice environment. Kant's categorical imperative requires that a maxim be universalizable: if every structural engineer practicing in a known severe weather zone were to rely on general, unfocused literature awareness rather than systematic, domain-targeted monitoring, the profession's capacity to protect public safety in high-risk environments would be systematically undermined. The maxim 'I will generally attempt to stay current but will not systematically monitor domain-specific literature in my high-risk specialty area' cannot be universalized without producing outcomes that contradict the very purpose of professional engineering. A deontological analysis therefore suggests that Engineer A's general effort, while not reckless, falls short of the categorical duty that the Code's competence and public welfare provisions impose. The duty to maintain competence currency in a high-risk specialty domain requires affirmative, systematic, and domain-targeted literature monitoring — not merely a general disposition toward awareness — regardless of whether new parameters have achieved formal standardization.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:50:19.481315
was generated by: ProEthica Case 74 Extraction

Conclusion_210
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 1
cites provision: II 2
answers question1: 302
cited provision1: II.1.
cited provision2: II.2.
conclusion number: 210
conclusion text: From a consequentialist standpoint, the magnitude of the preventable harm in this case does expose a deficiency in the Board's conclusion, even when the pre-standardization status of the severe weather parameters is taken into account. Consequentialist ethics evaluates the ethical quality of conduct by reference to its outcomes and the foreseeability of those outcomes. The structural failure caused significant damage; it was determined that following the published parameters would have prevented it; and Engineer A was knowingly practicing in a severe weather zone where the risk of exactly this type of failure was foreseeable. A consequentialist analysis would ask whether a different decision rule — one that required domain-targeted literature monitoring for engineers in high-risk specialty zones — would have produced better outcomes across the population of similar cases. The answer is almost certainly yes. The Board's conclusion, while defensible under a deontological proportionality framework, does not adequately account for the preventable harm dimension that consequentialist ethics demands. The pre-standardization status of the parameters reduces but does not eliminate the consequentialist case for finding Engineer A's conduct ethically deficient, because the parameters were accessible, the risk was foreseeable, and the harm was preventable.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:50:19.481390
was generated by: ProEthica Case 74 Extraction

Conclusion_211
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 8
cites provision: II 1
cites provision: II 2
answers question1: 303
cited provision1: II.1.
cited provision2: II.2.
cited provision3: III.8.
conclusion number: 211
conclusion text: From a virtue ethics perspective, an engineer of good professional character who knowingly practices in a severe weather zone does not demonstrate sufficient diligence and prudence by only 'generally attempting' to stay current. Virtue ethics asks what a person of excellent professional character — one who has fully internalized the values of the engineering profession — would do in Engineer A's situation. Such a person, aware that they practice in a high-risk severe weather environment, would recognize that the virtue of professional integrity demands more than passive openness to new information: it demands proactive, targeted engagement with the literature most directly relevant to the safety of the structures they design. The virtuous engineer in a severe weather zone would treat domain-specific literature review not as an optional enhancement but as a constitutive element of professional practice in that environment. Engineer A's general approach to currency, while not vicious, falls short of the standard of professional excellence that virtue ethics demands. The Board's conclusion that Engineer A acted ethically is defensible as a minimum threshold judgment, but virtue ethics reveals that Engineer A's conduct, while not blameworthy in the disciplinary sense, was not the conduct of a fully excellent professional.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:50:19.481470
was generated by: ProEthica Case 74 Extraction

Conclusion_212
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 1
cites provision: II 2
cites provision: II 2 a
answers question1: 304
cited provision1: II.1.
cited provision2: II.2.
cited provision3: II.2.a.
conclusion number: 212
conclusion text: From a deontological perspective, the NSPE Code's mandate to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public does impose a duty on Engineer A that is independent of whether the severe weather design parameters had achieved formal standardization. The Code's public welfare provision is not contingent on the existence of formal standards — it is a categorical obligation that applies whenever an engineer's design decisions foreseeably affect public safety. An engineer who knowingly accepts a commission in a severe weather zone thereby assumes a heightened duty of literature vigilance with respect to severe weather design, because the connection between currency failure and public harm is direct and foreseeable in that practice environment. The pre-standardization status of the parameters is relevant to the legal compliance analysis but not to the deontological ethical analysis: the duty to protect public safety exists independently of whether the profession has formally codified the best available methods for doing so. Engineer A's failure to discharge this heightened duty of literature vigilance — even if not reckless or intentional — represents a deontological shortcoming that the Board's conclusion does not fully acknowledge.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:50:19.481551
was generated by: ProEthica Case 74 Extraction

Conclusion_213
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 1
cites provision: II 1 b
cites provision: II 2
answers question1: 401
cited provision1: II.1.
cited provision2: II.1.b.
cited provision3: II.2.
conclusion number: 213
conclusion text: If the severe weather design parameters had been formally adopted as a mandatory code standard at the time of Engineer A's design, the Board would almost certainly have reached a different conclusion and found an ethical violation. This distinction reveals a significant and troubling gap between legal compliance and ethical obligation in professional engineering practice. The Code's ethical obligations are not coextensive with formal legal requirements — they are intended to set a higher standard that anticipates and exceeds minimum legal compliance. When the Board effectively treats formal standardization as the threshold for ethical obligation, it collapses the distinction between ethics and law that the Code is designed to maintain. The ethical obligation to protect public safety through competent, current design practice should not depend on whether the profession's standard-setting bodies have completed their formal adoption processes. Engineers in high-risk specialty domains bear an ethical obligation to engage with the best available knowledge, not merely the most recently codified knowledge. The Board's implicit reliance on the pre-standardization status of the parameters as a decisive factor in the culpability analysis understates the independent normative force of the Code's public welfare and competence provisions.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:50:19.481628
was generated by: ProEthica Case 74 Extraction

Conclusion_214
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 8
cites provision: II 1
cites provision: II 2
answers question1: 402
cited provision1: II.1.
cited provision2: II.2.
cited provision3: III.8.
conclusion number: 214
conclusion text: If Engineer A had conducted a targeted review of severe weather structural design literature before beginning the project and had discovered the new design parameters but chosen not to adopt them, the Board's analysis would have shifted from a question of currency failure to one of deliberate non-adoption, and that shift would almost certainly have produced a finding of ethical violation. Deliberate non-adoption of known, published safety-relevant parameters in a high-risk practice environment would be difficult to characterize as anything other than a reckless disregard for public welfare. This counterfactual illuminates an important asymmetry in the Board's analysis: the ethical outcome turns entirely on whether Engineer A knew about the parameters, not on whether his design adequately protected the public. The building's occupants were equally at risk regardless of Engineer A's subjective awareness. This asymmetry is defensible as a matter of professional discipline — intent and knowledge are relevant to culpability — but it should prompt the profession to ask whether the current framework adequately incentivizes proactive literature review. An engineer who avoids reading the literature avoids the knowledge that would trigger a clear ethical obligation, which creates a perverse incentive structure that the Board's analysis does not address.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:50:19.481706
was generated by: ProEthica Case 74 Extraction

Conclusion_215
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 1
cites provision: II 2
cites provision: II 2 a
answers question1: 403
cited provision1: II.2.
cited provision2: II.2.a.
cited provision3: II.1.
conclusion number: 215
conclusion text: If Engineer A had engaged a subconsultant with specific expertise in severe weather structural design — as the Board suggested was appropriate in the analogous BER 85-3 competence gap scenario — the structural failure would likely have been avoided, and the failure to consider subconsultant engagement represents a missed ethical obligation that the Board underweighted. BER 85-3 established that when an engineer's competence is insufficient for a specific assignment, engaging a qualified subconsultant is the ethically appropriate response. While the Board in the present case did not find that Engineer A lacked competence in severe weather structural design generally, the specific currency gap regarding recently published parameters created a functional competence deficiency with respect to the most current design methods. The ethical logic of BER 85-3 applies with equal force to currency-based competence deficiencies as to domain-boundary deficiencies: when an engineer's knowledge is insufficient to deliver the level of protection that the public is entitled to expect, the ethical response is to supplement that knowledge through consultation, not to proceed on the basis of what one already knows. The Board's failure to address the subconsultant option in the present case leaves a significant gap in its analysis and suggests that the BER 85-3 principle was not applied with sufficient consistency.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:50:19.481788
was generated by: ProEthica Case 74 Extraction

Conclusion_216
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 8
cites provision: II 1
cites provision: II 2
answers question1: 404
cited provision1: II.1.
cited provision2: II.2.
cited provision3: III.8.
conclusion number: 216
conclusion text: If the severe weather event had not occurred and the structural deficiency had never been discovered, Engineer A's failure to review the recent technical literature would still constitute a latent ethical breach, even though its consequences remained unrealized. The Standard of Care as Ethical Floor principle holds that the ethical obligation to meet the standard of care exists independently of whether harm results. An engineer who designs a structure that is more vulnerable to foreseeable severe weather than the best available methods would have permitted has failed a professional obligation at the moment of design, not at the moment of structural failure. The profession should treat such latent ethical breaches as real and significant, even when they are never discovered, because the ethical obligation is owed to the public at the time of design — not contingent on the occurrence of harm. This principle has important implications for how the engineering profession approaches self-assessment, peer review, and continuing education: engineers should evaluate their practice against the best available knowledge, not merely against the outcomes their designs have produced. A profession that treats undiscovered deficiencies as non-events will systematically underinvest in the currency maintenance that public safety demands.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:50:19.481898
was generated by: ProEthica Case 74 Extraction

Conclusion_301
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 1
answers question1: 201
answers question2: 301
answers question3: 304
cited provision1: II.1.
conclusion number: 301
conclusion text: The Board resolved the tension between Public Welfare Paramount and Proportionality in Misconduct Characterization by implicitly subordinating the absolute public-safety imperative to a subjective moral-culpability filter. Rather than treating the duty to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public as an independent, outcome-oriented obligation — one that is satisfied or violated regardless of the engineer's intent — the Board conditioned an ethical violation finding on evidence of intentional, reckless, or malicious conduct. This resolution is analytically coherent within the Board's framework but carries a significant cost: it allows a demonstrably preventable structural failure, causally linked to a knowledge gap in a known high-risk practice environment, to escape ethical censure entirely. The case thereby teaches that, as applied by this Board, Public Welfare Paramount functions as a background aspiration rather than a strict liability floor — a prioritization choice that is defensible in individual cases but that, if generalized, weakens the Code's protective force precisely in the high-consequence scenarios where it should be strongest.
conclusion type: principle_synthesis
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:50:19.481983
was generated by: ProEthica Case 74 Extraction

Conclusion_302
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 2
cites provision: II 2 a
answers question1: 202
answers question2: 101
answers question3: 302
cited provision1: II.2.
cited provision2: II.2.a.
conclusion number: 302
conclusion text: The Board's application of the Reasonableness Standard for Currency to excuse Engineer A's unfamiliarity with recently published severe weather design parameters stands in unresolved tension with the Continuing Competence Currency Obligation, and the case fails to reconcile them. The Continuing Competence Currency Obligation — grounded in Code Section II.2 and reinforced by the analogous competence cases BER 98-8 and BER 94-8 — imposes an affirmative, forward-looking duty on engineers to remain current in their area of practice. The Reasonableness Standard for Currency, as the Board applies it here, effectively converts that affirmative duty into a passive one: an engineer satisfies it by 'generally attempting' to stay current, even when that general effort fails to capture domain-specific literature directly relevant to a known high-risk practice environment. The tension is sharpest because Engineer A's practice domain — severe weather structural design — is precisely the domain in which the new parameters were published. A reasonableness standard calibrated to general awareness may be appropriate for peripheral or tangential developments, but applying it to core-domain literature in a high-consequence specialty effectively nullifies the Continuing Competence Currency Obligation in the cases where it matters most. The Board's failure to distinguish between peripheral and core-domain currency gaps leaves this tension unresolved and creates an internally inconsistent competence framework.
conclusion type: principle_synthesis
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:50:19.482106
was generated by: ProEthica Case 74 Extraction

Conclusion_303
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 8
cites provision: II 1
cites provision: II 1 b
answers question1: 203
answers question2: 103
answers question3: 302
cited provision1: II.1.
cited provision2: II.1.b.
cited provision3: III.8.
conclusion number: 303
conclusion text: Taken together, the Board's treatment of the Causal Nexus Requirement, the Standard of Care as Ethical Floor, and the pre-standardization status of the severe weather parameters reveals a three-layered insulation against ethical liability that, while individually defensible, compounds into an outcome that is difficult to square with the Code's foundational public-safety mandate. First, the pre-standardization status of the parameters reduces the normative weight of Engineer A's knowledge gap — the parameters were best practices, not binding rules. Second, the Reasonableness Standard for Currency excuses the gap as a non-reckless oversight. Third, the Causal Nexus Requirement, while satisfied here in fact, is framed as a necessary condition for an ethical violation, meaning that identical conduct producing no structural failure would generate no ethical scrutiny at all. The Standard of Care as Ethical Floor principle — which holds that the ethical obligation to meet the standard of care exists independently of whether harm results — is nominally invoked but functionally overridden by this layered framework. The case therefore teaches that the Board prioritizes a fault-based, harm-contingent model of ethical accountability over a duty-based, conduct-contingent model, and that this prioritization is most consequential — and most contestable — in rapidly evolving technical domains where the gap between emerging best practices and formal standards is both real and foreseeable.
conclusion type: principle_synthesis
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:50:19.482202
was generated by: ProEthica Case 74 Extraction

Construction Contractor BER-94-8
type: StakeholderRole
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'role_type': 'Construction contractor and project client'}
caseinvolvement: Construction contractor on the design/build project who separately retained Engineer B for structural footing design and received Engineer A's competency concerns.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.85
discoveredincase: 74
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T23:18:43.208878+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 74
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T23:18:43.208878+00:00
importance: medium
relationships: {'type': 'receives_report_from', 'target': 'Engineer A BER-94-8 Competency Challenger'}
relationships: {'type': 'retains', 'target': 'Engineer B BER-94-8 Out-of-Competence Structural Designer'}
rolecategory: provider_client
roleclass: Stakeholder Role
sourcetext: Engineer A, a professional engineer, was working with a construction contractor on a design/build project
textreferences: Engineer A, a professional engineer, was working with a construction contractor on a design/build project
textreferences: the construction contractor separately retained the services of Engineer B
wasattributedto: Case 74 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:37:27.703704
was generated by: ProEthica Case 74 Extraction

County Commissioners BER-85-3
type: StakeholderRole
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'authority_type': 'Public appointing authority'}
caseinvolvement: County commissioners who appointed an out-of-competence chemical PE to the county surveyor position after the first appointee was found unqualified.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.8
discoveredincase: 74
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T23:18:43.208878+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 74
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T23:18:43.208878+00:00
importance: low
relationships: {'type': 'appoints', 'target': 'Engineer A BER-85-3 County Surveyor Appointee'}
rolecategory: employer_relationship
roleclass: Stakeholder Role
sourcetext: The county commissioners met and decided to appoint an engineer, a P.E., with experience and educational background solely in the field of chemical engineering
textreferences: The county commissioners met and decided to appoint an engineer, a P.E., with experience and educational background solely in the field of chemical engineering
wasattributedto: Case 74 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:37:27.704106
was generated by: ProEthica Case 74 Extraction

DP1
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP1
decision question: Given that Engineer A practices structural design in a known severe weather zone and new design parameters had been published in technical literature (though not yet formally adopted as binding standards), what level of literature review and parameter adoption was ethically required before releasing the design for construction?
focus: Engineer A's obligation to actively monitor and incorporate newly published severe weather structural design parameters before releasing the design for construction, given that the parameters existed in technical literature but had not yet been formally codified as mandatory standards.
option1: Conduct targeted, domain-specific review of recently published severe weather structural design literature before finalizing and releasing the design, and incorporate any parameters that have achieved meaningful professional circulation even absent formal codification
option2: Release the design based on established structural engineering principles and general professional currency efforts, treating the absence of formal standardization of the new parameters as sufficient justification for non-adoption
option3: Engage a subconsultant with demonstrated current expertise in severe weather structural design to review and supplement the design before release, addressing the currency gap through collaborative practice rather than independent literature review
role label: Engineer A — Structural Designer in Severe Weather Zone
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:50:19.478773
was generated by: ProEthica Case 74 Extraction

DP2
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP2
decision question: Before finding that Engineer A committed an ethical violation for failing to apply newly published severe weather design parameters, must the ethics board establish both (a) a demonstrable causal nexus between that failure and the structural failure, and (b) that Engineer A's conduct rose to the level of intentional, reckless, or malicious disregard — or is the causal link alone, combined with a showing that the parameters were accessible, sufficient to support an ethical violation finding?
focus: The ethics board's obligation to establish both a causal nexus between Engineer A's knowledge gap and the structural failure, and a threshold of moral culpability (intentional, reckless, or malicious conduct), before finding that Engineer A's failure to follow recently published severe weather design parameters constituted an ethical violation.
option1: Find no ethical violation, requiring both a demonstrated causal nexus and evidence of intentional, reckless, or malicious conduct before imposing ethical sanction, and treating Engineer A's inadvertent knowledge gap as insufficient to meet the moral culpability threshold despite the established causal link
option2: Find an ethical violation based on the established causal nexus and the accessibility of the published parameters, treating the demonstrated link between the knowledge gap and the structural failure as sufficient for culpability without requiring a separate showing of intentional or reckless conduct
option3: Find no ethical violation for the pre-failure design conduct but issue a formal finding that Engineer A's design fell below the optimal standard of care, and impose a prospective remedial obligation — including targeted continuing education in severe weather design and disclosure of lessons learned to the profession — without characterizing the pre-failure conduct as an ethical breach
role label: Ethics Board Evaluating Engineer A's Design Failure
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:50:19.478882
was generated by: ProEthica Case 74 Extraction

DP3
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP3
decision question: After the post-failure analysis establishes that Engineer A's unfamiliarity with recently published severe weather design parameters causally contributed to the structural failure, what affirmative post-failure obligations does Engineer A bear — specifically, must Engineer A publicly acknowledge the knowledge gap and communicate lessons learned to the broader professional community, or is the Board's exoneration of the pre-failure conduct sufficient to discharge all ethical obligations arising from the incident?
focus: Engineer A's post-failure obligation to honestly acknowledge the knowledge gap, assess whether the design fell short of the best available standard of care, and proactively communicate lessons learned to peers practicing in severe weather zones — as a forward-looking ethical duty distinct from the pre-failure design conduct question.
option1: Proactively communicate the lessons learned from the structural failure — including the nature of the knowledge gap and the role of the recently published parameters — through professional channels such as peer publications, continuing education presentations, or professional society reporting, treating this disclosure as an affirmative ethical obligation arising from the public welfare paramount principle
option2: Conduct an honest internal self-assessment of the design decisions and knowledge gap, update personal practice to incorporate the newly published severe weather parameters going forward, and respond candidly to direct professional inquiries about the failure without initiating broader public disclosure
option3: Treat the Board's exoneration as resolving all ethical obligations arising from the incident, making no affirmative post-failure disclosure beyond what is legally required, on the grounds that the pre-standardization status of the parameters and the absence of reckless conduct fully discharge Engineer A's professional responsibilities with respect to this failure
role label: Engineer A — Post-Failure Professional Responsibility
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:50:19.478968
was generated by: ProEthica Case 74 Extraction

DP4
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP4
decision question: When designing a structure in a known severe weather zone, what level of domain-specific literature review satisfies the engineer's continuing competence and public welfare obligations before releasing the design for construction?
focus: Engineer A's decision to release a structural design for construction in a known severe weather zone without conducting a targeted review of recently published severe weather design parameters, relying instead on established principles and a general approach to staying current.
option1: Conduct a targeted, domain-specific review of recent severe weather structural design literature before finalizing and releasing the design, and incorporate or explicitly document the decision not to adopt any newly identified parameters
option2: Release the design for construction based on established structural principles and a general ongoing awareness of professional developments, without conducting a project-specific severe weather literature search, on the grounds that the parameters have not yet been formally adopted as binding standards
option3: Engage a subconsultant with demonstrated current expertise in severe weather structural design to review and supplement the design before release, treating the currency gap as a functional competence deficiency requiring supplemental expertise consistent with BER 85-3
role label: Engineer A
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:50:19.484016
was generated by: ProEthica Case 74 Extraction

DP5
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP5
decision question: After a post-failure analysis causally links a structural failure to an engineer's knowledge gap regarding recently published design parameters, what affirmative ethical obligations does the engineer bear with respect to self-assessment, disclosure of lessons learned, and communication to the broader professional community?
focus: Engineer A's post-failure ethical obligations after a post-failure analysis establishes that his unfamiliarity with recently published severe weather design parameters contributed to structural damage — specifically, whether the Board's exoneration of pre-failure conduct exhausts the ethical analysis or whether affirmative forward-looking obligations arise independently.
option1: Proactively communicate the lessons learned from the post-failure analysis — including the nature of the knowledge gap and the role of the recently published parameters — through professional channels such as peer-reviewed publication, conference presentation, or professional society reporting
option2: Incorporate the lessons from the post-failure analysis into Engineer A's own future practice and firm protocols without broader public disclosure, on the grounds that the Board's exoneration of pre-failure conduct limits the scope of any affirmative post-failure obligation and that broader disclosure carries litigation risk
option3: Cooperate fully with any formal post-failure investigation or standard-setting process initiated by the relevant professional body or regulatory authority, providing technical findings from the post-failure analysis to those bodies without independently initiating broader public disclosure
role label: Engineer A
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:50:19.484119
was generated by: ProEthica Case 74 Extraction

Design Incorporated Into Plans
type: Event
type: NamedIndividual
activates constraint: Construction_Fidelity_To_Design_Constraint
activates constraint: Sealed_Document_Responsibility_Constraint
causes state change: Design is locked into official documents; Engineer A's professional seal implies certification of competent design; the substandard design parameters are now embedded in the construction pathway with no corrective mechanism triggered.
concept category: Event
creates obligation: Flag_Any_Discovered_Design_Deficiencies_Before_Construction_Proceeds
creates obligation: Monitor_Construction_For_Design_Conformance
creates obligation: Remain_Available_For_Design_Clarification
emergency status: medium
event type: outcome
temporal marker: End of design phase, prior to construction commencement
temporal sequence: 4
urgency level: medium
comment: Engineer A's completed structural design, developed without awareness of the new severe weather standards, is formally incorporated into construction plans and specifications, committing the design to physical realization. This event marks the transition from design phase to construction-ready documentation.
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:37:27.718367
was generated by: ProEthica Case 74 Extraction

Design Using Established Principles
type: Action
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
event role context: Structural Engineer of Record
foreseen unintended effects: None identified by Engineer A at the time; Engineer A believed the design was sound
fulfills obligation text: Duty to apply professional engineering judgment and established structural engineering principles
fulfills obligation text: Duty to complete contracted professional services
fulfills obligation text: Duty to leverage region-specific experience in designing for severe weather conditions
guided by principle text: Competence and soundness of engineering judgment
guided by principle text: Professional integrity in design execution
guided by principle text: Public safety paramount
has agent: Engineer A
has mental state: deliberate and good faith
intended outcome: Produce a structurally sound building design that meets engineering standards as understood by Engineer A at the time of design
raises obligation text: Duty to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public (NSPE Code Section I.1), to the extent that awareness of new parameters was reasonably attainable
requires capability text: Awareness of newly published severe weather design parameters specific to the practice region
requires capability text: Critical assessment of whether existing design approaches are sufficient given evolving knowledge in the field
requires capability text: Integration of emerging design methods into structural system design
temporal marker: Design phase, during preparation of structural system design
temporal sequence: 3
violates obligation text: Duty to incorporate current and relevant design standards into professional practice (NSPE Code Section II.2.b)
within competence: true
comment: Engineer A completed the structural system design based on what he believed constituted sound structural engineering principles, without incorporating the newly published severe weather design parameters, relying on his existing knowledge and regional experience.
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:37:27.718247
was generated by: ProEthica Case 74 Extraction

Engineer A BER-85-3 Domain-Specific Competence Boundary Recognition County Surveyor
type: Domain-SpecificCompetenceBoundaryRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Domain-Specific Competence Boundary Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A should have demonstrated the capability to recognize that the county surveyor position — requiring oversight of surveying reports and highway improvement projects — fell outside the boundary of chemical engineering competence, and declined the appointment accordingly.
casecontext: BER Case 85-3 — Chemical PE appointed as county surveyor despite having no background or expertise in surveying
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.87
demonstratedthrough: Board's finding that it was unethical for Engineer A to accept the county surveyor position given that Engineer A's background was solely in chemical engineering with no surveying expertise
discoveredincase: 74
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T23:31:31.051194+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 74
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T23:31:31.051194+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A (BER Case 85-3)
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: The county commissioners met and decided to appoint an engineer, a P.E., with experience and educational background solely in the field of chemical engineering.
textreferences: The county commissioners met and decided to appoint an engineer, a P.E., with experience and educational background solely in the field of chemical engineering.
textreferences: it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible in the usual employment context, for a county surveyor with no background or expertise in surveying to perform effective oversight of surveying reports and highway improvement projects
textreferences: the Board decided it was unethical for Engineer A to accept the position as county surveyor.
wasattributedto: Case 74 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:37:27.717672
was generated by: ProEthica Case 74 Extraction

Engineer A BER-94-8 Peer Competency Objective Basis Assessment
type: PeerCompetencyObjectiveBasisAssessmentCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Peer Competency Objective Basis Assessment Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A demonstrated the capability to objectively assess Engineer B's competence for structural footing design by evaluating Engineer B's chemical engineering background and absence of subsequent training in foundation design, establishing a reasonable objective basis to conclude Engineer B lacked the required competence.
casecontext: BER Case 94-8 design/build project where Engineer B (chemical PE) was retained to design structural footings
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: Engineer A's identification that Engineer B's chemical engineering degree and lack of apparent subsequent training in foundation design provided an objective basis to challenge Engineer B's competence for structural footing design
discoveredincase: 74
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T23:31:31.051194+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 74
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T23:31:31.051194+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A (BER Case 94-8)
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: Engineer A had an objective basis to determine whether Engineer B had sufficient education, experience, and training to perform the required structural design services.
textreferences: Engineer A had an objective basis to determine whether Engineer B had sufficient education, experience, and training to perform the required structural design services.
textreferences: Engineer A was unable to establish that Engineer B had any apparent subsequent training in foundation design and Engineer A had reservations concerning the competence of Engineer B to design the structural footings
textreferences: there was at least a reasonable basis for Engineer A to conclude that Engineer B did not possess the competence to perform the required task.
wasattributedto: Case 74 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:37:27.717047
was generated by: ProEthica Case 74 Extraction

Engineer A BER-98-8 Domain-Specific Competence Boundary Recognition
type: Domain-SpecificCompetenceBoundaryRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Domain-Specific Competence Boundary Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A demonstrated (or should have demonstrated) the capability to recognize that certifying arms storage rooms and racks under specialized Army physical security regulations fell outside the boundary of civil engineering competence, given the absence of significant training or knowledge in those specialized regulations.
casecontext: BER Case 98-8 — Civil PE serving as Civilian Building and Grounds Division Chief directed to certify arms storage facilities under specialized Army regulations
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.87
demonstratedthrough: The Board's finding that Engineer A lacked the competence to certify the arms storage facilities, noting the specialized and complex nature of the Army physical security regulations and the absence of relevant training
discoveredincase: 74
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T23:31:31.051194+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 74
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T23:31:31.051194+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A (BER Case 98-8)
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: making certain that a military hardware storage facility was designed and built safely involves keen awareness of many complex and detailed procedures, rules, and regulations that are unique to this field of endeavor
textreferences: Engineer A had no significant training or knowledge in these areas.
textreferences: Engineer A may be a very competent engineer, Engineer A is clearly not knowledgeable in this very technical and complicated area.
textreferences: making certain that a military hardware storage facility was designed and built safely involves keen awareness of many complex and detailed procedures, rules, and regulations that are unique to this field of endeavor
wasattributedto: Case 74 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:37:27.717514
was generated by: ProEthica Case 74 Extraction

Engineer A Competence Currency Severe Weather Structural Design Domain
type: CompetenceConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A had general structural design competence and experience in the severe weather region but lacked specific currency with the most recently published improved design parameters, creating a competence gap that contributed to the structural failure
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.9
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Competence Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A's competence in severe weather structural design was constrained by the boundaries of their actual knowledge at the time of design, specifically the gap created by non-familiarity with recently published improved design methods and parameters for severe weather conditions, limiting the quality of protection Engineer A could provide to building occupants and the public.
discoveredincase: 74
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T23:24:05.617004+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 74
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T23:24:05.617004+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.2.b; Hallamaa & Kalliokoski 2022
sourcetext: Although Engineer A has knowledge and experience in structural design, new and improved design methods have recently been developed to address the severe weather conditions
temporalscope: At the time of structural design
textreferences: Although Engineer A has knowledge and experience in structural design, new and improved design methods have recently been developed to address the severe weather conditions
textreferences: While Engineer A generally attempts to stay current on changing structural design trends, Engineer A was not familiar with this recent technical literature
wasattributedto: Case 74 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:37:27.709569
was generated by: ProEthica Case 74 Extraction

Engineer A Ethical High Road Recognition Post-Structural Failure
type: EthicalHighRoadIdentificationBeyondStandardofCareCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Ethical High Road Identification Beyond Standard of Care Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A needed Ethical High Road Identification Beyond Standard of Care Capability to recognize that proactively seeking out and applying newly published severe weather design standards — even before they became universally adopted — would have constituted the ethical high road beyond the minimum standard of care, and to communicate this distinction in post-accident reflection.
casecontext: The ethics board's analysis required distinguishing between the minimum ethical floor (standard of care compliance) and the ethical high road (proactive adoption of newly published improved design standards), with Engineer A's failure to apply the new standards potentially representing a failure to take the ethical high road rather than an ethical violation.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.86
demonstratedthrough: The case illustrates that applying newly published severe weather design parameters before they became universally adopted would have represented going above and beyond the minimum standard of care — the ethical high road — even if not yet strictly required by the then-current standard of care.
discoveredincase: 74
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T23:24:18.689329+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 74
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T23:24:18.689329+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: new and improved design methods have recently been developed to address the severe weather conditions
textreferences: These new and improved severe weather design standards have been published in the most recent technical literature
textreferences: While Engineer A generally attempts to stay current on changing structural design trends, Engineer A was not familiar with this recent technical literature
textreferences: new and improved design methods have recently been developed to address the severe weather conditions
wasattributedto: Case 74 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:37:27.711319
was generated by: ProEthica Case 74 Extraction

Engineer A Evolving Standard Awareness Deficit Present Case
type: EvolvingProfessionalStandardAwarenessCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Evolving Professional Standard Awareness Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A demonstrated insufficient Evolving Professional Standard Awareness Capability by failing to recognize and incorporate newly published severe weather design standards into practice, despite generally attempting to stay current with structural design trends.
casecontext: The newly published severe weather design standards represented an evolution in the professional standard applicable to structural design in Engineer A's practice region; Engineer A's failure to track this evolution contributed to the design deficiency.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.86
demonstratedthrough: Engineer A's general effort to stay current with design trends was not sufficient to capture the newly published severe weather design standards, indicating a gap in the systematic monitoring of evolving technical standards relevant to the engineer's practice domain.
discoveredincase: 74
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T23:24:18.689329+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 74
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T23:24:18.689329+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: new and improved design methods have recently been developed to address the severe weather conditions in the location in which Engineer A practices
textreferences: These new and improved severe weather design standards have been published in the most recent technical literature
textreferences: While Engineer A generally attempts to stay current on changing structural design trends, Engineer A was not familiar with this recent technical literature
textreferences: new and improved design methods have recently been developed to address the severe weather conditions in the location in which Engineer A practices
wasattributedto: Case 74 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:37:27.710163
was generated by: ProEthica Case 74 Extraction

Engineer A Lessons Learned Communication Post-Structural Failure
type: LessonsLearnedPost-AccidentCommunicationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Lessons Learned Post-Accident Communication Capability
capabilitystatement: Even if the ethics board concluded that Engineer A did not commit an ethical violation, Engineer A was required to exercise Lessons Learned Post-Accident Communication Capability by honestly acknowledging that applying the newly published severe weather design standards would have prevented the structural failure, and communicating this lesson to colleagues and the profession.
casecontext: The obligation to acknowledge missed opportunities and communicate lessons learned arose from the structural failure, requiring Engineer A to contribute to professional knowledge advancement by honestly characterizing what could have been done differently.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.87
demonstratedthrough: Following the structural failure, Engineer A faced the obligation to acknowledge that the newly published severe weather design parameters, had they been applied, would have prevented the failure — communicating this as a lessons-learned finding without necessarily characterizing the original design as a professional error.
discoveredincase: 74
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T23:24:18.689329+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 74
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T23:24:18.689329+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Within one year following construction, severe weather conditions cause significant structural damage to the building
textreferences: It is determined that had Engineer A followed the severe weather design parameters, the structural failure would not have occurred
textreferences: Within one year following construction, severe weather conditions cause significant structural damage to the building
wasattributedto: Case 74 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:37:27.710971
was generated by: ProEthica Case 74 Extraction

Engineer A Missed Opportunity Lessons Learned Severe Weather Structural Failure
type: MissedOpportunityLessonsLearnedDisclosureConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The Board's discussion explicitly notes that even without an ethical violation finding, Engineer A should acknowledge the missed opportunity represented by the newly published severe weather design standards
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.89
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Missed Opportunity Lessons Learned Disclosure Constraint
constraintstatement: Even if the Board concludes that Engineer A did not commit an ethical violation because the newly published severe weather design parameters had not yet achieved mandatory standard status, Engineer A is constrained to affirmatively acknowledge in post-accident professional statements that the newly published technical literature represented a missed opportunity that, had it been incorporated, would have prevented the structural failure.
discoveredincase: 74
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T23:24:05.617004+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 74
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T23:24:05.617004+00:00
importance: medium
severity: medium
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; Missed Opportunity Lessons Learned Disclosure Constraint (ontology)
sourcetext: It is determined that had Engineer A followed the severe weather design parameters, the structural failure would not have occurred
temporalscope: Post-structural failure, in any professional statements or proceedings
textreferences: It is determined that had Engineer A followed the severe weather design parameters, the structural failure would not have occurred
textreferences: While Engineer A generally attempts to stay current on changing structural design trends, Engineer A was not familiar with this recent technical literature
wasattributedto: Case 74 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:37:27.709313
was generated by: ProEthica Case 74 Extraction

Engineer A Missed Opportunity vs Error Distinction Present Case
type: MissedOpportunityvsErrorDistinctionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Missed Opportunity vs Error Distinction Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A needed to exercise Missed Opportunity vs Error Distinction Capability to correctly characterize whether the failure to apply newly published severe weather design standards — which had not yet been universally adopted — constituted a professional error (deviation from standard of care) or a missed opportunity (failure to go above and beyond the then-current standard of care).
casecontext: The ethics board evaluated whether Engineer A's design failure constituted an ethical violation, requiring application of the missed opportunity vs. error distinction to determine whether the standard of care at the time required application of the newly published severe weather design parameters.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstratedthrough: The case requires distinguishing between Engineer A's failure to apply newly published but not yet universally adopted severe weather design standards as either a professional error triggering acknowledgment obligations or a missed opportunity that, while regrettable, did not constitute an ethical violation.
discoveredincase: 74
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T23:24:18.689329+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 74
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T23:24:18.689329+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer A, who has experience with structural designs in this area of the country, designs the structural system based upon what Engineer A believes constitutes sound structural engineering principles
textreferences: Engineer A, who has experience with structural designs in this area of the country, designs the structural system based upon what Engineer A believes constitutes sound structural engineering principles
textreferences: While Engineer A generally attempts to stay current on changing structural design trends, Engineer A was not familiar with this recent technical literature
textreferences: new and improved design methods have recently been developed to address the severe weather conditions
wasattributedto: Case 74 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:37:27.710589
was generated by: ProEthica Case 74 Extraction

Engineer A Post-Accident Hindsight Non-Retroactive Error Imposition Severe Weather Failure
type: Post-AccidentHindsightNon-RetroactiveErrorImpositionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The structural failure and subsequent determination that the new design parameters would have prevented it creates hindsight pressure to characterize Engineer A's design as erroneous; this constraint limits that retroactive imposition
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.91
constrainedentity: Ethics Board / Engineer A
constraintclass: Post-Accident Hindsight Non-Retroactive Error Imposition Constraint
constraintstatement: The ethics board and Engineer A are constrained from characterizing Engineer A's design decision as a professional error solely because post-accident analysis reveals that application of the newly published severe weather design parameters would have prevented the structural failure, absent evidence that those parameters constituted the applicable standard of care at the time of design.
discoveredincase: 74
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T23:24:05.617004+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 74
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T23:24:05.617004+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE BER adjudicative principles; Post-Accident Hindsight Non-Retroactive Error Imposition Constraint (ontology)
sourcetext: It is determined that had Engineer A followed the severe weather design parameters, the structural failure would not have occurred
temporalscope: Post-structural failure ethics review
textreferences: Engineer A, who has experience with structural designs in this area of the country, designs the structural system based upon what Engineer A believes constitutes sound structural engineering principles
textreferences: It is determined that had Engineer A followed the severe weather design parameters, the structural failure would not have occurred
wasattributedto: Case 74 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:37:27.709114
was generated by: ProEthica Case 74 Extraction

Engineer A Post-Accident Self-Assessment Present Case
type: Post-AccidentDesignSelf-AssessmentandErrorThresholdDeterminationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Post-Accident Design Self-Assessment and Error Threshold Determination Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A was required to exercise Post-Accident Design Self-Assessment and Error Threshold Determination Capability following the structural failure, honestly evaluating whether the failure to apply newly published severe weather design standards constituted a professional error or a missed opportunity, and correctly characterizing the situation in light of the applicable standard of care at the time of design.
casecontext: Post-structural failure, Engineer A faced the obligation to honestly characterize whether the design decision — using established but outdated methods — constituted an ethical violation or a missed opportunity, given that the new standards had been published but were not yet universally adopted.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.89
demonstratedthrough: Following the structural failure of the building Engineer A designed, Engineer A was obligated to conduct an honest and objective self-assessment of prior design decisions, including evaluating whether the failure to incorporate newly published severe weather design parameters crossed the threshold from a missed opportunity into a professional error.
discoveredincase: 74
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T23:24:18.689329+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 74
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T23:24:18.689329+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Within one year following construction, severe weather conditions cause significant structural damage to the building
textreferences: It is determined that had Engineer A followed the severe weather design parameters, the structural failure would not have occurred
textreferences: Within one year following construction, severe weather conditions cause significant structural damage to the building
wasattributedto: Case 74 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:37:27.710367
was generated by: ProEthica Case 74 Extraction

Engineer A Pre-Standardization Technical Literature Currency Severe Weather Design
type: Pre-StandardizationTechnicalLiteratureCurrencyConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A designed a structural system in a severe weather area without incorporating recently published improved design parameters; the building subsequently suffered structural failure during a severe weather event that the new parameters would have prevented
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.88
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Pre-Standardization Technical Literature Currency Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A, as a structural engineer with experience designing in a severe weather region, was constrained to actively monitor and incorporate newly published severe weather design methods and parameters from technical literature, even though those parameters had not yet been codified into formal mandatory standards, given that Engineer A generally attempted to maintain professional currency and was practicing in a domain with known severe weather hazard sensitivity.
discoveredincase: 74
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T23:24:05.617004+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 74
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T23:24:05.617004+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.2.b; Professional standard of care for structural engineering in severe weather regions
sourcetext: new and improved design methods have recently been developed to address the severe weather conditions in the location in which Engineer A practices
temporalscope: At the time of structural design, prior to building construction
textreferences: These new and improved severe weather design standards have been published in the most recent technical literature
textreferences: While Engineer A generally attempts to stay current on changing structural design trends, Engineer A was not familiar with this recent technical literature
textreferences: new and improved design methods have recently been developed to address the severe weather conditions in the location in which Engineer A practices
wasattributedto: Case 74 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:37:27.705919
was generated by: ProEthica Case 74 Extraction

Engineer A Present Case Missed Opportunity vs Error Distinction
type: MissedOpportunityvsErrorDistinctionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Missed Opportunity vs Error Distinction Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A's situation illustrates the missed opportunity vs. error distinction: the failure to incorporate newly published severe weather design parameters constituted a missed opportunity to go above and beyond the standard of care, not a professional error, because those parameters had not yet achieved mandatory standard status.
casecontext: Post-structural failure evaluation of whether Engineer A's design choices constituted errors or missed opportunities
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.85
demonstratedthrough: Board's conclusion that Engineer A did not commit an ethical violation, implicitly characterizing the failure to adopt new parameters as a missed opportunity rather than an error requiring acknowledgment
discoveredincase: 74
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T23:31:31.051194+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 74
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T23:31:31.051194+00:00
importance: medium
possessedby: Engineer A (Present Case)
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: the Board is of the view that Engineer A's actions were within the basic standards of the profession
textreferences: Had those parameters and methods constituted 'standards,' this Board may have reached another result.
textreferences: the Board is of the view that Engineer A's actions were within the basic standards of the profession
textreferences: the facts and circumstances in this case do not indicate that the severe weather design parameters and methods constituted 'standards.'
wasattributedto: Case 74 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:37:27.718080
was generated by: ProEthica Case 74 Extraction

Engineer A Present Case Standard of Care Ethical Sufficiency Boundary Recognition
type: StandardofCareEthicalSufficiencyBoundaryRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Standard of Care Ethical Sufficiency Boundary Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A's conduct demonstrated compliance with the ethical sufficiency floor established by the accepted professional standard of care — using established structural engineering methods — which the Board recognized as sufficient to avoid an ethical violation finding, even though the engineer did not incorporate newly published severe weather design parameters.
casecontext: Structural design failure case where engineer used established methods meeting standard of care but not the most current published parameters
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: Board's finding that Engineer A's actions were within the basic standards of the profession, establishing that standard of care compliance was ethically sufficient in the absence of moral culpability
discoveredincase: 74
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T23:31:31.051194+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 74
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T23:31:31.051194+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A (Present Case)
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: the Board is of the view that Engineer A's actions were within the basic standards of the profession of engineering, as well as most professions and the Board cannot conclude that Engineer A acted unethically.
textreferences: Had those parameters and methods constituted 'standards,' this Board may have reached another result.
textreferences: the Board is of the view that Engineer A's actions were within the basic standards of the profession of engineering, as well as most professions and the Board cannot conclude that Engineer A acted unethically.
wasattributedto: Case 74 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:37:27.717837
was generated by: ProEthica Case 74 Extraction

Engineer A Severe Weather Structural Design Parameter Application Present Case
type: StructuralEngineeringDesignCompetence
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Structural Engineering Design Competence
capabilitystatement: Engineer A possessed structural engineering design competence sufficient to design based on established methods but lacked current application of newly published severe weather design parameters, representing a gap in the currency of their domain-specific competence.
casecontext: Engineer A had experience with structural designs in a severe weather region and applied established methods, but the newly published severe weather design standards — which would have prevented the failure — were not incorporated.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: Engineer A designed the structural system based on what they believed constituted sound structural engineering principles, drawing on knowledge and experience in structural design, but without applying the newly published severe weather design parameters.
discoveredincase: 74
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T23:24:18.689329+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 74
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T23:24:18.689329+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer A, who has experience with structural designs in this area of the country, designs the structural system based upon what Engineer A believes constitutes sound structural engineering principles
textreferences: Although Engineer A has knowledge and experience in structural design, new and improved design methods have recently been developed to address the severe weather conditions
textreferences: Engineer A, who has experience with structural designs in this area of the country, designs the structural system based upon what Engineer A believes constitutes sound structural engineering principles
textreferences: It is determined that had Engineer A followed the severe weather design parameters, the structural failure would not have occurred
wasattributedto: Case 74 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:37:27.709990
was generated by: ProEthica Case 74 Extraction

Engineer A Standard of Care Ethical Floor Recognition Present Case
type: StandardofCareEthicalSufficiencyBoundaryRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Standard of Care Ethical Sufficiency Boundary Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A needed Standard of Care Ethical Sufficiency Boundary Recognition Capability to understand whether designing to established structural engineering principles — without incorporating newly published but not yet universally adopted severe weather design standards — met the ethical floor of the accepted professional standard of care, and whether the failure to apply the new standards crossed that floor into ethical violation.
casecontext: The ethics board evaluated whether Engineer A's design met the accepted professional standard of care, which is the ethical sufficiency floor below which conduct constitutes a professional error; the newly published but not yet universally adopted severe weather design standards were central to this determination.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: The case requires determining whether Engineer A's reliance on established structural engineering principles, without incorporating newly published severe weather design parameters, met the accepted professional standard of care at the time of design, establishing the ethical sufficiency boundary for culpability assessment.
discoveredincase: 74
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T23:24:18.689329+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 74
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T23:24:18.689329+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer A designs the structural system based upon what Engineer A believes constitutes sound structural engineering principles
textreferences: Engineer A designs the structural system based upon what Engineer A believes constitutes sound structural engineering principles
textreferences: It is determined that had Engineer A followed the severe weather design parameters, the structural failure would not have occurred
textreferences: new and improved design methods have recently been developed to address the severe weather conditions
wasattributedto: Case 74 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:37:27.710801
was generated by: ProEthica Case 74 Extraction

Engineer A Standard of Care Ethical Sufficiency Boundary Severe Weather Structural Design
type: StandardofCareComplianceEthicalSufficiencyBoundaryConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The Board must assess whether Engineer A's design, based on sound structural engineering principles without the newly published severe weather parameters, met the applicable standard of care, and whether meeting that standard is ethically sufficient to avoid a violation finding
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.92
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Standard of Care Compliance Ethical Sufficiency Boundary Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A's ethical sufficiency in structural design was bounded by compliance with the applicable professional standard of care for severe weather structural design at the time of design; if Engineer A met that standard of care — including the degree to which newly published but pre-standardization literature was required to be incorporated — then standard-of-care compliance constitutes an ethical floor below which culpability attaches, while not foreclosing the ethical opportunity to have adopted the improved methods voluntarily.
discoveredincase: 74
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T23:24:05.617004+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 74
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T23:24:05.617004+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.2.b; Standard of Care Compliance Ethical Sufficiency Boundary Constraint (ontology)
sourcetext: Engineer A, who has experience with structural designs in this area of the country, designs the structural system based upon what Engineer A believes constitutes sound structural engineering principles
temporalscope: At the time of structural design and during post-accident ethics review
textreferences: Although Engineer A has knowledge and experience in structural design, new and improved design methods have recently been developed
textreferences: Engineer A, who has experience with structural designs in this area of the country, designs the structural system based upon what Engineer A believes constitutes sound structural engineering principles
wasattributedto: Case 74 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:37:27.708956
was generated by: ProEthica Case 74 Extraction

Engineer A Technical Literature Currency Maintenance Deficit Present Case
type: TechnicalLiteratureCurrencyMaintenanceCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Technical Literature Currency Maintenance Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A possessed a general disposition to stay current with structural design trends but failed to exercise sufficient Technical Literature Currency Maintenance Capability with respect to newly published severe weather design standards, resulting in a design that did not incorporate improved methods that would have prevented structural failure.
casecontext: Engineer A designed a structural system in a severe weather region without awareness of newly published severe weather design parameters; the building subsequently suffered structural failure that the new parameters would have prevented.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.91
demonstratedthrough: Engineer A generally attempted to stay current on changing structural design trends but was not familiar with the recent technical literature publishing new severe weather design standards, indicating an intermediate-level capability that was not adequately exercised in this instance.
discoveredincase: 74
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T23:24:18.689329+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 74
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T23:24:18.689329+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: While Engineer A generally attempts to stay current on changing structural design trends, Engineer A was not familiar with this recent technical literature
textreferences: While Engineer A generally attempts to stay current on changing structural design trends, Engineer A was not familiar with this recent technical literature
textreferences: new and improved severe weather design standards have been published in the most recent technical literature
wasattributedto: Case 74 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:37:27.709803
was generated by: ProEthica Case 74 Extraction

Engineer A — Professional Literature Currency Failure
type: ProfessionalLiteratureCurrencyFailureState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From publication of new severe weather design standards through completion of Engineer A's design (and arguably through the structural failure event)
affectedparties: Building occupants
affectedparties: Building owner/client
affectedparties: Engineer A
concept category: State
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 74
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T23:17:12.392184+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 74
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T23:17:12.392184+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: new and improved design methods have recently been developed to address the severe weather conditions in the location in which Engineer A practices
stateclass: Professional Literature Currency Failure State
subject: Engineer A's awareness of recently published severe weather design standards
terminatedby: Not terminated prior to design completion; Engineer A completed design without awareness of new standards
textreferences: These new and improved severe weather design standards have been published in the most recent technical literature
textreferences: While Engineer A generally attempts to stay current on changing structural design trends, Engineer A was not familiar with this recent technical literature
textreferences: new and improved design methods have recently been developed to address the severe weather conditions in the location in which Engineer A practices
triggeringevent: Publication of new and improved severe weather design standards in technical literature while Engineer A was engaged in the structural design
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 74 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:37:27.701285
was generated by: ProEthica Case 74 Extraction

Engineer A's design completion before incorporation into plans and specifications
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: Engineer A completes his design which is later incorporated in the plans and specifications for the building
from entity text: Engineer A's design completion
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: incorporation into plans and specifications
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: incorporation into plans and specifications
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:37:27.718795
was generated by: ProEthica Case 74 Extraction

Engineer A's design phase during period when new severe weather standards existed in literature but were not yet adopted as standards
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: during
evidence: While Engineer A generally attempts to stay current on changing structural design trends, Engineer A was not familiar with this recent technical literature...the facts and circumstances in this case do not indicate that the severe weather design parameters and methods constituted 'standards.'
from entity text: Engineer A's design phase
owl time property: time:intervalDuring
to entity text: period when new severe weather standards existed in literature but were not yet adopted as standards
comment: Entity1 occurs entirely within the duration of Entity2
interval during: period when new severe weather standards existed i
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:37:27.718953
was generated by: ProEthica Case 74 Extraction

Engineer A's general awareness of design trends before publication of new severe weather design standards
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: Although Engineer A has knowledge and experience in structural design, new and improved design methods have recently been developed...Engineer A generally attempts to stay current on changing structural design trends, Engineer A was not familiar with this recent technical literature.
from entity text: Engineer A's general awareness of design trends
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: publication of new severe weather design standards
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: publication of new severe weather design standards
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:37:27.719052
was generated by: ProEthica Case 74 Extraction

Engineering Firm Consulting Practice Competence Gap Subconsultant Engagement BER-85-3
type: ConsultingPracticeCompetenceGapSubconsultantEngagementObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The Board in BER 85-3 distinguished the consulting practice context from the employment context, noting that consulting firms have greater flexibility to structure their workforce and engage subconsultants to address competence gaps.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.82
discoveredincase: 74
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T23:29:07.641083+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 74
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T23:29:07.641083+00:00
importance: medium
obligatedparty: Engineering consulting firms generally (as distinguished from public sector employment context in BER 85-3)
obligationclass: Consulting Practice Competence Gap Subconsultant Engagement Obligation
obligationstatement: An engineering consulting firm retained to perform services including land surveying, when lacking in-house surveying expertise, is obligated to engage qualified subconsultants, establish joint ventures, or hire qualified personnel to fill that competence gap, rather than performing the out-of-competence work directly.
sourcetext: if an engineering firm is retained to perform engineering and land surveying services and the firm does not have expertise in the area of land surveying, under the provisions of the NSPE Code, the firm should retain individuals with that expertise.
temporalscope: At the time a consulting firm accepts an engagement that includes work outside its competence
textreferences: Because of the relatively dynamic nature of private consulting practice, engineering firms frequently establish joint ventures and subcontracts, hire additional qualified personnel, or make other arrangements in order to serve the needs of a client more effectively and efficiently.
textreferences: engineering firms frequently establish joint ventures and subcontracts, hire additional qualified personnel, or make other arrangements in order to serve the needs of a client more effectively and efficiently.
textreferences: if an engineering firm is retained to perform engineering and land surveying services and the firm does not have expertise in the area of land surveying, under the provisions of the NSPE Code, the firm should retain individuals with that expertise.
wasattributedto: Case 74 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:37:27.715627
was generated by: ProEthica Case 74 Extraction

Ethics Board Causal Nexus Assessment Engineer A Design Failure
type: CausalNexusEstablishmentforDesignFailureCulpabilityAssessmentCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Causal Nexus Establishment for Design Failure Culpability Assessment Capability
capabilitystatement: The ethics board evaluating Engineer A's design failure exercised Causal Nexus Establishment for Design Failure Culpability Assessment Capability by determining whether a demonstrable causal nexus existed between Engineer A's failure to apply newly published severe weather design standards and the resulting structural failure, using the counterfactual finding that the failure would not have occurred had the new parameters been followed.
casecontext: The ethics board was required to establish a causal nexus between Engineer A's failure to incorporate newly published severe weather design standards and the structural failure before finding ethical culpability, applying counterfactual causal analysis as a prerequisite to the culpability determination.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: The determination that 'had Engineer A followed the severe weather design parameters, the structural failure would not have occurred' represents the causal nexus finding that the ethics board was obligated to establish before making any ethical culpability determination.
discoveredincase: 74
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T23:24:18.689329+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 74
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T23:24:18.689329+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Ethics Board
proficiencylevel: expert
sourcetext: It is determined that had Engineer A followed the severe weather design parameters, the structural failure would not have occurred
textreferences: It is determined that had Engineer A followed the severe weather design parameters, the structural failure would not have occurred
wasattributedto: Case 74 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:37:27.711110
was generated by: ProEthica Case 74 Extraction

Ethics Board Design Failure Ethical Violation Threshold Assessment Present Case
type: DesignFailureEthicalViolationThresholdAssessmentCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Design Failure Ethical Violation Threshold Assessment Capability
capabilitystatement: The Board demonstrated the capability to correctly assess that Engineer A's design failure did not cross the threshold from a legal/negligence matter into an ethical violation, applying cross-professional analogical reasoning and the moral culpability standard to reach this conclusion.
casecontext: Ethics board evaluation of whether structural design failure in severe weather region constituted an ethical violation
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.89
demonstratedthrough: Board's analysis distinguishing ethical impropriety from design failure, applying the medicine and law analogies, and concluding Engineer A acted within basic professional standards
discoveredincase: 74
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T23:31:31.051194+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 74
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T23:31:31.051194+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review (Present Case)
proficiencylevel: expert
sourcetext: Is performing engineering design work that may result in a failure unethical?
textreferences: Clearly, there is a distinction between ethical issues and legal issues.
textreferences: Is performing engineering design work that may result in a failure unethical?
textreferences: an engineer may design a facility that fails and that alone does not mean that the engineer is negligent—much less unethical.
textreferences: in medicine, physicians take steps that sometimes cause patients to die and in the law attorneys take steps that cause clients to lose lawsuits and those events are not generally considered to be unethical per se
textreferences: the Board is of the view that Engineer A's actions were within the basic standards of the profession of engineering
wasattributedto: Case 74 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:37:27.716820
was generated by: ProEthica Case 74 Extraction

Ethics Board Employment vs Consulting Distinction BER-85-3
type: EmploymentvsConsultingCompetenceFlexibilityDistinctionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Employment vs Consulting Competence Flexibility Distinction Capability
capabilitystatement: The Board demonstrated the capability to distinguish between consulting practice — where firms can engage subconsultants and restructure their workforce to fill competence gaps — and employment contexts — where such flexibility is unavailable and the individual must personally possess the required competence — applying this distinction to find Engineer A's acceptance of the county surveyor position unethical.
casecontext: BER Case 85-3 review of chemical PE accepting county surveyor appointment without surveying background
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: Board's analysis distinguishing consulting firm flexibility from employment context rigidity in BER Case 85-3, finding it impossible for a chemical PE to perform county surveyor duties without surveying expertise
discoveredincase: 74
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T23:31:31.051194+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 74
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T23:31:31.051194+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review (BER Case 85-3)
proficiencylevel: expert
sourcetext: obviously there are important distinctions in applying the NSPE Code language to a consulting practice and applying the language in the context of an employment relationship.
textreferences: In the former situation, the firm has a good deal more discretion and flexibility and may be able to structure its workforce to fit the needs and requirements of a particular job for which the firm is being retained.
textreferences: from a practical standpoint, it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible in the usual employment context, for a county surveyor with no background or expertise in surveying to perform effective oversight
textreferences: obviously there are important distinctions in applying the NSPE Code language to a consulting practice and applying the language in the context of an employment relationship.
wasattributedto: Case 74 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:37:27.716460
was generated by: ProEthica Case 74 Extraction

Ethics Board Moral Culpability Threshold Discrimination Present Case
type: MoralCulpabilityThresholdDiscriminationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Moral Culpability Threshold Discrimination Capability
capabilitystatement: The Board demonstrated the capability to correctly apply the moral culpability threshold, finding that Engineer A's failure to incorporate newly published severe weather design parameters did not constitute intentional, reckless, or malicious conduct and therefore did not rise to the level of an ethical violation.
casecontext: Ethics board review of structural design failure in severe weather region where engineer used established but not most current design parameters
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstratedthrough: Board's conclusion that Engineer A acted within basic standards of the profession despite the design failure, because no moral culpability was demonstrated
discoveredincase: 74
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T23:31:31.051194+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 74
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T23:31:31.051194+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review (Present Case)
proficiencylevel: expert
sourcetext: It is the Board's view that in order for an engineer to be found unethical for a design failure, the engineer must demonstrate some level of moral culpability.
textreferences: It is the Board's view that in order for an engineer to be found unethical for a design failure, the engineer must demonstrate some level of moral culpability.
textreferences: the Board is of the view that Engineer A's actions were within the basic standards of the profession of engineering
textreferences: the mere fact that an engineer did not follow the most recent literature and the professional practice resulted in some harm is insufficient, in the Board's view, to find the engineer to be deemed unethical.
wasattributedto: Case 74 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:37:27.716103
was generated by: ProEthica Case 74 Extraction

Ethics Board Pre-Standardization Culpability Threshold Engineer A Design Failure
type: Pre-StandardizationCulpabilityThresholdConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The Board must determine whether Engineer A's failure to apply newly published but not-yet-formally-standardized severe weather design parameters constitutes an ethical violation, given that the parameters existed in technical literature but had not achieved mandatory standard status at the time of design
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.85
constrainedentity: Ethics Board evaluating Engineer A
constraintclass: Pre-Standardization Culpability Threshold Constraint
constraintstatement: The ethics board evaluating Engineer A's design failure was constrained from finding an ethical violation based solely on the post-accident determination that application of the pre-standardization severe weather design parameters would have prevented the structural failure, without first establishing that the literature had achieved sufficient professional consensus to define the standard of care at the time of design and that a demonstrable causal nexus existed between Engineer A's non-adoption and the harm.
discoveredincase: 74
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T23:24:05.617004+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 74
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T23:24:05.617004+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE BER adjudicative standards; principles of fair professional ethics adjudication
sourcetext: It is determined that had Engineer A followed the severe weather design parameters, the structural failure would not have occurred
temporalscope: During ethics board review following the structural failure
textreferences: It is determined that had Engineer A followed the severe weather design parameters, the structural failure would not have occurred
textreferences: These new and improved severe weather design standards have been published in the most recent technical literature
textreferences: new and improved design methods have recently been developed to address the severe weather conditions
wasattributedto: Case 74 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:37:27.706132
was generated by: ProEthica Case 74 Extraction

Ethics Board Precedent-Informed Competence Standard Application Present Case
type: Precedent-InformedCompetenceStandardApplicationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Precedent-Informed Competence Standard Application Capability
capabilitystatement: The Board demonstrated the capability to retrieve and apply BER Cases 98-8, 94-8, and 85-3 as precedents for the fundamental principle that engineers must practice within their area of competence, while distinguishing those cases from the present case which raised the different question of whether a design failure constitutes an ethical violation.
casecontext: Ethics board analysis of structural design failure case using prior BER competence precedents
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: Board's triangulation of three prior BER cases to establish the competence principle, then distinguishing the present case as raising a different threshold question about design failure and moral culpability
discoveredincase: 74
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T23:31:31.051194+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 74
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T23:31:31.051194+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review (Present Case)
proficiencylevel: expert
sourcetext: The NSPE Board of Ethical Review (Board) considered the issue of professional competency on several occasions.
textreferences: Although, the cases cited are not precisely the same as the facts in the present case, the Board believes these cases illustrate the important fundamental point that licensed engineers must make all efforts to perform professional services solely within their area of competence
textreferences: The NSPE Board of Ethical Review (Board) considered the issue of professional competency on several occasions.
textreferences: a fundamental question that must be addressed is a somewhat different question for the Board: Is performing engineering design work that may result in a failure unethical?
wasattributedto: Case 74 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:37:27.717332
was generated by: ProEthica Case 74 Extraction

Ethics Board Reasonable Currency Definition Present Case
type: ReasonableCurrencyDefinitionandCalibrationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Reasonable Currency Definition and Calibration Capability
capabilitystatement: The Board demonstrated the capability to define 'reasonable currency' by distinguishing between newly published parameters not yet constituting standards (which need not be immediately adopted) and fully peer-reviewed, adopted standards (which must be followed), calibrating Engineer A's currency obligation accordingly.
casecontext: Ethics board evaluation of whether Engineer A's failure to incorporate newly published severe weather design parameters constituted a currency failure
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstratedthrough: Board's articulation that engineers cannot be expected to incorporate every new technique not fully tested or peer-reviewed, and that the severe weather parameters had not yet achieved 'standard' status
discoveredincase: 74
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T23:31:31.051194+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 74
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T23:31:31.051194+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review (Present Case)
proficiencylevel: expert
sourcetext: The Board believes that the definition of what is 'current' must be reasonable as engineers cannot be expected to incorporate each and every new and innovative technique or parameter that has not been fully tested or peer reviewed.
textreferences: Following a reasonable period of time, innovative techniques and parameters may be incorporated into generally accepted practice and at such time, once well defined, and as part of the body of technical knowledge, such techniques become standards that should be followed.
textreferences: The Board believes that the definition of what is 'current' must be reasonable as engineers cannot be expected to incorporate each and every new and innovative technique or parameter that has not been fully tested or peer reviewed.
textreferences: the facts and circumstances in this case do not indicate that the severe weather design parameters and methods constituted 'standards.'
wasattributedto: Case 74 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:37:27.716287
was generated by: ProEthica Case 74 Extraction

II.1.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:50:19.478267
was generated by: ProEthica Case 74 Extraction

II.1.b.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:50:19.478320
was generated by: ProEthica Case 74 Extraction

II.2.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:50:19.478362
was generated by: ProEthica Case 74 Extraction

II.2.a.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:50:19.478398
was generated by: ProEthica Case 74 Extraction

III.8.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:50:19.478582
was generated by: ProEthica Case 74 Extraction

NSPE Code of Ethics
type: ProfessionalCode
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.95
createdby: National Society of Professional Engineers
discoveredincase: 74
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T23:16:34.677342+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 74
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T23:16:34.677342+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Professional Code
sourcetext: Engineer A generally attempts to stay current on changing structural design trends
textreferences: Engineer A generally attempts to stay current on changing structural design trends
textreferences: Engineer A, who has experience with structural designs in this area of the country, designs the structural system based upon what Engineer A believes constitutes sound structural engineering principles
usedby: Engineer A (implicitly governing professional obligations)
usedincontext: Establishes the professional obligation for engineers to maintain competence and stay current with evolving technical knowledge and standards in their field of practice
version: Current at time of case
wasattributedto: Case 74 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:37:27.700390
was generated by: ProEthica Case 74 Extraction

NSPE_Code_of_Ethics_Section_II_1_b
type: ProfessionalCode
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.97
createdby: National Society of Professional Engineers
discoveredincase: 74
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers – Section II.1.b
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T23:17:59.106452+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 74
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T23:17:59.106452+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Professional Code
sourcetext: Had those parameters and methods constituted 'standards,' this Board may have reached another result. (See NSPE Code Section II.1.b.)
textreferences: Had those parameters and methods constituted 'standards,' this Board may have reached another result. (See NSPE Code Section II.1.b.)
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review in the present case
usedincontext: Cited at the conclusion of the discussion as the provision that would have been implicated had the severe weather design parameters and methods constituted formal 'standards,' potentially changing the Board's ethical conclusion
version: Current at time of case
wasattributedto: Case 74 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:37:27.701970
was generated by: ProEthica Case 74 Extraction

NSPE_Code_of_Ethics_Section_II_2_b
type: ProfessionalCode
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.97
createdby: National Society of Professional Engineers
discoveredincase: 74
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers – Section II.2.b
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T23:17:59.106452+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 74
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T23:17:59.106452+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Professional Code
sourcetext: the Board could not see any way in which the engineer could be acting in accordance with NSPE Code Section II.2.b. under these facts
textreferences: Engineer A had an obligation under the NSPE Code of Ethics to bring the matter to the attention of his client and to the authorities as appropriate
textreferences: the Board could not see any way in which the engineer could be acting in accordance with NSPE Code Section II.2.b. under these facts
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review in evaluating all referenced BER cases and the present case
usedincontext: Cited as the specific provision governing engineers practicing within their area of competence; the Board references it as the standard Engineer A (county surveyor) could not satisfy, and as the obligation Engineer A (design case) had to report concerns and withdraw if necessary
version: Current at time of case
wasattributedto: Case 74 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:37:27.701827
was generated by: ProEthica Case 74 Extraction

New Standards Published
type: Event
type: NamedIndividual
activates constraint: Competency_Currency_Constraint
activates constraint: Continuing_Education_Obligation
activates constraint: Literature_Awareness_Standard
causes state change: The professional standard of care is elevated; engineers practicing in severe weather regions are now expected to be aware of and apply updated parameters; ignorance of the published standards does not negate the obligation to know them.
concept category: Event
creates obligation: Apply_Current_Standards_When_Known
creates obligation: Monitor_Technical_Literature
creates obligation: Update_Design_Knowledge
emergency status: high
event type: exogenous
temporal marker: Prior to or concurrent with Engineer A's design phase (exact timing unspecified, but before design completion)
temporal sequence: 1
urgency level: high
comment: Newly developed severe weather design standards are published in technical literature, establishing updated parameters for structural design in severe weather regions. These standards represent a meaningful advancement beyond previously established design knowledge.
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:37:27.718328
was generated by: ProEthica Case 74 Extraction

New Standards Published → Structural Damage Occurs
type: CausalChain
type: NamedIndividual
causal language: Newly developed severe weather design standards are published in technical literature, establishing requirements that Engineer A's design, completed without awareness of these standards, failed to meet, contributing to structural damage when a severe weather event occurred
cause: New Standards Published
counterfactual: If new standards had not been published prior to design commencement, Engineer A's design would have been consistent with prevailing standards and may not have been deficient; alternatively, if the severe weather event had not occurred, the deficiency may never have been exposed
effect: Structural Damage Occurs
necessary factors: Building constructed to the deficient design
necessary factors: Engineer A's failure to discover and apply those standards
necessary factors: Publication of new standards establishing higher severe weather design thresholds
necessary factors: Severe weather event meeting or exceeding the threshold addressed by new standards
responsibility type: shared
responsible agent: Engineer A (primary); standards-publishing body (contextual)
sufficient factors: New standards published but not consulted + design finalized and built + severe weather event occurring = structural inadequacy exposed and damage realized
within agent control: false
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:37:27.718651
was generated by: ProEthica Case 74 Extraction

Post-Failure Analysis Completed
type: Event
type: NamedIndividual
activates constraint: Professional_Accountability_Constraint
activates constraint: Public_Disclosure_Constraint
activates constraint: Regulatory_Reporting_Obligation
causes state change: Causal chain from design omission to structural damage is formally established; Engineer A's professional conduct is now subject to definitive retrospective ethical and legal evaluation; the findings become the evidentiary basis for any disciplinary, legal, or professional proceedings.
concept category: Event
creates obligation: Engineer_A_Respond_To_Professional_Inquiry
creates obligation: Notify_Affected_Parties_Of_Findings
creates obligation: Remediate_Or_Demolish_Damaged_Structure
creates obligation: Report_Findings_To_Licensing_Authority
emergency status: high
event type: outcome
temporal marker: After structural damage event; prior to ethical discussion and retrospective evaluation
temporal sequence: 9
urgency level: high
comment: A post-failure investigation and analysis determines that the structural damage was caused by the design's non-conformance with newly published severe weather design parameters, and further concludes that adherence to those parameters would have prevented the failure. This finding formally establishes the causal link between Engineer A's design decisions and the structural damage.
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:37:27.718571
was generated by: ProEthica Case 74 Extraction

Post-Failure Analysis Completed → Responsibility Attribution to Engineer A's Design Deficiency
type: CausalChain
type: NamedIndividual
causal language: A post-failure investigation and analysis determines that the structural damage was caused by the design's failure to meet the newly published severe weather standards, establishing a direct causal link between Engineer A's design decisions and the resulting harm
cause: Post-Failure Analysis Completed
counterfactual: Without the post-failure analysis, the causal link between Engineer A's decision to skip the literature review and the structural damage would remain unconfirmed, potentially obscuring professional and legal responsibility
effect: Responsibility Attribution to Engineer A's Design Deficiency
necessary factors: Documentation of Engineer A's design decisions and their basis
necessary factors: Existence of published standards against which the design could be measured
necessary factors: Post-failure analysis methodology capable of identifying design deficiency as root cause
necessary factors: Structural damage event providing the subject of investigation
responsibility type: indirect
responsible agent: Engineer A (underlying cause); investigating body (analysis execution)
sufficient factors: Occurrence of damage + forensic investigation + comparison against published standards = confirmed causal attribution of design deficiency to Engineer A's omission
within agent control: false
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:37:27.718727
was generated by: ProEthica Case 74 Extraction

Proceed Without Literature Review
type: Action
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
event role context: Structural Engineer of Record
foreseen unintended effects: Potential gap in awareness of emerging design parameters not yet identified as a risk by Engineer A
fulfills obligation text: Duty to leverage region-specific experience
fulfills obligation text: General duty to apply established structural engineering principles
guided by principle text: Competence in professional practice
guided by principle text: Protection of public health, safety, and welfare
has agent: Engineer A
has mental state: deliberate but uninformed
intended outcome: Efficiently begin design work using established competence and experience in the region
raises obligation text: Duty to perform services only within areas of competence, which implicitly includes awareness of current standards
requires capability text: Awareness of current and emerging severe weather structural design standards
requires capability text: Critical evaluation of whether existing knowledge base is sufficient for the specific project context
requires capability text: Systematic review of recent technical literature relevant to practice region
temporal marker: Pre-design phase, prior to commencement of structural system design
temporal sequence: 2
violates obligation text: Duty to maintain current knowledge of evolving design standards relevant to the specific practice context (NSPE Code Section II.2.b)
within competence: true
comment: Engineer A decided to proceed with the structural design project without first conducting a comprehensive review of the most recent technical literature on severe weather design standards, relying instead on existing knowledge and general awareness of design trends.
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:37:27.718201
was generated by: ProEthica Case 74 Extraction

Proceed Without Literature Review → Structural Damage Occurs
type: CausalChain
type: NamedIndividual
causal language: Engineer A decided to proceed with the structural design project without first conducting a comprehensive literature review, resulting in a design developed without awareness of the new severe weather standards
cause: Proceed Without Literature Review
counterfactual: Had Engineer A conducted a literature review, the new severe weather standards would likely have been discovered and incorporated, potentially preventing or reducing structural damage when the weather event occurred
effect: Structural Damage Occurs
necessary factors: Design proceeding without incorporation of current standards
necessary factors: Engineer A's decision to skip literature review
necessary factors: Existence of newly published severe weather standards
necessary factors: Severe weather event occurring within building's service life
responsibility type: direct
responsible agent: Engineer A
sufficient factors: Combination of skipped literature review + outdated design basis + severe weather event striking the structure
within agent control: true
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:37:27.718607
was generated by: ProEthica Case 74 Extraction

Professional Competence Standard
type: ProfessionalCompetenceStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.92
createdby: NSPE and professional engineering community
discoveredincase: 74
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: Professional Competence and Currency of Knowledge Standard
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T23:16:34.677342+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 74
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T23:16:34.677342+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Professional Competence Standard
sourcetext: Although Engineer A has knowledge and experience in structural design, new and improved design methods have recently been developed
textreferences: Although Engineer A has knowledge and experience in structural design, new and improved design methods have recently been developed
textreferences: While Engineer A generally attempts to stay current on changing structural design trends, Engineer A was not familiar with this recent technical literature
usedby: Engineer A in structural design practice
usedincontext: Governs the obligation of Engineer A to remain current with newly published severe weather design standards and to apply state-of-the-art methods in structural design practice
wasattributedto: Case 74 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:37:27.700540
was generated by: ProEthica Case 74 Extraction

Professional_Competence_Standard_Practice_Within_Expertise
type: ProfessionalCompetenceStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.9
createdby: NSPE / engineering professional community
discoveredincase: 74
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: Professional Competence Standard – Practice Within Area of Expertise
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T23:17:59.106452+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 74
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T23:17:59.106452+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Professional Competence Standard
sourcetext: licensed engineers must make all efforts to perform professional services solely within their area of competence and not be unduly influenced either by employer or client pressures that could cause grave danger to the public health and safety
textreferences: engineers have a fundamental ethical obligation to practice in a professional and competent manner
textreferences: licensed engineers must make all efforts to perform professional services solely within their area of competence and not be unduly influenced either by employer or client pressures that could cause grave danger to the public health and safety
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review as the governing normative standard across all cited cases and the present case
usedincontext: The overarching professional norm, synthesized across BER cases and the NSPE Code, that engineers must practice solely within their area of competence and must not be unduly influenced by employer or client pressures to exceed those boundaries; used as the primary evaluative framework throughout the discussion
version: Current at time of case
wasattributedto: Case 74 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:37:27.702861
was generated by: ProEthica Case 74 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_1
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:50:19.482236
was generated by: ProEthica Case 74 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_10
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:50:19.482773
was generated by: ProEthica Case 74 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_11
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:50:19.482817
was generated by: ProEthica Case 74 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_12
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:50:19.482871
was generated by: ProEthica Case 74 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_13
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:50:19.482905
was generated by: ProEthica Case 74 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_14
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:50:19.482937
was generated by: ProEthica Case 74 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_15
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:50:19.482984
was generated by: ProEthica Case 74 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_16
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:50:19.483018
was generated by: ProEthica Case 74 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_17
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:50:19.483050
was generated by: ProEthica Case 74 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_2
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:50:19.482267
was generated by: ProEthica Case 74 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_3
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:50:19.482407
was generated by: ProEthica Case 74 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_4
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:50:19.482437
was generated by: ProEthica Case 74 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_5
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:50:19.482466
was generated by: ProEthica Case 74 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_6
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:50:19.482495
was generated by: ProEthica Case 74 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_7
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:50:19.482672
was generated by: ProEthica Case 74 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_8
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:50:19.482706
was generated by: ProEthica Case 74 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_9
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:50:19.482739
was generated by: ProEthica Case 74 Extraction

Question_1
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 1
question text: Was it ethical for Engineer A to fail to follow the most recent design parameters for structural design in severe weather areas published in the most recent technical literature?
question type: board_explicit
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:50:19.479234
was generated by: ProEthica Case 74 Extraction

Question_101
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 101
question text: Does the Board's conclusion that Engineer A acted ethically implicitly set a precedent that engineers in rapidly evolving technical domains can rely on their existing expertise without actively monitoring recent literature, and if so, how does that precedent square with the Code's continuing competence obligations?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:50:19.479315
was generated by: ProEthica Case 74 Extraction

Question_102
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 102
question text: What affirmative obligations, if any, does Engineer A bear after the structural failure is attributed to his unfamiliarity with the recent severe weather design parameters — specifically, is there an ethical duty to publicly disclose the lessons learned so that other practitioners in severe weather zones can avoid the same gap?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:50:19.479376
was generated by: ProEthica Case 74 Extraction

Question_103
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 103
question text: Because the severe weather design parameters had been published in technical literature but had not yet been formally adopted as a binding standard, should the ethical analysis distinguish between an engineer's obligation to track emerging best practices versus an obligation to comply with formally promulgated standards — and does that distinction meaningfully change the culpability calculus here?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:50:19.479439
was generated by: ProEthica Case 74 Extraction

Question_104
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 104
question text: Given that the building was actually constructed and occupied before the severe weather event, did Engineer A have any ethical obligation at the plan-review or construction-administration stage to revisit his design assumptions in light of any newly available information, and does the Board's analysis adequately address that ongoing duty?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:50:19.479497
was generated by: ProEthica Case 74 Extraction

Question_201
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 201
question text: Does the Proportionality in Misconduct Characterization principle — which shields Engineer A from an unethical finding because his knowledge gap was not intentional or reckless — conflict with the Public Welfare Paramount principle, which demands that the safety of building occupants take precedence regardless of the engineer's subjective good faith?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:50:19.479584
was generated by: ProEthica Case 74 Extraction

Question_202
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 202
question text: How should the Reasonableness Standard for Currency — which excuses Engineer A's unfamiliarity with recently published literature — be reconciled with the Continuing Competence Currency Obligation, which affirmatively requires engineers to stay current in their area of practice, particularly when they are knowingly working in a high-risk severe weather zone?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:50:19.479639
was generated by: ProEthica Case 74 Extraction

Question_203
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 203
question text: Does the Causal Nexus Requirement — which conditions an ethical violation finding on a demonstrated link between Engineer A's knowledge gap and the structural failure — conflict with the Standard of Care as Ethical Floor principle, which holds that the ethical obligation to meet the standard of care exists independently of whether any harm actually results?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:50:19.479693
was generated by: ProEthica Case 74 Extraction

Question_204
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 204
question text: When the Competence Principle — as applied in BER 98-8 and BER 94-8 to require engineers to refuse assignments outside their demonstrated expertise — is compared to the Reasonableness Standard for Currency applied in the present case, does the Board apply an inconsistent threshold: holding engineers strictly accountable for domain-boundary competence gaps while excusing currency gaps within an acknowledged domain, even when the practical risk to the public is equivalent?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:50:19.479747
was generated by: ProEthica Case 74 Extraction

Question_301
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 301
question text: From a deontological perspective, does Engineer A's general effort to stay current on design trends satisfy the categorical duty to maintain competence currency, or does the duty require affirmative and systematic monitoring of domain-specific technical literature regardless of whether new standards have been formally adopted?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:50:19.479801
was generated by: ProEthica Case 74 Extraction

Question_302
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 302
question text: From a consequentialist standpoint, given that the structural failure caused significant damage and that following the new severe weather design parameters would have prevented it, does the magnitude of the preventable harm retroactively expose a deficiency in the Board's conclusion that Engineer A's conduct was not unethical, even if the pre-standardization status of those parameters is taken into account?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:50:19.479856
was generated by: ProEthica Case 74 Extraction

Question_303
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 303
question text: From a virtue ethics perspective, does an engineer of good professional character who practices in a severe weather zone demonstrate sufficient diligence and prudence by only 'generally attempting' to stay current, or does the virtue of professional integrity demand a more proactive and domain-targeted approach to literature review given the known risks of the practice environment?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:50:19.479909
was generated by: ProEthica Case 74 Extraction

Question_304
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 304
question text: From a deontological perspective, does the NSPE Code's mandate to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public impose a duty on Engineer A that is independent of whether new severe weather design parameters have achieved formal standardization status, such that practicing in a known severe weather zone creates a heightened duty of literature vigilance that Engineer A failed to discharge?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:50:19.479963
was generated by: ProEthica Case 74 Extraction

Question_401
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 401
question text: If the new severe weather design parameters had been formally adopted as a mandatory code standard rather than existing only in recent technical literature at the time of Engineer A's design, would the Board have reached a different conclusion about the ethical violation, and what does that distinction reveal about the gap between legal compliance and ethical obligation in professional engineering practice?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:50:19.480015
was generated by: ProEthica Case 74 Extraction

Question_402
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 402
question text: What if Engineer A had conducted a targeted review of severe weather structural design literature before beginning the project and had discovered the new design parameters — would the Board's analysis have shifted from a question of currency failure to one of deliberate non-adoption, and would that have constituted a clearer ethical violation?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:50:19.480067
was generated by: ProEthica Case 74 Extraction

Question_403
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 403
question text: If Engineer A had engaged a subconsultant with specific expertise in severe weather structural design — as the Board suggested was appropriate in the analogous BER-85-3 competence gap scenario — would the structural failure have been avoided, and does the failure to consider subconsultant engagement represent a missed ethical obligation that the Board underweighted in its analysis?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:50:19.480119
was generated by: ProEthica Case 74 Extraction

Question_404
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 404
question text: What if the severe weather event had not occurred within the first year and the structural deficiency had never been discovered — would Engineer A's failure to review the recent technical literature still constitute a latent ethical breach, and how should the engineering profession treat ethical violations whose consequences remain unrealized?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:50:19.480172
was generated by: ProEthica Case 74 Extraction

Release Design for Construction
type: Action
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
event role context: Structural Engineer of Record
foreseen unintended effects: None identified by Engineer A; no indication that Engineer A had any reason at this stage to question the adequacy of the design
fulfills obligation text: Duty to deliver professional engineering services and completed design documents
fulfills obligation text: Duty to ensure design was based on sound engineering principles as understood at the time
guided by principle text: Continuity of competence obligation through the project lifecycle
guided by principle text: Professional responsibility for design documents released for construction
guided by principle text: Public safety as paramount concern
has agent: Engineer A
has mental state: deliberate
intended outcome: Advance the project to construction in accordance with the completed design, which Engineer A believed was sound
requires capability text: Judgment to determine when emerging literature warrants design revision before construction
requires capability text: Ongoing professional development monitoring to identify newly published standards relevant to active projects
requires capability text: Pre-release review of design against current technical literature
temporal marker: Post-design phase, prior to and during construction
temporal sequence: 5
violates obligation text: Duty to hold paramount public safety, particularly in a severe weather region with known structural risk implications
violates obligation text: Ongoing duty to monitor and incorporate current design standards before finalizing documents for construction (NSPE Code Section II.2.b)
within competence: true
comment: Engineer A allowed his completed structural design to be incorporated into the plans and specifications for the building without revisiting or updating the design before construction commenced, resulting in the building being constructed without the newly published severe weather design parameters.
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:37:27.718287
was generated by: ProEthica Case 74 Extraction

Release Design for Construction → Building Constructed
type: CausalChain
type: NamedIndividual
causal language: Engineer A allowed his completed structural design to be incorporated into the plans and specifications, which were then used to physically construct the building in accordance with those plans, materializing the design deficiency into the built environment
cause: Release Design for Construction
counterfactual: Had Engineer A withheld the design pending a standards compliance review, or had a reviewing authority rejected the design, the deficient building would not have been constructed and subsequent structural damage would not have occurred
effect: Building Constructed
necessary factors: Absence of intervening review that would have caught the deficiency before construction
necessary factors: Construction proceeding in accordance with released plans
necessary factors: Design containing deficiencies relative to current severe weather standards
necessary factors: Engineer A's affirmative decision to release the design
responsibility type: direct
responsible agent: Engineer A
sufficient factors: Release of deficient design + no corrective review + construction executed as designed = deficient building realized
within agent control: true
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:37:27.718693
was generated by: ProEthica Case 74 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_1
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:50:19.483081
was generated by: ProEthica Case 74 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_10
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:50:19.483395
was generated by: ProEthica Case 74 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_11
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:50:19.483425
was generated by: ProEthica Case 74 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_12
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:50:19.483455
was generated by: ProEthica Case 74 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_13
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:50:19.483484
was generated by: ProEthica Case 74 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_14
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:50:19.483513
was generated by: ProEthica Case 74 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_15
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:50:19.483543
was generated by: ProEthica Case 74 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_16
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:50:19.483572
was generated by: ProEthica Case 74 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_17
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:50:19.483627
was generated by: ProEthica Case 74 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_18
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:50:19.483671
was generated by: ProEthica Case 74 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_19
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:50:19.483721
was generated by: ProEthica Case 74 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_2
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:50:19.483111
was generated by: ProEthica Case 74 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_20
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:50:19.483773
was generated by: ProEthica Case 74 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_21
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:50:19.483832
was generated by: ProEthica Case 74 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_22
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:50:19.483865
was generated by: ProEthica Case 74 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_23
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:50:19.483895
was generated by: ProEthica Case 74 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_24
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:50:19.483926
was generated by: ProEthica Case 74 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_3
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:50:19.483155
was generated by: ProEthica Case 74 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_4
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:50:19.483191
was generated by: ProEthica Case 74 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_5
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:50:19.483223
was generated by: ProEthica Case 74 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_6
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:50:19.483256
was generated by: ProEthica Case 74 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_7
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:50:19.483288
was generated by: ProEthica Case 74 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_8
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:50:19.483318
was generated by: ProEthica Case 74 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_9
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:50:19.483364
was generated by: ProEthica Case 74 Extraction

Severe_Weather_Design_Parameters_and_Methods
type: SevereWeatherStructuralDesignStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.92
createdby: Engineering professional community / technical literature
discoveredincase: 74
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: Severe Weather Structural Design Parameters and Methods
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T23:17:59.106452+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 74
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T23:17:59.106452+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Severe Weather Structural Design Standard
sourcetext: The Board would note that the facts and circumstances in this case do not indicate that the severe weather design parameters and methods constituted 'standards.' Had those parameters and methods constituted 'standards,' this Board may have reached another result.
textreferences: The Board would note that the facts and circumstances in this case do not indicate that the severe weather design parameters and methods constituted 'standards.' Had those parameters and methods constituted 'standards,' this Board may have reached another result.
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review in evaluating Engineer A's design conduct
usedincontext: Referenced at the conclusion of the Board's discussion as the technical knowledge domain at issue; the Board explicitly notes that because these parameters and methods had not yet risen to the level of formal 'standards,' Engineer A's failure to follow the most recent literature did not constitute unethical conduct — but had they been standards, the result might differ
version: Current at time of case
wasattributedto: Case 74 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:37:27.702661
was generated by: ProEthica Case 74 Extraction

Severe Weather Design Zone — Building Project
type: SevereWeatherDesignZoneState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From project inception through design, construction, and post-construction period
affectedparties: Building occupants
affectedparties: Building owner/client
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: General public
concept category: State
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 74
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T23:17:12.392184+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 74
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T23:17:12.392184+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer A is involved in the design of the structural system on a building project in an area of the country that experiences severe weather conditions
stateclass: Severe Weather Design Zone State
subject: The building project's geographic location and Engineer A's structural design commission
terminatedby: Not terminated within the case timeframe; persists through structural failure event
textreferences: Engineer A is involved in the design of the structural system on a building project in an area of the country that experiences severe weather conditions
textreferences: Engineer A, who has experience with structural designs in this area of the country, designs the structural system based upon what Engineer A believes constitutes sound structural engineering principles
triggeringevent: Engineer A accepts structural design commission for building in severe weather region
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 74 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:37:27.701086
was generated by: ProEthica Case 74 Extraction

Severe Weather Event Occurs
type: Event
type: NamedIndividual
activates constraint: Emergency_Response_Constraint
activates constraint: Life_Safety_Immediate_Action
activates constraint: PublicSafety_Paramount_Constraint
causes state change: Latent structural deficiency is activated; the building is subjected to loads exceeding its design capacity under current standards; the gap between designed performance and required performance is physically tested; conditions for structural damage are now fully present.
concept category: Event
creates obligation: Emergency_Evacuation_If_Occupied
creates obligation: Immediate_Structural_Assessment
creates obligation: Notify_Relevant_Authorities
creates obligation: Preserve_Evidence_For_Investigation
emergency status: critical
event type: exogenous
temporal marker: Within one year post-construction
temporal sequence: 7
urgency level: critical
comment: A severe weather event strikes the building's location within one year of construction completion, subjecting the structure to the environmental loads for which it was inadequately designed. This exogenous event is the proximate trigger that converts the latent structural deficiency into active failure.
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:37:27.718492
was generated by: ProEthica Case 74 Extraction

Severe Weather Structural Design Standard — Recent Technical Literature
type: SevereWeatherStructuralDesignStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.9
createdby: Engineering professional bodies and researchers
discoveredincase: 74
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: Recent Technical Literature on Severe Weather Structural Design Parameters
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T23:16:34.677342+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 74
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T23:16:34.677342+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Severe Weather Structural Design Standard
sourcetext: new and improved severe weather design standards have been published in the most recent technical literature
textreferences: had Engineer A followed the severe weather design parameters, the structural failure would not have occurred
textreferences: new and improved design methods have recently been developed to address the severe weather conditions in the location in which Engineer A practices
textreferences: new and improved severe weather design standards have been published in the most recent technical literature
usedby: Structural engineers practicing in severe weather regions
usedincontext: Defines the improved design methods and parameters for structural systems in severe weather regions; the standard Engineer A failed to apply, resulting in structural failure
version: Most recent publication at time of design
wasattributedto: Case 74 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:37:27.700694
was generated by: ProEthica Case 74 Extraction

Structural Damage Occurs
type: Event
type: NamedIndividual
activates constraint: Immediate_Structural_Assessment_Required
activates constraint: Occupant_Protection_Constraint
activates constraint: PublicSafety_Paramount_Constraint
causes state change: Building transitions from 'in service' to 'structurally compromised'; human safety is immediately at risk; legal, regulatory, and professional accountability mechanisms are activated; post-failure investigation is now mandated.
concept category: Event
creates obligation: Immediate_Structural_Safety_Assessment
creates obligation: Initiate_Failure_Investigation
creates obligation: Notify_Building_Official_And_Authorities
creates obligation: Occupant_Evacuation_And_Safety
creates obligation: Preserve_Physical_Evidence
emergency status: critical
event type: outcome
temporal marker: During or immediately following the severe weather event, within one year post-construction
temporal sequence: 8
urgency level: critical
comment: The building sustains significant structural damage as a direct result of the severe weather event acting upon an inadequately designed structural system. The damage is the materialized consequence of the design's non-conformance with current severe weather standards.
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:37:27.718532
was generated by: ProEthica Case 74 Extraction

Structural Failure — Severe Weather Damage to Building
type: StructuralFailureHarmMaterializedState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From the severe weather event causing structural damage through the causal determination
affectedparties: Building occupants
affectedparties: Building owner/client
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: General public
concept category: State
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 74
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T23:17:12.392184+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 74
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T23:17:12.392184+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Within one year following construction, severe weather conditions cause significant structural damage to the building
stateclass: Structural Failure Harm Materialized State
subject: The completed building's structural system following severe weather event
terminatedby: Not terminated within the case timeframe; causal determination confirms design deficiency
textreferences: It is determined that had Engineer A followed the severe weather design parameters, the structural failure would not have occurred
textreferences: Within one year following construction, severe weather conditions cause significant structural damage to the building
triggeringevent: Severe weather conditions cause significant structural damage to the building within one year of construction
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 74 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:37:27.701666
was generated by: ProEthica Case 74 Extraction

building construction before severe weather structural damage event
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: Within one year following construction, severe weather conditions cause significant structural damage to the building.
from entity text: building construction
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: severe weather structural damage event
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: severe weather structural damage event
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:37:27.718875
was generated by: ProEthica Case 74 Extraction

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.85
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:21:45.043452+00:00
value: The Board found no ethical path available to the engineer under the facts — whatever course of action he took would result in unethical conduct — reinforcing that accepting the position itself was the ethical error

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.82
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:21:45.043575+00:00
value: Public welfare obligation overrides employer/client loyalty and institutional pressure when competence boundaries are at stake

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.87
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:21:45.043398+00:00
value: Competence boundary holds even when employer requests certification and training funds are unavailable

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.75
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:21:45.043038+00:00
value: Competence boundary holds even when employer requests certification and training funds are unavailable

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.84
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:21:45.043628+00:00
value: The obligation to acknowledge missed opportunities is a professional virtue obligation, not a disciplinary one. It operates independently of whether an ethical violation occurred. Engineer A can simultaneously maintain that no ethical violation occurred (if the standard of care was met) and acknowledge that the outcome reveals the importance of more rigorous literature monitoring in severe weather design specialties.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.83
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:21:45.044051+00:00
value: The obligation to acknowledge missed opportunities is a professional virtue obligation, not a disciplinary one. It operates independently of whether an ethical violation occurred. Engineer A can simultaneously maintain that no ethical violation occurred (if the standard of care was met) and acknowledge that the outcome reveals the importance of more rigorous literature monitoring in severe weather design specialties.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.83
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:21:45.042779+00:00
value: The obligation to acknowledge missed opportunities is a professional virtue obligation, not a disciplinary one. It operates independently of whether an ethical violation occurred. Engineer A can simultaneously maintain that no ethical violation occurred (if the standard of care was met) and acknowledge that the outcome reveals the importance of more rigorous literature monitoring in severe weather design specialties.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.9
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:21:45.042724+00:00
value: The causal nexus is clear, but causal connection alone does not establish ethical culpability — the conduct must also have been below the standard of care. The Board's analysis must separate the question of causation (established) from the question of standard-of-care breach (contested given recency of published standards). Proportionality in misconduct characterization further counsels against treating an honest knowledge gap as equivalent to deliberate disregard.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.91
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:21:45.042898+00:00
value: The Board resolved the tension between public welfare (which suffered harm from the failure) and professional accountability (which requires moral culpability) by requiring intentionality, recklessness, or malice as the threshold — mere negligence or failure to follow emerging literature is insufficient

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.92
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:21:45.043811+00:00
value: The currency obligation and the reasonableness standard operate together: the obligation is to follow established standards, and failure to do so may be unethical; but failure to follow emerging literature that has not yet become a standard is not unethical absent moral culpability

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.87
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:21:45.043759+00:00
value: The ethical currency obligation extends to established standards, not to every recent publication; the Board explicitly noted that had the parameters constituted 'standards,' the result might have been different

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.9
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:21:45.042832+00:00
value: The currency obligation and the reasonableness standard operate together: the obligation is to follow established standards, and failure to do so may be unethical; but failure to follow emerging literature that has not yet become a standard is not unethical absent moral culpability

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.89
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:21:45.042955+00:00
value: The standard of care is determined at the time of design, not retrospectively. The recency of the published standards is critical: if they were so newly published that their adoption was not yet expected of a competent practitioner, Engineer A met the ethical floor.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.88
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:21:45.043861+00:00
value: The Board must determine whether the recently published standards had sufficiently penetrated the profession to be within the reasonable knowledge of a competent practitioner in this specialty. If so, Engineer A's failure to know them breaches the currency obligation. If the standards were too newly published to be reasonably expected knowledge, the standard of care may not yet have incorporated them, and the ethical violation finding would be weakened.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.86
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:21:45.043706+00:00
value: The Board must determine whether the recently published standards had sufficiently penetrated the profession to be within the reasonable knowledge of a competent practitioner in this specialty. If so, Engineer A's failure to know them breaches the currency obligation. If the standards were too newly published to be reasonably expected knowledge, the standard of care may not yet have incorporated them, and the ethical violation finding would be weakened.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.92
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:21:45.042429+00:00
value: The currency obligation and the reasonableness standard operate together: the obligation is to follow established standards, and failure to do so may be unethical; but failure to follow emerging literature that has not yet become a standard is not unethical absent moral culpability

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.88
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:21:45.042531+00:00
value: The Board must determine whether the recently published standards had sufficiently penetrated the profession to be within the reasonable knowledge of a competent practitioner in this specialty. If so, Engineer A's failure to know them breaches the currency obligation. If the standards were too newly published to be reasonably expected knowledge, the standard of care may not yet have incorporated them, and the ethical violation finding would be weakened.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.93
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:21:45.043109+00:00
value: The reasonableness standard limits the currency obligation to established standards, with the standards/emerging-literature distinction as the operative ethical boundary; public welfare is protected by requiring adherence to established standards while not chilling practice through over-broad currency demands

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.91
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:21:45.042665+00:00
value: Standard of care compliance establishes the ethical floor; the moral culpability threshold and reasonableness currency standard together define when deviation from that floor rises to ethical violation

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.88
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:21:45.043274+00:00
value: Standard of care compliance establishes the ethical floor; the moral culpability threshold and reasonableness currency standard together define when deviation from that floor rises to ethical violation

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.9
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:21:45.043214+00:00
value: The standard of care is determined at the time of design, not retrospectively. The recency of the published standards is critical: if they were so newly published that their adoption was not yet expected of a competent practitioner, Engineer A met the ethical floor.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.91
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:21:45.043909+00:00
value: Standard of care compliance establishes the ethical floor; the moral culpability threshold and reasonableness currency standard together define when deviation from that floor rises to ethical violation

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.92
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:21:45.043163+00:00
value: The Board must determine whether the recently published standards had sufficiently penetrated the profession to be within the reasonable knowledge of a competent practitioner in this specialty. If so, Engineer A's failure to know them breaches the currency obligation. If the standards were too newly published to be reasonably expected knowledge, the standard of care may not yet have incorporated them, and the ethical violation finding would be weakened.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.86
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:21:45.043504+00:00
value: Competence boundary requires refusal of the engagement; the option of sub-retaining a structural engineer was not feasible given the specific nature of the retention

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.9
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:21:45.043996+00:00
value: The causal nexus is clear, but causal connection alone does not establish ethical culpability — the conduct must also have been below the standard of care. The Board's analysis must separate the question of causation (established) from the question of standard-of-care breach (contested given recency of published standards). Proportionality in misconduct characterization further counsels against treating an honest knowledge gap as equivalent to deliberate disregard.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.89
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:21:45.043346+00:00
value: The causal nexus is clear, but causal connection alone does not establish ethical culpability — the conduct must also have been below the standard of care. The Board's analysis must separate the question of causation (established) from the question of standard-of-care breach (contested given recency of published standards).

incorporation into plans and specifications before building construction
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: Engineer A completes his design which is later incorporated in the plans and specifications for the building and the building is built
from entity text: incorporation into plans and specifications
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: building construction
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: building construction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:37:27.718828
was generated by: ProEthica Case 74 Extraction

publication of new severe weather design standards in technical literature before Engineer A's design completion
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: new and improved design methods have recently been developed...These new and improved severe weather design standards have been published in the most recent technical literature...Engineer A was not familiar with this recent technical literature. Engineer A completes his design
from entity text: publication of new severe weather design standards in technical literature
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: Engineer A's design completion
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: Engineer A s design completion
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:37:27.718761
was generated by: ProEthica Case 74 Extraction

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A, a civil PE, was directed to certify arms storage rooms and racks under specialized Army regulations outside his expertise; the Board held this would be unethical because Engineer A lacked the required knowledge and training

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The Board grounded its competence boundary enforcement across BER Cases 98-8, 94-8, and 85-3 in the obligation to protect public health and safety from engineers practicing outside their competence

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The Board synthesized BER Cases 98-8, 94-8, and 85-3 to articulate the general principle that employer and client pressures — including resource constraints and institutional appointments — do not exempt engineers from the obligation to pra

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer B, a chemical PE, was retained to design structural footings for an industrial facility; the Board held this unethical because Engineer B lacked apparent training in foundation design, and the engagement was specifically for that o

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The Board grounded its competence boundary enforcement across BER Cases 98-8, 94-8, and 85-3 in the obligation to protect public health and safety from engineers practicing outside their competence

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer B, a chemical PE, was retained to design structural footings for an industrial facility; the Board held this unethical because Engineer B lacked apparent training in foundation design, and the engagement was specifically for that o

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The Board grounded its competence boundary enforcement across BER Cases 98-8, 94-8, and 85-3 in the obligation to protect public health and safety from engineers practicing outside their competence

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The Board synthesized BER Cases 98-8, 94-8, and 85-3 to articulate the general principle that employer and client pressures — including resource constraints and institutional appointments — do not exempt engineers from the obligation to pra

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The structural failure caused by Engineer A's use of outdated severe weather design methods resulted in significant structural damage to a building, implicating the fundamental engineering obligation to hold paramount the safety and welfare

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The Board must calibrate its characterization of Engineer A's conduct proportionately: Engineer A had relevant experience, made a good-faith effort to stay current, and applied what were established (if outdated) principles — distinguishing

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A designed a structural system in a severe weather region using established but outdated methods, failing to incorporate newly published severe weather design standards that were available in the technical literature at the time of

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The Board's evaluation of Engineer A's design failure turns on whether Engineer A's use of established structural engineering principles — without incorporating newly published severe weather design parameters — met the standard of care app

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The Board's ethical evaluation of Engineer A requires establishing that (1) Engineer A's failure to apply the newly published severe weather design parameters fell below the applicable standard of care, and (2) this failure was causally nec

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Even if the Board concludes that Engineer A did not commit an ethical violation — because the newly published standards had not yet permeated the profession sufficiently to be required knowledge — Engineer A nonetheless missed an opportunit

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The Board grounded its competence boundary enforcement across BER Cases 98-8, 94-8, and 85-3 in the obligation to protect public health and safety from engineers practicing outside their competence, treating this as a fundamental ethical an

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The Board affirmed that engineers have a duty to seek to stay current on design trends and technology, and must maintain current knowledge about new practice developments in their specific practice area

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The structural failure caused by Engineer A's use of outdated severe weather design methods resulted in significant structural damage to a building, implicating the fundamental engineering obligation to hold paramount the safety and welfare

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: A chemical PE accepted appointment as county surveyor despite having no background or expertise in surveying; the Board held this unethical because the engineer could not perform effective oversight of surveying reports and highway improvem

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The Board grounded its competence boundary enforcement across BER Cases 98-8, 94-8, and 85-3 in the obligation to protect public health and safety from engineers practicing outside their competence

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The Board synthesized BER Cases 98-8, 94-8, and 85-3 to articulate the general principle that employer and client pressures — including resource constraints and institutional appointments — do not exempt engineers from the obligation to pra

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer B, a chemical PE, was retained to design structural footings for an industrial facility; the Board held this unethical because Engineer B lacked apparent training in foundation design, and the engagement was specifically for that o

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The Board grounded its competence boundary enforcement across BER Cases 98-8, 94-8, and 85-3 in the obligation to protect public health and safety from engineers practicing outside their competence

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A, a civil PE, was directed to certify arms storage rooms and racks under specialized Army regulations outside his expertise; the Board held this would be unethical because Engineer A lacked the required knowledge and training

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer B, a chemical PE, was retained to design structural footings for an industrial facility; the Board held this unethical because Engineer B lacked apparent training in foundation design, and the engagement was specifically for that o

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The Board grounded its competence boundary enforcement across BER Cases 98-8, 94-8, and 85-3 in the obligation to protect public health and safety from engineers practicing outside their competence

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The Board affirmed that engineers have a duty to seek to stay current on design trends and technology, and must maintain current knowledge about new practice developments in their specific practice area

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The Board affirmed that engineers have a duty to seek to stay current on design trends and technology, and must maintain current knowledge about new practice developments in their specific practice area

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The Board declined to hold Engineer A unethical for failing to follow the most recent severe weather design parameters and methods, because those parameters had not yet been incorporated into generally accepted practice as 'standards'

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The Board found Engineer A's actions within the basic standards of the profession, treating compliance with the standard of care applicable at the time of design as the ethical floor below which unethical conduct begins

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The Board correctly recognized that Engineer A's compliance with the basic standards of the profession — using established structural engineering principles applicable at the time — constituted the ethical floor

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A's severe weather structural design resulted in failure; the Board declined to find ethical violation because there was no showing of intentional, reckless, or malicious conduct, and the methods used met the applicable standard of

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Even if the Board concludes that Engineer A did not commit an ethical violation — because the newly published standards had not yet permeated the profession sufficiently to be required knowledge — Engineer A nonetheless missed an opportunit

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Even if the Board concludes that Engineer A did not commit an ethical violation because the newly published severe weather design standards had not yet sufficiently permeated professional practice, Engineer A was obligated to honestly ackno

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The Board's ethical evaluation of Engineer A requires establishing that (1) Engineer A's failure to apply the newly published severe weather design parameters fell below the applicable standard of care, and (2) this failure was causally nec

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A designed a structural system in a severe weather region using established but outdated methods, failing to incorporate newly published severe weather design standards that were available in the technical literature at the time of

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The Board's evaluation of Engineer A's design failure turns on whether Engineer A's use of established structural engineering principles — without incorporating newly published severe weather design parameters — met the standard of care app

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The Board synthesized BER Cases 98-8, 94-8, and 85-3 to articulate the general principle that employer and client pressures — including resource constraints and institutional appointments — do not exempt engineers from the obligation to pra

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The Board affirmed that engineers have a duty to seek to stay current on design trends and technology, and must maintain current knowledge about new practice developments in their specific practice area

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The structural failure caused by Engineer A's use of outdated severe weather design methods resulted in significant structural damage to a building, implicating the fundamental engineering obligation to hold paramount the safety and welfare

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The Board must calibrate its characterization of Engineer A's conduct proportionately: Engineer A had relevant experience, made a good-faith effort to stay current, and applied what were established (if outdated) principles — distinguishing

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The Board grounded its competence boundary enforcement across BER Cases 98-8, 94-8, and 85-3 in the obligation to protect public health and safety from engineers practicing outside their competence

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: A chemical PE accepted appointment as county surveyor despite having no background or expertise in surveying; the Board held this unethical because the engineer could not perform effective oversight of surveying reports and highway improvem

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to refuse to certify the arms storage rooms and arms storage racks under specialized Army physical security regulations, because Engineer A lacked the requisite training and knowledge in that specialized domain

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer B was obligated to refuse to design structural footings for the industrial facility, because Engineer B's background was in chemical engineering and Engineer B lacked demonstrated competence in foundation/structural design.

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to: (1) confront Engineer B directly and recommend withdrawal from the structural footing design task; (2) if Engineer B refused, report concerns to the contractor; and (3) if concerns remained unaddressed, escalate

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A bore an ongoing obligation to actively monitor and incorporate newly published technical standards and design methods relevant to severe weather structural design in the region, but the Board found this obligation was not violate

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to maintain currency with technical developments to a reasonable degree — following methods constituting accepted standards at the time of practice — but was not obligated to incorporate the newly published severe w

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Even though the Board found no ethical violation, Engineer A bore an obligation to acknowledge the missed opportunity to incorporate newly published severe weather design methods and to communicate lessons learned to colleagues and the prof

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Following the structural failure of the building Engineer A designed, Engineer A was obligated to conduct an honest and objective self-assessment of their design decisions — acknowledging both the good-faith reliance on established principl

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to meet the accepted professional standard of care for structural design in a severe weather region, including incorporation of newly published design standards where those standards had sufficiently permeated profe

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to actively monitor and incorporate newly published severe weather structural design standards into their design practice, given their specialization in structural design in a severe weather region

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Even if the Board concludes that Engineer A did not commit an ethical violation because the newly published severe weather design standards had not yet sufficiently permeated professional practice, Engineer A was obligated to honestly ackno

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A, as a structural engineer with experience designing in a severe weather region, was obligated to proactively seek out and apply newly published severe weather design parameters when designing the subject building's structural sys

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to decline the appointment as county surveyor because Engineer A's background was solely in chemical engineering and Engineer A lacked the competence to perform effective oversight of surveying reports and highway i

severe weather structural damage event before post-failure determination
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: It is determined that had Engineer A followed the severe weather design parameters, the structural failure would not have occurred.
from entity text: severe weather structural damage event
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: post-failure determination
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: post-failure determination
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:37:27.718917
was generated by: ProEthica Case 74 Extraction

severe weather structural damage event during one-year post-construction window
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: during
evidence: Within one year following construction, severe weather conditions cause significant structural damage to the building.
from entity text: severe weather structural damage event
owl time property: time:intervalDuring
to entity text: one-year post-construction window
comment: Entity1 occurs entirely within the duration of Entity2
interval during: one-year post-construction window
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:37:27.719085
was generated by: ProEthica Case 74 Extraction

BER_Case_94-8
type: BERCasePrecedent
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.97
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
discoveredincase: 74
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case 94-8
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T23:17:59.106452+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 74
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T23:17:59.106452+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: BER Case Precedent
sourcetext: In BER Case 94-8, Engineer A, a professional engineer, was working with a construction contractor on a design/build project
textreferences: Importantly, in BER Case 94-8, the Board also noted that Engineer A had an objective basis to determine whether Engineer B had sufficient education, experience, and training
textreferences: In BER Case 94-8, Engineer A, a professional engineer, was working with a construction contractor on a design/build project
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review as analogical precedent for the present case
usedincontext: Cited as precedent establishing that it is unethical for an engineer to perform design work outside their competency area, and that a supervising engineer has an ethical obligation to question and report competency concerns to the client and relevant authorities, and to recommend withdrawal if necessary
version: 1994
wasattributedto: Case 74 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:37:27.702349
was generated by: ProEthica Case 74 Extraction

BER_Case_98-8
type: BERCasePrecedent
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.97
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
discoveredincase: 74
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case 98-8
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T23:17:59.106452+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 74
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T23:17:59.106452+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: BER Case Precedent
sourcetext: In BER Case 98-8, the Board had the opportunity to review the question of the ethical obligation of licensed engineers to practice solely within their area of competency.
textreferences: In BER Case 98-8, the Board had the opportunity to review the question of the ethical obligation of licensed engineers to practice solely within their area of competency.
textreferences: as suggested in BER Case 98-8, seek appropriate education and training before undertaking new and different tasks
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review as analogical precedent for the present case
usedincontext: Cited as precedent establishing that a licensed engineer must not certify work outside their area of competency, especially where doing so poses a clear and present danger to public health and safety; also cited for the duty to seek appropriate education and training before undertaking new tasks
version: 1998
wasattributedto: Case 74 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:37:27.702171
was generated by: ProEthica Case 74 Extraction

BER 85-3 Chemical Engineer County Surveyor Employment
type: EmploymentContextCompetenceConstraintState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From county commissioners' appointment of the chemical engineer through Board's ethical determination
affectedparties: County commissioners
affectedparties: County surveying operations
affectedparties: Engineer A (chemical engineer)
affectedparties: Public infrastructure users
concept category: State
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 74
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T23:19:30.208023+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 74
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T23:19:30.208023+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: county commissioners met and decided to appoint an engineer, a P.E., with experience and educational background solely in the field of chemical engineering
stateclass: Employment Context Competence Constraint State
subject: Chemical engineer's acceptance of county surveyor position requiring surveying oversight competence
terminatedby: Board determination that acceptance of the position was unethical
textreferences: The duties and responsibilities of the position of county surveyor included oversight of surveying reports and highway improvement projects
textreferences: county commissioners met and decided to appoint an engineer, a P.E., with experience and educational background solely in the field of chemical engineering
textreferences: it was unethical for Engineer A to accept the position as county surveyor
textreferences: it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible in the usual employment context, for a county surveyor with no background or expertise in surveying to perform effective oversight
textreferences: whatever course of action he took would result in unethical conduct and compromise his role as county surveyor
triggeringevent: County commissioners' appointment of a PE with solely chemical engineering background to county surveyor position requiring oversight of surveying reports and highway improvement projects
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 74 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:37:27.705127
was generated by: ProEthica Case 74 Extraction

BER 94-8 Engineer A Peer Competence Challenge Obligation
type: PeerCompetenceChallengeReportingObligationState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Engineer A's identification of Engineer B's competence concerns through resolution
affectedparties: Construction contractor
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Engineer B
affectedparties: Public safety
concept category: State
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 74
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T23:19:30.208023+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 74
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T23:19:30.208023+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer A had reservations concerning the competence of Engineer B to design the structural footings and reported his concerns to the contractor
stateclass: Peer Competence Challenge Reporting Obligation State
subject: Engineer A's obligation upon identifying Engineer B's competence deficiency on shared project
terminatedby: Engineer A reporting concerns to contractor; Board's ethical determination
textreferences: Engineer A had an ethical obligation to confront Engineer B to make his concerns known
textreferences: Engineer A had an ethical responsibility to question Engineer B's competency and report his concerns to the contractor
textreferences: Engineer A had an objective basis to determine whether Engineer B had sufficient education, experience, and training
textreferences: Engineer A had reservations concerning the competence of Engineer B to design the structural footings and reported his concerns to the contractor
textreferences: If Engineer B refused to acquiesce to Engineer A's recommendation, Engineer A had an obligation under the NSPE Code of Ethics to bring the matter to the attention of his client and to the authorities as appropriate
triggeringevent: Engineer A's recognition that Engineer B lacked apparent training in foundation design for the assigned structural footing task
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 74 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:37:27.704921
was generated by: ProEthica Case 74 Extraction

BER 94-8 Engineer B Chemical Engineer Structural Footing Assignment
type: Domain-SpecificIncompetencewithGeneralLicensureState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Engineer B's retention by construction contractor through Board's ethical determination
affectedparties: Construction contractor
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Engineer B
affectedparties: Industrial facility users
concept category: State
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 74
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T23:19:30.208023+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 74
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T23:19:30.208023+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer B's degree and background were in chemical engineering
stateclass: Domain-Specific Incompetence with General Licensure State
subject: Engineer B's retention to design structural footings despite chemical engineering background
terminatedby: Board determination that Engineer B's performance of structural footing design would be unethical
textreferences: Engineer A was unable to establish that Engineer B had any apparent subsequent training in foundation design
textreferences: Engineer B was retained specifically for the sole and exclusive purpose of designing the structural footings
textreferences: Engineer B's degree and background were in chemical engineering
textreferences: it would be unethical for Engineer B to perform the design of the structural footings
triggeringevent: Construction contractor's retention of Engineer B (chemical engineer) specifically to design structural footings for industrial facility
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 74 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:37:27.704702
was generated by: ProEthica Case 74 Extraction

BER 98-8 Training Funds Unavailable
type: TrainingFundsUnavailableforCompetenceRemediationState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From the time Army official requested certification through Engineer A's ethical refusal
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Public safety stakeholders
affectedparties: U.S. Army installation
concept category: State
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 74
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T23:19:30.208023+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 74
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T23:19:30.208023+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer A had no significant training or knowledge in these areas
stateclass: Training Funds Unavailable for Competence Remediation State
subject: Engineer A's assignment to certify arms storage facilities at U.S. Army installation
terminatedby: Board determination that certification would be unethical; Engineer A's ethical refusal
textreferences: Engineer A had no significant training or knowledge in these areas
textreferences: There were comprehensive training programs available for this type of work, but training funds were not available
textreferences: competency issues at stake posed a clear and present danger to the public health and safety
textreferences: insufficient funds exist for Engineer A to participate in such programs
textreferences: it would not be ethical for Engineer A to certify as a qualified engineer the arms storage rooms and arms storage racks
triggeringevent: Army official's request that Engineer A certify arms storage rooms and racks under detailed Army physical security regulations outside Engineer A's competence
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 74 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:37:27.704521
was generated by: ProEthica Case 74 Extraction

Competence Standard Evolution — Severe Weather Structural Design
type: CompetenceStandardEvolutionState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From publication of new severe weather design parameters through the structural failure determination
affectedparties: Building owner
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Public
affectedparties: Structural engineering profession broadly
concept category: State
confidence: 0.82
discoveredincase: 74
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T23:17:12.392184+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 74
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T23:17:12.392184+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: new and improved design methods have recently been developed to address the severe weather conditions
stateclass: Competence Standard Evolution State
subject: The professional landscape of severe weather structural design standards at the time of Engineer A's design
terminatedby: Not terminated within the case timeframe
textreferences: These new and improved severe weather design standards have been published in the most recent technical literature
textreferences: it is determined that had Engineer A followed the severe weather design parameters, the structural failure would not have occurred
textreferences: new and improved design methods have recently been developed to address the severe weather conditions
triggeringevent: Development and publication of new and improved severe weather design methods in technical literature
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 74 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:37:27.701481
was generated by: ProEthica Case 74 Extraction

Engineer A Present Case Standard of Care Ethical Sufficiency Boundary
type: StandardofCareComplianceasEthicalSufficiencyBoundaryObligation
type: NamedIndividual
prevails over: Engineer A Technical Literature Currency Maintenance Present Case
casecontext: The Board evaluated whether Engineer A's use of established but outdated severe weather design methods, rather than newly published parameters not yet constituting standards, fell below the ethical standard of care.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.88
derived from principle: Standard of Care as Ethical Floor Invoked in Present Case Design Failure
discoveredincase: 74
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T23:29:07.641083+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 74
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T23:29:07.641083+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: NSPE Board of Ethical Review (evaluating Engineer A's design failure)
obligationclass: Standard of Care Compliance as Ethical Sufficiency Boundary Obligation
obligationstatement: The Board correctly recognized that Engineer A's compliance with the basic standards of the profession — using established structural engineering principles applicable at the time — constituted the ethical floor, and that failure to exceed that floor by adopting not-yet-standard innovative methods did not constitute an ethical violation.
sourcetext: the Board is of the view that Engineer A's actions were within the basic standards of the profession of engineering, as well as most professions and the Board cannot conclude that Engineer A acted unethically.
temporalscope: During the Board's ethical evaluation of Engineer A's design failure
textreferences: the Board is of the view that Engineer A's actions were within the basic standards of the profession of engineering, as well as most professions and the Board cannot conclude that Engineer A acted unethically.
textreferences: the facts and circumstances in this case do not indicate that the severe weather design parameters and methods constituted 'standards.' Had those parameters and methods constituted 'standards,' this Board may have reached another result.
wasattributedto: Case 74 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:37:27.715920
was generated by: ProEthica Case 74 Extraction

Engineer A Professional Literature Currency Gap in Severe Weather Design
type: ProfessionalLiteratureCurrencyFailureState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From publication of relevant severe weather design parameters through completion of Engineer A's design
affectedparties: Affected public in severe weather zone
affectedparties: Client
affectedparties: Engineer A
concept category: State
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 74
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T23:19:30.208023+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 74
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T23:19:30.208023+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: an engineer has a duty to seek to stay current on design trends and technology
stateclass: Professional Literature Currency Failure State
subject: Engineer A's failure to incorporate recently published severe weather design parameters into completed design work
terminatedby: Board's determination that non-incorporation did not constitute ethical violation given pre-standard status of parameters
textreferences: an engineer has a duty to seek to stay current on design trends and technology
textreferences: how far it is necessary for an engineer to go in order to remain current?
textreferences: it is critical for engineers practicing in a specific area to maintain current knowledge about new practice developments and incorporate those methods, as appropriate, into their professional practice
textreferences: the mere fact that an engineer did not follow the most recent literature and the professional practice resulted in some harm is insufficient
triggeringevent: Publication of severe weather design parameters in professional literature that Engineer A did not incorporate into design
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 74 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:37:27.705709
was generated by: ProEthica Case 74 Extraction

Engineer A BER-94-8 Competency Challenger
type: Competency-ChallengingCo-ProjectEngineer
type: NamedIndividual
adheres to principle: Competence Principle Invoked in BER 94-8 Structural Footing Design
adheres to principle: Public Welfare Paramount Invoked in Competence Cases
has obligation: Engineer A BER-94-8 Peer Competency Challenge and Escalation
attributes: {'license': 'Professional Engineer', 'project_role': 'Design/build project engineer', 'action_taken': 'Reported competency concerns to contractor'}
caseinvolvement: PE working on the same design/build project who identified Engineer B's competency gap in structural footing design, reported concerns to the contractor, and bore obligations to confront Engineer B, escalate to client, and if necessary withdraw.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 74
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T23:18:43.208878+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 74
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T23:18:43.208878+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'peer', 'target': 'Engineer B BER-94-8 Out-of-Competence Structural Designer'}
relationships: {'type': 'reports_to', 'target': 'Construction Contractor BER-94-8'}
rolecategory: professional_peer
roleclass: Competency-Challenging Co-Project Engineer
sourcetext: Engineer A was unable to establish that Engineer B had any apparent subsequent training in foundation design and Engineer A had reservations concerning the competence of Engineer B
textreferences: Engineer A had an ethical obligation to confront Engineer B to make his concerns known to Engineer B, thus, recommending that Engineer B withdraw from the project
textreferences: Engineer A had an ethical responsibility to question Engineer B's competency and report his concerns to the contractor
textreferences: Engineer A was unable to establish that Engineer B had any apparent subsequent training in foundation design and Engineer A had reservations concerning the competence of Engineer B
wasattributedto: Case 74 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:37:27.703538
was generated by: ProEthica Case 74 Extraction

Engineer A Severe Weather Structural Design Engineer
type: SevereWeatherStructuralDesignEngineer
type: NamedIndividual
adheres to principle: Continuing Competence Currency Obligation Invoked in Present Case
adheres to principle: Public Welfare Paramount Implicated By Structural Failure From Outdated Design
has obligation: Engineer A Severe Weather Design Standard Proactive Adoption Present Case
attributes: {'license': 'Professional Engineer (implied)', 'specialty': 'Structural engineering design', 'geographic_context': 'Severe weather region', 'knowledge_gap': 'Unfamiliar with recently published severe weather design parameters', 'experience_level': 'Experienced in regional structural design'}
caseinvolvement: Designed the structural system for a building in a severe weather region using established but outdated methods, failing to incorporate newly published severe weather design standards, resulting in structural damage when severe weather occurred within one year of construction
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 74
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T23:17:01.190935+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 74
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T23:17:01.190935+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'public_responsibility_to', 'target': 'Building occupants and general public'}
relationships: {'type': 'service_provider_to', 'target': 'Building Project Client (implied)'}
rolecategory: provider_client
roleclass: Severe Weather Structural Design Engineer
sourcetext: Engineer A is involved in the design of the structural system on a building project in an area of the country that experiences severe weather conditions
textreferences: Engineer A completes his design which is later incorporated in the plans and specifications for the building
textreferences: Engineer A is involved in the design of the structural system on a building project in an area of the country that experiences severe weather conditions
textreferences: Engineer A, who has experience with structural designs in this area of the country, designs the structural system based upon what Engineer A believes constitutes sound structural engineering principles
textreferences: While Engineer A generally attempts to stay current on changing structural design trends, Engineer A was not familiar with this recent technical literature
textreferences: had Engineer A followed the severe weather design parameters, the structural failure would not have occurred
wasattributedto: Case 74 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:37:27.700857
was generated by: ProEthica Case 74 Extraction

Engineer B BER-94-8 Out-of-Competence Structural Designer
type: Out-of-CompetenceEngineeringContractor
type: NamedIndividual
adheres to principle: Competence Principle Invoked in BER 94-8 Structural Footing Design
adheres to principle: Public Welfare Paramount Invoked in Competence Cases
has obligation: Engineer B BER-94-8 Out-of-Competence Structural Footing Design Refusal
attributes: {'license': 'Professional Engineer', 'specialty': 'Chemical Engineering', 'task_assigned': 'Structural footing design', 'competency_gap': 'Foundation/structural design'}
caseinvolvement: Chemical PE retained by construction contractor specifically to design structural footings for an industrial facility, a task outside his competence; Board found it unethical for him to perform this work.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 74
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T23:18:43.208878+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 74
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T23:18:43.208878+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'peer', 'target': 'Engineer A BER-94-8 Competency Challenger'}
relationships: {'type': 'retained_by', 'target': 'Construction Contractor BER-94-8'}
rolecategory: provider_client
roleclass: Out-of-Competence Engineering Contractor
sourcetext: Engineer B, a professional engineer, to design structural footings as part of the facility
textreferences: Engineer B's degree and background were in chemical engineering
textreferences: Engineer B, a professional engineer, to design structural footings as part of the facility
textreferences: it would be unethical for Engineer B to perform the design of the structural footings as part of the facility
wasattributedto: Case 74 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:37:27.703383
was generated by: ProEthica Case 74 Extraction

Moral Culpability Threshold Invoked in Present Case Design Failure
type: MoralCulpabilityThresholdforEthicalViolationinDesignFailure
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer A Present Case Design Failure Subject's severe weather structural design
balancingwith: Professional Accountability
balancingwith: Public Welfare Paramount
balancingwith: Standard of Care as Ethical Floor
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A's severe weather structural design resulted in failure; the Board declined to find ethical violation because there was no showing of intentional, reckless, or malicious conduct, and the methods used met the applicable standard of care at the time even if they were not the most current in the literature.
confidence: 0.94
discoveredincase: 74
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T23:26:48.518439+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 74
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T23:26:48.518439+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Design failure, even one that could have been avoided by following more recent literature, does not constitute ethical violation absent moral culpability; the ethics inquiry requires more than outcome-based assessment
invokedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
principleclass: Moral Culpability Threshold for Ethical Violation in Design Failure
sourcetext: It is the Board's view that in order for an engineer to be found unethical for a design failure, the engineer must demonstrate some level of moral culpability. In other words, there must be some demonstration that the engineer was acting in an intentional, reckless, or malicious manner.
tensionresolution: The Board resolved the tension between public welfare (which suffered harm from the failure) and professional accountability (which requires moral culpability) by requiring intentionality, recklessness, or malice as the threshold — mere negligence or failure to follow emerging literature is insufficient
textreferences: In other words, there must be some demonstration that the engineer was acting in an intentional, reckless, or malicious manner.
textreferences: It is the Board's view that in order for an engineer to be found unethical for a design failure, the engineer must demonstrate some level of moral culpability.
textreferences: Under the facts presented, the Board is of the view that Engineer A's actions were within the basic standards of the profession of engineering, as well as most professions and the Board cannot conclude that Engineer A acted unethically.
textreferences: the mere fact that an engineer did not follow the most recent literature and the professional practice resulted in some harm is insufficient, in the Board's view, to find the engineer to be deemed unethical.
wasattributedto: Case 74 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:37:27.712299
was generated by: ProEthica Case 74 Extraction

Engineer A BER-85-3 County Surveyor Appointee
type: Out-of-CompetencePublicSectorAppointeeEngineer
type: NamedIndividual
adheres to principle: Employer and Client Pressure Non-Exemption Invoked Across Competence Cases
adheres to principle: Professional Competence Invoked in BER 85-3 County Surveyor Appointment
adheres to principle: Public Welfare Paramount Invoked in Competence Cases
has obligation: Engineer A BER-85-3 County Surveyor Appointment Acceptance Prohibition
attributes: {'license': 'Professional Engineer', 'specialty': 'Chemical Engineering', 'position': 'County Surveyor', 'competency_gap': 'Land surveying and highway improvement oversight'}
caseinvolvement: Chemical PE appointed as county surveyor despite having no background or expertise in surveying; Board found it unethical to accept the position because the competency gap made effective oversight of surveying reports and highway projects impossible.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 74
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T23:18:43.208878+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 74
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T23:18:43.208878+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'appointed_by', 'target': 'County Commissioners BER-85-3'}
relationships: {'type': 'employer', 'target': 'County Government BER-85-3'}
rolecategory: employer_relationship
roleclass: Out-of-Competence Public Sector Appointee Engineer
sourcetext: the county commissioners met and decided to appoint an engineer, a P.E., with experience and educational background solely in the field of chemical engineering
textreferences: The engineer accepted the position
textreferences: it was unethical for Engineer A to accept the position as county surveyor
textreferences: it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible in the usual employment context, for a county surveyor with no background or expertise in surveying to perform effective oversight
textreferences: the county commissioners met and decided to appoint an engineer, a P.E., with experience and educational background solely in the field of chemical engineering
wasattributedto: Case 74 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:37:27.703943
was generated by: ProEthica Case 74 Extraction

Engineer A BER-98-8 Certifying Engineer
type: Out-of-CompetenceCertifyingEngineer
type: NamedIndividual
adheres to principle: Competence Principle Invoked in BER 98-8 Arms Storage Certification
adheres to principle: Employer and Client Pressure Non-Exemption Invoked Across Competence Cases
adheres to principle: Public Welfare Paramount Invoked in Competence Cases
has obligation: Engineer A BER-98-8 Out-of-Competence Certification Refusal
attributes: {'license': 'Professional Engineer', 'specialty': 'Civil Engineering', 'employer': 'U.S. Army installation', 'competency_gap': 'Army physical security, arms, ammunition, and explosive regulations'}
caseinvolvement: Civil PE serving as Civilian Building and Grounds Division Chief directed by Army official to certify arms storage rooms and racks under regulations outside his competence; Board found it would be unethical to do so.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 74
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T23:18:43.208878+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 74
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T23:18:43.208878+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'directed_by', 'target': 'Army Official BER-98-8'}
relationships: {'type': 'employer', 'target': 'U.S. Army Installation'}
rolecategory: employer_relationship
roleclass: Out-of-Competence Certifying Engineer
sourcetext: Engineer A, a professional engineer with expertise in civil engineering, served as a Civilian Building and Grounds Division Chief at a U.S. Army installation
textreferences: Engineer A had no significant training or knowledge in these areas
textreferences: Engineer A, a professional engineer with expertise in civil engineering, served as a Civilian Building and Grounds Division Chief at a U.S. Army installation
textreferences: it would not be ethical for Engineer A to certify as a qualified engineer the arms storage rooms and arms storage racks
wasattributedto: Case 74 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:37:27.703037
was generated by: ProEthica Case 74 Extraction

Engineer A Missed Opportunity Acknowledgment Post-Structural Failure
type: MissedOpportunityAcknowledgmentandLessonsLearnedCommunicationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
defeasible under: Engineer A Severe Weather Design Failure Without Moral Culpability
casecontext: Following the structural failure causally linked to Engineer A's non-application of newly published severe weather design standards, Engineer A faced an obligation to acknowledge the missed opportunity and advance professional learning, regardless of the ultimate ethical violation finding.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.89
derived from principle: Missed Opportunity Acknowledgment Obligation Invoked By Engineer A Post-Failure
discoveredincase: 74
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T23:22:50.046425+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 74
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T23:22:50.046425+00:00
importance: medium
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Missed Opportunity Acknowledgment and Lessons Learned Communication Obligation
obligationstatement: Even if the Board concludes that Engineer A did not commit an ethical violation because the newly published severe weather design standards had not yet sufficiently permeated professional practice, Engineer A was obligated to honestly acknowledge the missed opportunity to apply those standards and to communicate lessons learned to colleagues and the profession to prevent similar outcomes.
sourcetext: Within one year following construction, severe weather conditions cause significant structural damage to the building
temporalscope: Following the structural failure and its causal determination
textreferences: It is determined that had Engineer A followed the severe weather design parameters, the structural failure would not have occurred
textreferences: While Engineer A generally attempts to stay current on changing structural design trends, Engineer A was not familiar with this recent technical literature
textreferences: Within one year following construction, severe weather conditions cause significant structural damage to the building
wasattributedto: Case 74 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:37:27.708590
was generated by: ProEthica Case 74 Extraction

Proportionality in Misconduct Characterization Applied To Engineer A Knowledge Gap
type: ProportionalityinMisconductCharacterization
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Ethics board characterization of design failure conduct
balancingwith: Causal Nexus Requirement for Design Failure Ethical Culpability
balancingwith: Professional Accountability
balancingwith: Public Welfare Paramount
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The Board must calibrate its characterization of Engineer A's conduct proportionately: Engineer A had relevant experience, made a good-faith effort to stay current, and applied what were established (if outdated) principles — distinguishing this from deliberate disregard of known standards or incompetent practice, and warranting a measured rather than severe ethical characterization.
confidence: 0.85
discoveredincase: 74
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T23:21:28.397855+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 74
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T23:21:28.397855+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Proportionality requires distinguishing between: (1) deliberate disregard of known standards (highest culpability); (2) failure to discover recently published standards despite general currency efforts (moderate, context-dependent culpability); and (3) design failure from unforeseeable events (no culpability). Engineer A's situation falls in category 2, and proportionality counsels against treating it as equivalent to category 1.
invokedby: Engineer A Present Case Design Failure Subject
principleclass: Proportionality in Misconduct Characterization
sourcetext: Although Engineer A has knowledge and experience in structural design, new and improved design methods have recently been developed to address the severe weather conditions in the location in which Engineer A practices.
tensionresolution: Proportionality does not immunize Engineer A from ethical scrutiny — the structural failure was real and causally linked to the knowledge gap. But it does require that any ethical finding and sanction reflect the nature of the conduct: an honest knowledge gap in a rapidly evolving technical area, not deliberate or reckless disregard of known safety standards.
textreferences: Although Engineer A has knowledge and experience in structural design, new and improved design methods have recently been developed
textreferences: Engineer A, who has experience with structural designs in this area of the country, designs the structural system based upon what Engineer A believes constitutes sound structural engineering principles
textreferences: While Engineer A generally attempts to stay current on changing structural design trends, Engineer A was not familiar with this recent technical literature
wasattributedto: Case 74 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:37:27.707783
was generated by: ProEthica Case 74 Extraction

Reasonableness Standard for Currency Invoked in Present Case
type: ReasonablenessStandardforKnowledgeCurrencyinEngineeringPractice
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer A Present Case Design Failure Subject's severe weather structural design methods
balancingwith: Continuing Competence Currency Obligation
balancingwith: Public Welfare Paramount
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The Board declined to hold Engineer A unethical for failing to follow the most recent severe weather design parameters and methods, because those parameters had not yet been incorporated into generally accepted practice as 'standards,' and engineers cannot be required to follow every new technique not yet fully tested or peer-reviewed.
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 74
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T23:26:48.518439+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 74
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T23:26:48.518439+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The ethical currency obligation extends to established standards, not to every recent publication; the Board explicitly noted that had the parameters constituted 'standards,' the result might have been different
invokedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
principleclass: Reasonableness Standard for Knowledge Currency in Engineering Practice
sourcetext: The Board believes that the definition of what is 'current' must be reasonable as engineers cannot be expected to incorporate each and every new and innovative technique or parameter that has not been fully tested or peer reviewed.
tensionresolution: The reasonableness standard limits the currency obligation to established standards, with the standards/emerging-literature distinction as the operative ethical boundary; public welfare is protected by requiring adherence to established standards while not chilling practice through over-broad currency demands
textreferences: Following a reasonable period of time, innovative techniques and parameters may be incorporated into generally accepted practice and at such time, once well defined, and as part of the body of technical knowledge, such techniques become standards that should be followed.
textreferences: The Board believes that the definition of what is 'current' must be reasonable as engineers cannot be expected to incorporate each and every new and innovative technique or parameter that has not been fully tested or peer reviewed.
textreferences: The Board would note that the facts and circumstances in this case do not indicate that the severe weather design parameters and methods constituted 'standards.' Had those parameters and methods constituted 'standards,' this Board may have reached another result.
wasattributedto: Case 74 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:37:27.712481
was generated by: ProEthica Case 74 Extraction

Engineer A Present Case Moral Culpability Threshold Not Met Design Failure
type: MoralCulpabilityThresholdRequirementforDesignFailureEthicalViolationFindingObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Ethics Board Causal Nexus Establishment Engineer A Design Failure
prevails over: Ethics Board Causal Nexus Establishment Engineer A Design Failure
casecontext: Engineer A designed a structural system in a severe weather region using established but outdated methods, resulting in structural failure. The Board evaluated whether this constituted an ethical violation.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.92
derived from principle: Moral Culpability Threshold Invoked in Present Case Design Failure
discoveredincase: 74
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T23:29:07.641083+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 74
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T23:29:07.641083+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: NSPE Board of Ethical Review (evaluating Engineer A's design failure)
obligationclass: Moral Culpability Threshold Requirement for Design Failure Ethical Violation Finding Obligation
obligationstatement: The Board was obligated to require demonstration of moral culpability — intentional, reckless, or malicious conduct — before finding Engineer A unethical for the design failure resulting from use of outdated severe weather design methods, and correctly declined to find an ethical violation absent such a showing.
sourcetext: in order for an engineer to be found unethical for a design failure, the engineer must demonstrate some level of moral culpability.
temporalscope: During the Board's ethical evaluation of Engineer A's design failure
textreferences: in order for an engineer to be found unethical for a design failure, the engineer must demonstrate some level of moral culpability.
textreferences: the Board is of the view that Engineer A's actions were within the basic standards of the profession of engineering and the Board cannot conclude that Engineer A acted unethically.
textreferences: the mere fact that an engineer did not follow the most recent literature and the professional practice resulted in some harm is insufficient, in the Board's view, to find the engineer to be deemed unethical.
textreferences: there must be some demonstration that the engineer was acting in an intentional, reckless, or malicious manner.
wasattributedto: Case 74 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:37:27.715028
was generated by: ProEthica Case 74 Extraction

Engineer B BER-94-8 Out-of-Competence Structural Footing Design Refusal
type: Out-of-CompetenceAssignmentRefusalObligation
type: NamedIndividual
defeasible under: BER 94-8 Engineer B Chemical Engineer Structural Footing Assignment
casecontext: Engineer B, a chemical PE, was separately retained by a construction contractor to design structural footings for an industrial facility on a design/build project. Engineer B had no apparent subsequent training in foundation design.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.91
derived from principle: Competence Principle Invoked in BER 94-8 Structural Footing Design
derived from principle: Public Welfare Paramount Invoked in Competence Cases
discoveredincase: 74
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T23:29:07.641083+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 74
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T23:29:07.641083+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer B (BER Case 94-8, Chemical PE retained for structural footing design)
obligationclass: Out-of-Competence Assignment Refusal Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer B was obligated to refuse to design structural footings for the industrial facility, because Engineer B's background was in chemical engineering and Engineer B lacked demonstrated competence in foundation/structural design.
sourcetext: The Board determined that it would be unethical for Engineer B to perform the design of the structural footings as part of the facility.
temporalscope: At the time Engineer B accepted the structural footing design engagement
textreferences: Engineer A was unable to establish that Engineer B had any apparent subsequent training in foundation design.
textreferences: Engineer B's degree and background were in chemical engineering.
textreferences: The Board determined that it would be unethical for Engineer B to perform the design of the structural footings as part of the facility.
wasattributedto: Case 74 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:37:27.714516
was generated by: ProEthica Case 74 Extraction

Professional Competence Invoked in BER 85-3 County Surveyor Appointment
type: CompetencePrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: County surveyor position requiring oversight of surveying reports and highway improvement projects
balancingwith: Employer and Client Pressure Non-Exemption from Competence Boundary
balancingwith: Loyalty
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: A chemical PE accepted appointment as county surveyor despite having no background or expertise in surveying; the Board held this unethical because the engineer could not perform effective oversight of surveying reports and highway improvement projects regardless of the employment context.
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 74
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T23:26:48.518439+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 74
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T23:26:48.518439+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Accepting a public sector position whose duties require competence the engineer does not possess is unethical, even when the appointment comes from a legitimate governmental authority; the employment context does not expand competence boundaries
invokedby: Engineer A BER-85-3 County Surveyor Appointee
invokedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
principleclass: Competence Principle
sourcetext: The Board could not see any way in which the engineer could be acting in accordance with NSPE Code Section II.2.b. under these facts, because whatever course of action he took would result in unethical conduct and compromise his role as county surveyor.
tensionresolution: The Board found no ethical path available to the engineer under the facts — whatever course of action he took would result in unethical conduct — reinforcing that accepting the position itself was the ethical error
textreferences: The Board could not see any way in which the engineer could be acting in accordance with NSPE Code Section II.2.b. under these facts, because whatever course of action he took would result in unethical conduct and compromise his role as county surveyor.
textreferences: The Board decided it was unethical for Engineer A to accept the position as county surveyor.
textreferences: it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible in the usual employment context, for a county surveyor with no background or expertise in surveying to perform effective oversight of surveying reports and highway improvement projects for the county.
wasattributedto: Case 74 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:37:27.713930
was generated by: ProEthica Case 74 Extraction

Competence Principle Invoked in BER 98-8 Arms Storage Certification
type: CompetencePrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Arms storage room and rack certification under Army physical security regulations
balancingwith: Employer and Client Pressure Non-Exemption from Competence Boundary
balancingwith: Loyalty
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A, a civil PE, was directed to certify arms storage rooms and racks under specialized Army regulations outside his expertise; the Board held this would be unethical because Engineer A lacked the required knowledge and training funds were unavailable.
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 74
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T23:26:48.518439+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 74
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T23:26:48.518439+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Competence requires not only general professional licensure but domain-specific knowledge of the specialized regulations and procedures at issue; civil PE credentials do not extend to military hardware storage compliance
invokedby: Engineer A BER-98-8 Certifying Engineer
invokedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
principleclass: Competence Principle
sourcetext: making certain that a military hardware storage facility was designed and built safely involves keen awareness of many complex and detailed procedures, rules, and regulations that are unique to this field of endeavor and while Engineer A may be a very competent engineer, Engineer A is clearly not knowledgeable in this very technical and complicated area.
tensionresolution: Competence boundary holds even when employer requests certification and training funds are unavailable
textreferences: While there may be comprehensive training programs available, the facts reveal that insufficient funds exist for Engineer A to participate in such programs.
textreferences: making certain that a military hardware storage facility was designed and built safely involves keen awareness of many complex and detailed procedures, rules, and regulations that are unique to this field of endeavor and while Engineer A may be a very competent engineer, Engineer A is clearly not knowledgeable in this very technical and complicated area.
wasattributedto: Case 74 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:37:27.711768
was generated by: ProEthica Case 74 Extraction

Engineer A BER-85-3 County Surveyor Appointment Acceptance Prohibition
type: PublicSectorOut-of-CompetenceAppointmentAcceptanceProhibitionObligation
type: NamedIndividual
defeasible under: BER 85-3 Chemical Engineer County Surveyor Employment
casecontext: County commissioners appointed a chemical PE as county surveyor after the first appointee was found unqualified. The county surveyor position required oversight of surveying reports and highway improvement projects. The engineer accepted the position.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.91
derived from principle: Employer and Client Pressure Non-Exemption Invoked Across Competence Cases
derived from principle: Professional Competence Invoked in BER 85-3 County Surveyor Appointment
derived from principle: Public Welfare Paramount Invoked in Competence Cases
discoveredincase: 74
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T23:29:07.641083+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 74
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T23:29:07.641083+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A (BER Case 85-3, Chemical PE appointed as county surveyor)
obligationclass: Public Sector Out-of-Competence Appointment Acceptance Prohibition Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to decline the appointment as county surveyor because Engineer A's background was solely in chemical engineering and Engineer A lacked the competence to perform effective oversight of surveying reports and highway improvement projects.
sourcetext: The Board decided it was unethical for Engineer A to accept the position as county surveyor.
temporalscope: At the time the county commissioners offered the county surveyor appointment
textreferences: The Board decided it was unethical for Engineer A to accept the position as county surveyor.
textreferences: it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible in the usual employment context, for a county surveyor with no background or expertise in surveying to perform effective oversight of surveying reports and highway improvement projects for the county.
textreferences: whatever course of action he took would result in unethical conduct and compromise his role as county surveyor.
wasattributedto: Case 74 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:37:27.714869
was generated by: ProEthica Case 74 Extraction

Engineer A Post-Accident Honest Self-Assessment Structural Failure
type: Post-AccidentObjectiveSelf-AssessmentandHonestCharacterizationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer A Present Case Missed Opportunity Acknowledgment Post-Failure
casecontext: Engineer A's structural design failed within one year of construction due to severe weather conditions. The failure was causally linked to non-application of newly published design standards. Engineer A had acted in good faith but had not maintained currency with the relevant technical literature.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.86
derived from principle: Proportionality in Misconduct Characterization Applied To Engineer A Knowledge Gap
discoveredincase: 74
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T23:22:50.046425+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 74
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T23:22:50.046425+00:00
importance: medium
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Post-Accident Objective Self-Assessment and Honest Characterization Obligation
obligationstatement: Following the structural failure of the building Engineer A designed, Engineer A was obligated to conduct an honest and objective self-assessment of their design decisions — acknowledging both the good-faith reliance on established principles and the failure to incorporate newly published severe weather design standards — and to communicate that honest characterization to relevant stakeholders without either falsely claiming error where good faith existed or suppressing recognition of the knowledge gap.
sourcetext: Engineer A, who has experience with structural designs in this area of the country, designs the structural system based upon what Engineer A believes constitutes sound structural engineering principles
temporalscope: Following the structural failure and causal determination
textreferences: Engineer A, who has experience with structural designs in this area of the country, designs the structural system based upon what Engineer A believes constitutes sound structural engineering principles
textreferences: It is determined that had Engineer A followed the severe weather design parameters, the structural failure would not have occurred
textreferences: Within one year following construction, severe weather conditions cause significant structural damage to the building
wasattributedto: Case 74 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:37:27.708783
was generated by: ProEthica Case 74 Extraction

Engineer A Present Case Missed Opportunity Acknowledgment Post-Failure
type: MissedOpportunityAcknowledgmentandLessonsLearnedCommunicationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer A Post-Accident Honest Self-Assessment Structural Failure
casecontext: Following the structural failure, the Board declined to find Engineer A unethical but noted the importance of staying current on design trends. The missed opportunity to incorporate newer methods, while not unethical, warranted acknowledgment.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.8
derived from principle: Missed Opportunity Acknowledgment Obligation Invoked By Engineer A Post-Failure
discoveredincase: 74
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T23:29:07.641083+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 74
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T23:29:07.641083+00:00
importance: medium
obligatedparty: Engineer A (present case, post-design-failure)
obligationclass: Missed Opportunity Acknowledgment and Lessons Learned Communication Obligation
obligationstatement: Even though the Board found no ethical violation, Engineer A bore an obligation to acknowledge the missed opportunity to incorporate newly published severe weather design methods and to communicate lessons learned to colleagues and the profession, without characterizing the original design as an ethical error.
sourcetext: an engineer certainly has a duty to seek to stay current on design trends and technology
temporalscope: Following the Board's determination that no ethical violation occurred
textreferences: an engineer certainly has a duty to seek to stay current on design trends and technology
textreferences: it is critical for engineers practicing in a specific area to maintain current knowledge about new practice developments and incorporate those methods, as appropriate, into their professional practice.
textreferences: the Board is of the view that Engineer A's actions were within the basic standards of the profession of engineering
wasattributedto: Case 74 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:37:27.715478
was generated by: ProEthica Case 74 Extraction

Engineer A Severe Weather Design Failure Without Moral Culpability
type: DesignFailureWithoutMoralCulpabilityState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From materialization of design failure through Board's ethical determination
affectedparties: Affected public
affectedparties: Client
affectedparties: Engineer A
concept category: State
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 74
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T23:19:30.208023+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 74
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T23:19:30.208023+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Is performing engineering design work that may result in a failure unethical?
stateclass: Design Failure Without Moral Culpability State
subject: Engineer A's design failure in severe weather zone without evidence of intentional, reckless, or malicious conduct
terminatedby: Board determination that Engineer A did not act unethically absent moral culpability
textreferences: Engineer A's actions were within the basic standards of the profession of engineering
textreferences: Is performing engineering design work that may result in a failure unethical?
textreferences: an engineer may design a facility that fails and that alone does not mean that the engineer is negligent—much less unethical
textreferences: in order for an engineer to be found unethical for a design failure, the engineer must demonstrate some level of moral culpability
textreferences: the Board cannot conclude that Engineer A acted unethically
textreferences: the mere fact that an engineer did not follow the most recent literature and the professional practice resulted in some harm is insufficient
textreferences: there must be some demonstration that the engineer was acting in an intentional, reckless, or malicious manner
triggeringevent: Design failure attributable to non-application of emerging severe weather design parameters that had not yet achieved standard status
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 74 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:37:27.705312
was generated by: ProEthica Case 74 Extraction

Public Welfare Paramount Implicated By Structural Failure From Outdated Design
type: PublicWelfareParamount
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Building structural system design in severe weather region
appliedto: Occupant safety of completed building
balancingwith: Causal Nexus Requirement for Design Failure Ethical Culpability
balancingwith: Standard of Care as Ethical Floor
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The structural failure caused by Engineer A's use of outdated severe weather design methods resulted in significant structural damage to a building, implicating the fundamental engineering obligation to hold paramount the safety and welfare of the public — specifically the building's occupants and users who relied on the structural integrity of the design.
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 74
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T23:21:28.397855+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 74
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T23:21:28.397855+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Public welfare paramount is the foundational principle against which Engineer A's conduct is measured. The public welfare obligation does not require perfect outcomes, but it does require that engineers apply current, competent methods to protect those who cannot evaluate the adequacy of engineering designs. The structural failure is the concrete manifestation of public welfare harm that triggers ethical scrutiny.
invokedby: Engineer A Present Case Design Failure Subject
principleclass: Public Welfare Paramount
sourcetext: Within one year following construction, severe weather conditions cause significant structural damage to the building.
tensionresolution: Public welfare paramount does not impose strict liability on engineers for all harmful outcomes. The principle is balanced against the standard of care: if Engineer A's methods were consistent with competent practice at the time, the public welfare obligation was discharged even though harm resulted. The principle does, however, support the Continuing Competence Currency Obligation as a derived duty — staying current with published standards is one way engineers operationalize public welfare protection.
textreferences: Engineer A is involved in the design of the structural system on a building project in an area of the country that experiences severe weather conditions
textreferences: It is determined that had Engineer A followed the severe weather design parameters, the structural failure would not have occurred
textreferences: severe weather conditions cause significant structural damage to the building
wasattributedto: Case 74 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:37:27.707119
was generated by: ProEthica Case 74 Extraction

Severe Weather Parameters Pre-Standardization Status
type: CompetenceStandardEvolutionState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: At the time of Engineer A's design work through Board's determination
affectedparties: Clients in severe weather zones
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Engineering profession generally
concept category: State
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 74
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T23:19:30.208023+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 74
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T23:19:30.208023+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: engineers cannot be expected to incorporate each and every new and innovative technique or parameter that has not been fully tested or peer reviewed
stateclass: Competence Standard Evolution State
subject: Severe weather design parameters existing in professional literature but not yet constituting formal standards at time of Engineer A's design
terminatedby: Parameters achieving formal standard status (prospective); Board's determination that parameters were not yet standards at relevant time
textreferences: Following a reasonable period of time, innovative techniques and parameters may be incorporated into generally accepted practice and at such time, once well defined, and as part of the body of technical knowledge, such techniques become standards that should be followed
textreferences: Had those parameters and methods constituted 'standards,' this Board may have reached another result
textreferences: engineers cannot be expected to incorporate each and every new and innovative technique or parameter that has not been fully tested or peer reviewed
textreferences: the facts and circumstances in this case do not indicate that the severe weather design parameters and methods constituted 'standards'
triggeringevent: Publication of severe weather design parameters in professional literature without formal adoption as binding standards
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 74 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:37:27.705503
was generated by: ProEthica Case 74 Extraction

Standard of Care as Ethical Floor Invoked In Engineer A Design Failure Evaluation
type: StandardofCareasEthicalFloor
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Structural design methodology selection for severe weather region building
balancingwith: Continuing Competence Currency Obligation
balancingwith: Public Welfare Paramount
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The Board's evaluation of Engineer A's design failure turns on whether Engineer A's use of established structural engineering principles — without incorporating newly published severe weather design parameters — met the standard of care applicable at the time of design, and whether falling below that standard (if found) constitutes an ethical violation rather than merely a technical error.
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 74
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T23:21:28.397855+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 74
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T23:21:28.397855+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The standard of care as ethical floor means that if Engineer A's methods were consistent with what a competent practitioner in the specialty would have done at the time — even if better methods existed — no ethical violation occurred. Conversely, if the newly published standards had sufficiently permeated the profession that a competent practitioner would have known and applied them, Engineer A's design fell below the ethical floor.
invokedby: Engineer A Present Case Design Failure Subject
principleclass: Standard of Care as Ethical Floor
sourcetext: Engineer A, who has experience with structural designs in this area of the country, designs the structural system based upon what Engineer A believes constitutes sound structural engineering principles.
tensionresolution: The standard of care is determined at the time of design, not retrospectively. The recency of the published standards is critical: if they were so newly published that their adoption was not yet expected of a competent practitioner, Engineer A met the ethical floor. The Board's conclusion that Engineer A did not violate ethics (as indicated by the role label 'Design Failure Moral Culpability Engineer' and the Board's evaluation) reflects this analysis.
textreferences: Although Engineer A has knowledge and experience in structural design, new and improved design methods have recently been developed
textreferences: Engineer A, who has experience with structural designs in this area of the country, designs the structural system based upon what Engineer A believes constitutes sound structural engineering principles
textreferences: It is determined that had Engineer A followed the severe weather design parameters, the structural failure would not have occurred
wasattributedto: Case 74 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:37:27.706859
was generated by: ProEthica Case 74 Extraction

Causal Nexus Requirement Applied To Engineer A Design Failure Culpability
type: CausalNexusRequirementforDesignFailureEthicalCulpability
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Ethical culpability determination for structural design failure
balancingwith: Professional Accountability
balancingwith: Proportionality in Misconduct Characterization
balancingwith: Standard of Care as Ethical Floor
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The Board's ethical evaluation of Engineer A requires establishing that (1) Engineer A's failure to apply the newly published severe weather design parameters fell below the applicable standard of care, and (2) this failure was causally necessary for the structural damage — both elements being required before an ethical violation finding is warranted.
confidence: 0.87
discoveredincase: 74
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T23:21:28.397855+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 74
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T23:21:28.397855+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The causal nexus is explicitly established in the case: 'had Engineer A followed the severe weather design parameters, the structural failure would not have occurred.' This counterfactual causation satisfies the causal nexus element. The remaining ethical question is whether Engineer A's conduct fell below the standard of care — i.e., whether the failure to know and apply the new standards was a breach of professional duty or an understandable knowledge gap given the recency of publication.
invokedby: Engineer A Present Case Design Failure Subject
principleclass: Causal Nexus Requirement for Design Failure Ethical Culpability
sourcetext: It is determined that had Engineer A followed the severe weather design parameters, the structural failure would not have occurred.
tensionresolution: The causal nexus is clear, but causal connection alone does not establish ethical culpability — the conduct must also have been below the standard of care. The Board's analysis must separate the question of causation (established) from the question of standard-of-care breach (contested given recency of published standards). Proportionality in misconduct characterization further counsels against treating an honest knowledge gap as equivalent to deliberate disregard.
textreferences: Engineer A, who has experience with structural designs in this area of the country, designs the structural system based upon what Engineer A believes constitutes sound structural engineering principles
textreferences: It is determined that had Engineer A followed the severe weather design parameters, the structural failure would not have occurred
textreferences: While Engineer A generally attempts to stay current on changing structural design trends, Engineer A was not familiar with this recent technical literature
wasattributedto: Case 74 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:37:27.707331
was generated by: ProEthica Case 74 Extraction

Engineer A BER-94-8 Peer Competency Challenge and Escalation
type: Out-of-CompetencePeerCompetencyChallengeandEscalationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
defeasible under: BER 94-8 Engineer A Peer Competence Challenge Obligation
casecontext: Engineer A, working on the same design/build project, identified that Engineer B (a chemical PE) lacked competence to design structural footings. Engineer A reported concerns to the contractor.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.9
derived from principle: Competence Principle Invoked in BER 94-8 Structural Footing Design
derived from principle: Public Welfare Paramount Invoked in Competence Cases
discoveredincase: 74
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T23:29:07.641083+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 74
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T23:29:07.641083+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A (BER Case 94-8, PE on design/build project)
obligationclass: Out-of-Competence Peer Competency Challenge and Escalation Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to: (1) confront Engineer B directly and recommend withdrawal from the structural footing design task; (2) if Engineer B refused, report concerns to the contractor; and (3) if concerns remained unaddressed, escalate to appropriate authorities and, if necessary, withdraw from the project.
sourcetext: Engineer A had an ethical responsibility to question Engineer B's competency and report his concerns to the contractor.
temporalscope: Upon Engineer A's determination that Engineer B lacked requisite competence for structural footing design
textreferences: Engineer A had an ethical obligation to confront Engineer B to make his concerns known to Engineer B, thus, recommending that Engineer B withdraw from the project.
textreferences: Engineer A had an ethical responsibility to question Engineer B's competency and report his concerns to the contractor.
textreferences: If Engineer B refused to acquiesce to Engineer A's recommendation, Engineer A had an obligation under the NSPE Code of Ethics to bring the matter to the attention of his client and to the authorities as appropriate, and if necessary, withdraw from the project if his concerns were not met.
wasattributedto: Case 74 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:37:27.714711
was generated by: ProEthica Case 74 Extraction

Engineer A BER-98-8 Out-of-Competence Certification Refusal
type: Out-of-CompetenceAssignmentRefusalObligation
type: NamedIndividual
defeasible under: BER 98-8 Training Funds Unavailable
prevails over: Engineer A BER-94-8 Peer Competency Challenge and Escalation
casecontext: Engineer A, a civil PE serving as Civilian Building and Grounds Division Chief at a U.S. Army installation, was requested by an Army official to certify arms storage rooms and racks under detailed Army physical security, arms, ammunition, and explosive regulations. Engineer A had no significant training or knowledge in these areas, and training funds were unavailable.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.92
derived from principle: Competence Principle Invoked in BER 98-8 Arms Storage Certification
derived from principle: Employer and Client Pressure Non-Exemption Invoked Across Competence Cases
derived from principle: Public Welfare Paramount Invoked in Competence Cases
discoveredincase: 74
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T23:29:07.641083+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 74
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T23:29:07.641083+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A (BER Case 98-8, Civil PE, Building and Grounds Division Chief)
obligationclass: Out-of-Competence Assignment Refusal Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to refuse to certify the arms storage rooms and arms storage racks under specialized Army physical security regulations, because Engineer A lacked the requisite training and knowledge in that specialized domain, and the unavailability of training funds did not excuse the competence requirement.
sourcetext: The Board determined that it would not be ethical for Engineer A to certify as a qualified engineer the arms storage rooms and arms storage racks as requested by the Army official, noting that the competency issues at stake posed a clear and present danger to the public health and safety.
temporalscope: At the time the Army official's certification request was made
textreferences: Engineer A is clearly not knowledgeable in this very technical and complicated area.
textreferences: The Board determined that it would not be ethical for Engineer A to certify as a qualified engineer the arms storage rooms and arms storage racks as requested by the Army official, noting that the competency issues at stake posed a clear and present danger to the public health and safety.
textreferences: While there may be comprehensive training programs available, the facts reveal that insufficient funds exist for Engineer A to participate in such programs.
wasattributedto: Case 74 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:37:27.714351
was generated by: ProEthica Case 74 Extraction

Ethics Board Causal Nexus Establishment Engineer A Design Failure
type: CausalNexusEstablishmentBeforeDesignFailureEthicalCulpabilityFindingObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer A Present Case Moral Culpability Threshold Not Met Design Failure
defeasible under: Engineer A Severe Weather Design Failure Without Moral Culpability
casecontext: The Board evaluated whether Engineer A's use of established but outdated structural design methods in a severe weather region constituted an ethical violation. The causal link between the knowledge gap and the structural failure was affirmatively established, supporting the culpability finding.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.87
derived from principle: Causal Nexus Requirement Applied To Engineer A Design Failure Culpability
discoveredincase: 74
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T23:22:50.046425+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 74
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T23:22:50.046425+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Ethics Board / Professional Review Authority
obligationclass: Causal Nexus Establishment Before Design Failure Ethical Culpability Finding Obligation
obligationstatement: The ethics board evaluating Engineer A's design failure was obligated to establish a demonstrable causal nexus between Engineer A's failure to apply the newly published severe weather design standards and the structural failure before finding an ethical violation — a nexus that is affirmatively established in this case by the determination that the failure would not have occurred had the updated parameters been applied.
sourcetext: It is determined that had Engineer A followed the severe weather design parameters, the structural failure would not have occurred
temporalscope: At the time of ethics adjudication following the structural failure
textreferences: It is determined that had Engineer A followed the severe weather design parameters, the structural failure would not have occurred
textreferences: Within one year following construction, severe weather conditions cause significant structural damage to the building
wasattributedto: Case 74 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:37:27.708265
was generated by: ProEthica Case 74 Extraction

Standard of Care as Ethical Floor Invoked in Present Case Design Failure
type: StandardofCareasEthicalFloor
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer A Present Case Design Failure Subject's structural design evaluation
balancingwith: Moral Culpability Threshold for Ethical Violation in Design Failure
balancingwith: Reasonableness Standard for Knowledge Currency in Engineering Practice
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The Board found Engineer A's actions within the basic standards of the profession, treating compliance with the standard of care applicable at the time of design as the ethical floor below which unethical conduct begins — and above which, even if better methods existed, no ethical violation occurs.
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 74
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T23:26:48.518439+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 74
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T23:26:48.518439+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Meeting the standard of care at the time of design is sufficient to avoid ethical violation for design failure; the ethical floor is not defined by the most recent literature but by generally accepted practice
invokedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
principleclass: Standard of Care as Ethical Floor
sourcetext: Under the facts presented, the Board is of the view that Engineer A's actions were within the basic standards of the profession of engineering, as well as most professions and the Board cannot conclude that Engineer A acted unethically.
tensionresolution: Standard of care compliance establishes the ethical floor; the moral culpability threshold and reasonableness currency standard together define when deviation from that floor rises to ethical violation
textreferences: Clearly, there is a distinction between ethical issues and legal issues.
textreferences: Ethical impropriety involves more than the fact that an engineer designed a facility that fails.
textreferences: Under the facts presented, the Board is of the view that Engineer A's actions were within the basic standards of the profession of engineering, as well as most professions and the Board cannot conclude that Engineer A acted unethically.
wasattributedto: Case 74 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:37:27.712638
was generated by: ProEthica Case 74 Extraction

Continuing Competence Currency Obligation Invoked By Engineer A Present Case
type: ContinuingCompetenceCurrencyObligation
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Structural system design for building in severe weather region
balancingwith: Causal Nexus Requirement for Design Failure Ethical Culpability
balancingwith: Standard of Care as Ethical Floor
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A designed a structural system in a severe weather region using established but outdated methods, failing to incorporate newly published severe weather design standards that were available in the technical literature at the time of design, despite generally attempting to stay current with design trends.
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 74
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T23:21:28.397855+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 74
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T23:21:28.397855+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The principle requires that engineers actively monitor and incorporate current published standards in their specialty. Engineer A's general effort to stay current was insufficient in this instance — the newly published severe weather design parameters were material to the project and their omission was causally linked to the structural failure. The ethical question is whether the gap between general currency efforts and actual knowledge of this specific literature constitutes a breach of the competence currency obligation.
invokedby: Engineer A Present Case Design Failure Subject
principleclass: Continuing Competence Currency Obligation
sourcetext: While Engineer A generally attempts to stay current on changing structural design trends, Engineer A was not familiar with this recent technical literature.
tensionresolution: The Board must determine whether the recently published standards had sufficiently penetrated the profession to be within the reasonable knowledge of a competent practitioner in this specialty. If so, Engineer A's failure to know them breaches the currency obligation. If the standards were too newly published to be reasonably expected knowledge, the standard of care may not yet have incorporated them, and the ethical violation finding would be weakened.
textreferences: These new and improved severe weather design standards have been published in the most recent technical literature
textreferences: While Engineer A generally attempts to stay current on changing structural design trends, Engineer A was not familiar with this recent technical literature
textreferences: new and improved design methods have recently been developed to address the severe weather conditions in the location in which Engineer A practices
wasattributedto: Case 74 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:37:27.706320
was generated by: ProEthica Case 74 Extraction

Employer and Client Pressure Non-Exemption Invoked Across Competence Cases
type: EmployerandClientPressureNon-ExemptionfromCompetenceBoundary
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer A BER-85-3 county commissioner appointment
appliedto: Engineer A BER-98-8 Army directive
appliedto: Engineer B BER-94-8 contractor retention
balancingwith: Loyalty
balancingwith: Public Welfare Principle
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The Board synthesized BER Cases 98-8, 94-8, and 85-3 to articulate the general principle that employer and client pressures — including resource constraints and institutional appointments — do not exempt engineers from the obligation to practice solely within their area of competence.
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 74
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T23:26:48.518439+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 74
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T23:26:48.518439+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Whether the pressure comes from a military employer, a private contractor client, or a governmental appointing authority, the competence boundary is non-negotiable and cannot be waived by institutional authority
invokedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
principleclass: Employer and Client Pressure Non-Exemption from Competence Boundary
sourcetext: licensed engineers must make all efforts to perform professional services solely within their area of competence and not be unduly influenced either by employer or client pressures that could cause grave danger to the public health and safety.
tensionresolution: Public welfare and professional competence obligations override institutional pressure; the employment context does not expand competence boundaries, though it may affect available remedies
textreferences: Obviously there are important distinctions in applying the NSPE Code language to a consulting practice and applying the language in the context of an employment relationship.
textreferences: it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible in the usual employment context, for a county surveyor with no background or expertise in surveying to perform effective oversight of surveying reports and highway improvement projects for the county.
textreferences: licensed engineers must make all efforts to perform professional services solely within their area of competence and not be unduly influenced either by employer or client pressures that could cause grave danger to the public health and safety.
wasattributedto: Case 74 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:37:27.712131
was generated by: ProEthica Case 74 Extraction

Engineer A Present Case Reasonable Currency Standard Compliance
type: ReasonableCurrencyStandardComplianceObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer A Severe Weather Design Standard Proactive Adoption Present Case
defeasible under: Engineer A Professional Literature Currency Gap in Severe Weather Design
prevails over: Engineer A Severe Weather Design Standard Proactive Adoption Present Case
casecontext: Engineer A designed a structural system in a severe weather region using established but outdated methods. The Board evaluated whether failure to incorporate newly published severe weather design parameters constituted an ethical violation.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.9
derived from principle: Reasonableness Standard for Currency Invoked in Present Case
discoveredincase: 74
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T23:29:07.641083+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 74
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T23:29:07.641083+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A (present case, severe weather structural design)
obligationclass: Reasonable Currency Standard Compliance Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to maintain currency with technical developments to a reasonable degree — following methods constituting accepted standards at the time of practice — but was not obligated to incorporate the newly published severe weather design parameters and methods because those had not yet achieved the status of recognized standards permeated throughout professional practice.
sourcetext: the Board believes that the definition of what is 'current' must be reasonable as engineers cannot be expected to incorporate each and every new and innovative technique or parameter that has not been fully tested or peer reviewed.
temporalscope: At the time Engineer A performed the severe weather structural design
textreferences: an engineer certainly has a duty to seek to stay current on design trends and technology
textreferences: the Board believes that the definition of what is 'current' must be reasonable as engineers cannot be expected to incorporate each and every new and innovative technique or parameter that has not been fully tested or peer reviewed.
textreferences: the facts and circumstances in this case do not indicate that the severe weather design parameters and methods constituted 'standards.' Had those parameters and methods constituted 'standards,' this Board may have reached another result.
wasattributedto: Case 74 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:37:27.715176
was generated by: ProEthica Case 74 Extraction

Engineer A Present Case Technical Literature Currency Maintenance
type: TechnicalLiteratureCurrencyMaintenanceObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer A Severe Weather Design Standard Proactive Adoption Present Case
defeasible under: Competence Standard Evolution — Severe Weather Structural Design
casecontext: Engineer A designed a structural system in a severe weather region. Newly published severe weather design parameters existed but had not yet achieved standard status in professional practice.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.88
derived from principle: Continuing Competence Currency Obligation Invoked By Engineer A Present Case
derived from principle: Continuing Competence Currency Obligation Invoked in Present Case
discoveredincase: 74
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T23:29:07.641083+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 74
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T23:29:07.641083+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A (present case, severe weather structural design)
obligationclass: Technical Literature Currency Maintenance Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A bore an ongoing obligation to actively monitor and incorporate newly published technical standards and design methods relevant to severe weather structural design in the region, but the Board found this obligation was not violated because the newly published parameters had not yet permeated professional practice to the degree that a reasonably diligent engineer would be expected to have encountered and adopted them.
sourcetext: it is critical for engineers practicing in a specific area to maintain current knowledge about new practice developments and incorporate those methods, as appropriate, into their professional practice.
temporalscope: Throughout Engineer A's practice in the severe weather structural design domain
textreferences: an engineer certainly has a duty to seek to stay current on design trends and technology, and as suggested in BER Case 98-8, seek appropriate education and training before undertaking new and different tasks.
textreferences: it is critical for engineers practicing in a specific area to maintain current knowledge about new practice developments and incorporate those methods, as appropriate, into their professional practice.
textreferences: the facts and circumstances in this case do not indicate that the severe weather design parameters and methods constituted 'standards.'
wasattributedto: Case 74 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:37:27.715326
was generated by: ProEthica Case 74 Extraction

Competence Principle Invoked in BER 94-8 Structural Footing Design
type: CompetencePrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Structural footing design for industrial facility by chemical PE
balancingwith: Employer and Client Pressure Non-Exemption from Competence Boundary
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer B, a chemical PE, was retained to design structural footings for an industrial facility; the Board held this unethical because Engineer B lacked apparent training in foundation design, and the engagement was specifically for that out-of-competence task.
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 74
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T23:26:48.518439+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 74
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T23:26:48.518439+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: A chemical PE's credentials do not extend to structural footing design; the fact that Engineer B was retained specifically for that task made referral to a competent structural engineer implausible under the facts
invokedby: Engineer B BER-94-8 Out-of-Competence Structural Designer
invokedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
principleclass: Competence Principle
sourcetext: The Board determined that it would be unethical for Engineer B to perform the design of the structural footings as part of the facility and also that Engineer A had an ethical responsibility to question Engineer B's competency and report his concerns to the contractor.
tensionresolution: Competence boundary requires refusal of the engagement; the option of sub-retaining a structural engineer was not feasible given the specific nature of the retention
textreferences: Engineer A was unable to establish that Engineer B had any apparent subsequent training in foundation design
textreferences: Engineer B's degree and background were in chemical engineering.
textreferences: The Board determined that it would be unethical for Engineer B to perform the design of the structural footings as part of the facility
wasattributedto: Case 74 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:37:27.711956
was generated by: ProEthica Case 74 Extraction

Engineer A Standard of Care Ethical Floor Present Case
type: StandardofCareComplianceasEthicalSufficiencyBoundaryObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer A Technical Literature Currency Maintenance Present Case
defeasible under: Engineer A Severe Weather Design Failure Without Moral Culpability
defeasible under: Severe Weather Parameters Pre-Standardization Status
casecontext: Engineer A relied on established structural engineering principles without incorporating newly published severe weather design standards. The ethical evaluation requires determining whether those new standards had sufficiently permeated professional practice to constitute the standard of care at the time of design.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.88
derived from principle: Standard of Care as Ethical Floor Invoked In Engineer A Design Failure Evaluation
derived from principle: Standard of Care as Ethical Floor Invoked in Present Case Design Failure
discoveredincase: 74
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T23:22:50.046425+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 74
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T23:22:50.046425+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Standard of Care Compliance as Ethical Sufficiency Boundary Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to meet the accepted professional standard of care for structural design in a severe weather region, including incorporation of newly published design standards where those standards had sufficiently permeated professional practice to constitute the standard of care; the ethical evaluation turns on whether Engineer A's reliance on established but outdated methods fell below or met this standard.
sourcetext: Engineer A, who has experience with structural designs in this area of the country, designs the structural system based upon what Engineer A believes constitutes sound structural engineering principles
temporalscope: At the time of structural system design for the subject building project
textreferences: Engineer A, who has experience with structural designs in this area of the country, designs the structural system based upon what Engineer A believes constitutes sound structural engineering principles
textreferences: These new and improved severe weather design standards have been published in the most recent technical literature
textreferences: new and improved design methods have recently been developed to address the severe weather conditions in the location in which Engineer A practices
wasattributedto: Case 74 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:37:27.708416
was generated by: ProEthica Case 74 Extraction

Engineer A Technical Literature Currency Maintenance Present Case
type: TechnicalLiteratureCurrencyMaintenanceObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer A Standard of Care Ethical Floor Present Case
defeasible under: Severe Weather Parameters Pre-Standardization Status
casecontext: Engineer A designed a structural system in a severe weather region using established but outdated methods, having generally attempted to stay current but not having encountered the newly published severe weather design standards that would have prevented the structural failure.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.91
derived from principle: Continuing Competence Currency Obligation Invoked in Present Case
discoveredincase: 74
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T23:22:50.046425+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 74
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T23:22:50.046425+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Technical Literature Currency Maintenance Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to actively monitor and incorporate newly published severe weather structural design standards into their design practice, given their specialization in structural design in a severe weather region, and their general awareness of evolving design trends in that domain.
sourcetext: While Engineer A generally attempts to stay current on changing structural design trends, Engineer A was not familiar with this recent technical literature
temporalscope: Ongoing throughout active practice in the severe weather region; specifically applicable at the time of design of the subject building
textreferences: These new and improved severe weather design standards have been published in the most recent technical literature
textreferences: While Engineer A generally attempts to stay current on changing structural design trends, Engineer A was not familiar with this recent technical literature
textreferences: new and improved design methods have recently been developed to address the severe weather conditions in the location in which Engineer A practices
wasattributedto: Case 74 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:37:27.707940
was generated by: ProEthica Case 74 Extraction

Missed Opportunity Acknowledgment Obligation Invoked By Engineer A Post-Failure
type: MissedOpportunityAcknowledgmentObligation
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Post-failure professional reflection and learning obligation
balancingwith: Personal Privacy Right in Professional Self-Disclosure
balancingwith: Standard of Care as Ethical Floor
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Even if the Board concludes that Engineer A did not commit an ethical violation — because the newly published standards had not yet permeated the profession sufficiently to be required knowledge — Engineer A nonetheless missed an opportunity to apply better design methods that would have prevented the structural failure, and professional integrity requires honest acknowledgment of this missed opportunity to promote learning.
confidence: 0.82
discoveredincase: 74
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T23:21:28.397855+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 74
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T23:21:28.397855+00:00
importance: medium
interpretation: The Missed Opportunity Acknowledgment Obligation applies precisely in cases where the standard of care was technically met but better outcomes were achievable. It does not require Engineer A to characterize the design as an error if it was not, but it does require honest acknowledgment that the newly published standards, had they been known and applied, would have prevented the harm. This supports professional learning without requiring self-incrimination.
invokedby: Engineer A Present Case Design Failure Subject
principleclass: Missed Opportunity Acknowledgment Obligation
sourcetext: While Engineer A generally attempts to stay current on changing structural design trends, Engineer A was not familiar with this recent technical literature.
tensionresolution: The obligation to acknowledge missed opportunities is a professional virtue obligation, not a disciplinary one. It operates independently of whether an ethical violation occurred. Engineer A can simultaneously maintain that no ethical violation occurred (if the standard of care was met) and acknowledge that the outcome reveals the importance of more rigorous literature monitoring in severe weather design specialties.
textreferences: It is determined that had Engineer A followed the severe weather design parameters, the structural failure would not have occurred
textreferences: These new and improved severe weather design standards have been published in the most recent technical literature
textreferences: While Engineer A generally attempts to stay current on changing structural design trends, Engineer A was not familiar with this recent technical literature
wasattributedto: Case 74 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:37:27.707609
was generated by: ProEthica Case 74 Extraction

Continuing Competence Currency Obligation Invoked in Present Case
type: ContinuingCompetenceCurrencyObligation
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer A Present Case Design Failure Subject's obligation to follow severe weather design developments
balancingwith: Moral Culpability Threshold for Ethical Violation in Design Failure
balancingwith: Reasonableness Standard for Knowledge Currency in Engineering Practice
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The Board affirmed that engineers have a duty to seek to stay current on design trends and technology, and must maintain current knowledge about new practice developments in their specific practice area — but bounded this obligation by the reasonableness standard and the standards/emerging-literature distinction.
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 74
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T23:26:48.518439+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 74
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T23:26:48.518439+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The currency obligation is real and enforceable, but its scope is bounded: it extends to established standards and generally accepted practice, not to every new technique or parameter not yet peer-reviewed or incorporated into standards
invokedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
principleclass: Continuing Competence Currency Obligation
sourcetext: An engineer certainly has a duty to seek to stay current on design trends and technology, and as suggested in BER Case 98-8, seek appropriate education and training before undertaking new and different tasks.
tensionresolution: The currency obligation and the reasonableness standard operate together: the obligation is to follow established standards, and failure to do so may be unethical; but failure to follow emerging literature that has not yet become a standard is not unethical absent moral culpability
textreferences: An engineer certainly has a duty to seek to stay current on design trends and technology, and as suggested in BER Case 98-8, seek appropriate education and training before undertaking new and different tasks.
textreferences: In addition, it is critical for engineers practicing in a specific area to maintain current knowledge about new practice developments and incorporate those methods, as appropriate, into their professional practice.
wasattributedto: Case 74 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:37:27.714134
was generated by: ProEthica Case 74 Extraction

Engineer A Present Case Design Failure Subject
type: DesignFailureMoralCulpabilityEngineer
type: NamedIndividual
adheres to principle: Causal Nexus Requirement Applied To Engineer A Design Failure Culpability
adheres to principle: Continuing Competence Currency Obligation Invoked By Engineer A Present Case
adheres to principle: Missed Opportunity Acknowledgment Obligation Invoked By Engineer A Post-Failure
adheres to principle: Proportionality in Misconduct Characterization Applied To Engineer A Knowledge Gap
adheres to principle: Public Welfare Paramount Implicated By Structural Failure From Outdated Design
adheres to principle: Standard of Care as Ethical Floor Invoked In Engineer A Design Failure Evaluation
has obligation: Engineer A Missed Opportunity Acknowledgment Post-Structural Failure
has obligation: Engineer A Post-Accident Honest Self-Assessment Structural Failure
has obligation: Engineer A Present Case Missed Opportunity Acknowledgment Post-Failure
has obligation: Engineer A Present Case Reasonable Currency Standard Compliance
has obligation: Engineer A Present Case Technical Literature Currency Maintenance
has obligation: Engineer A Standard of Care Ethical Floor Present Case
has obligation: Engineer A Technical Literature Currency Maintenance Present Case
attributes: {'license': 'Professional Engineer', 'design_context': 'Severe weather structural design', 'outcome': 'Design failure', 'ethical_finding': 'Not unethical — no moral culpability demonstrated'}
caseinvolvement: Engineer whose severe weather structural design resulted in failure; Board evaluated whether failure constituted unethical conduct and concluded Engineer A acted within basic standards of the profession, finding no moral culpability (intentional, reckless, or malicious conduct).
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 74
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T23:18:43.208878+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 74
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T23:18:43.208878+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'serves', 'target': 'Building Project Client'}
rolecategory: public_responsibility
roleclass: Design Failure Moral Culpability Engineer
sourcetext: Engineer A's actions were within the basic standards of the profession of engineering
textreferences: Engineer A's actions were within the basic standards of the profession of engineering
textreferences: Had those parameters and methods constituted 'standards,' this Board may have reached another result
textreferences: the Board cannot conclude that Engineer A acted unethically
textreferences: the mere fact that an engineer did not follow the most recent literature and the professional practice resulted in some harm is insufficient
wasattributedto: Case 74 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:37:27.704293
was generated by: ProEthica Case 74 Extraction

Engineer A Severe Weather Design Standard Proactive Adoption Present Case
type: SevereWeatherDesignStandardProactiveAdoptionObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer A Present Case Reasonable Currency Standard Compliance
competes with: Engineer A Present Case Technical Literature Currency Maintenance
defeasible under: Severe Weather Parameters Pre-Standardization Status
casecontext: Engineer A designed a structural system for a building in a severe weather region. Newly published severe weather design standards existed at the time of design but were not incorporated. The structural failure was causally linked to the failure to apply those updated parameters.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.9
derived from principle: Continuing Competence Currency Obligation Invoked in Present Case
derived from principle: Public Welfare Paramount Implicated By Structural Failure From Outdated Design
discoveredincase: 74
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T23:22:50.046425+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 74
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T23:22:50.046425+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Severe Weather Design Standard Proactive Adoption Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A, as a structural engineer with experience designing in a severe weather region, was obligated to proactively seek out and apply newly published severe weather design parameters when designing the subject building's structural system, given the foreseeable risk that outdated methods might be inadequate for the known hazard environment.
sourcetext: Engineer A is involved in the design of the structural system on a building project in an area of the country that experiences severe weather conditions
temporalscope: At the time of structural system design for the subject building project
textreferences: Engineer A is involved in the design of the structural system on a building project in an area of the country that experiences severe weather conditions
textreferences: Engineer A, who has experience with structural designs in this area of the country, designs the structural system based upon what Engineer A believes constitutes sound structural engineering principles
textreferences: It is determined that had Engineer A followed the severe weather design parameters, the structural failure would not have occurred
wasattributedto: Case 74 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:37:27.708117
was generated by: ProEthica Case 74 Extraction

Public Welfare Paramount Invoked in Competence Cases
type: PublicWelfarePrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer A BER-85-3 county surveyor appointment
appliedto: Engineer A BER-98-8 arms storage certification
appliedto: Engineer B BER-94-8 structural footing design
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
balancingwith: Loyalty
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The Board grounded its competence boundary enforcement across BER Cases 98-8, 94-8, and 85-3 in the obligation to protect public health and safety from engineers practicing outside their competence, treating this as a fundamental ethical anchor for all competence-related obligations.
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 74
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T23:26:48.518439+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 74
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T23:26:48.518439+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Public welfare requires that engineers not practice outside their competence regardless of institutional pressure, because out-of-competence practice poses a clear and present danger to public health and safety
invokedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
principleclass: Public Welfare Principle
sourcetext: licensed engineers must make all efforts to perform professional services solely within their area of competence and not be unduly influenced either by employer or client pressures that could cause grave danger to the public health and safety.
tensionresolution: Public welfare obligation overrides employer/client loyalty and institutional pressure when competence boundaries are at stake
textreferences: licensed engineers must make all efforts to perform professional services solely within their area of competence and not be unduly influenced either by employer or client pressures that could cause grave danger to the public health and safety
textreferences: the competency issues at stake posed a clear and present danger to the public health and safety
wasattributedto: Case 74 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:37:27.711514
was generated by: ProEthica Case 74 Extraction