ProEthica Case 76 Ontology
type: Ontology
created: 2026-06-05T11:53:43.946412
title: Public Health, Safety, and Welfare—Drinking Water Quality
imports: cases
imports: intermediate

BER Case No. 00-5
type: NamedIndividual
comment: The Board cited this case to reinforce the fundamental principle that engineers must hold public safety paramount, particularly when a nonengineer overrules engineering judgment on a dangerous situation.
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

BER Case No. 19-10
type: NamedIndividual
comment: The Board cited this case to establish that when an engineer identifies safety deficiencies, they have an obligation to pursue resolution by contacting supervisors and other agencies with jurisdiction in writing.
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

BER Case No. 89-7
type: NamedIndividual
comment: The Board cited this case to establish the duty to report safety violations to appropriate public authorities even when a confidentiality agreement exists, and that engineers cannot remain silent when public safety is endangered.
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

Case 76 Timeline
type: NamedIndividual
type: TemporalEntity
action count: 5
event count: 6
total elements: 11
synthesis literal: hasTimepoints
synthesis literal: temporalConsistency
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

CausalLink_Continued Pursuit of Matter
type: NamedIndividual
analyzes action: Continued Pursuit of Matter
comment: Because formal authority notification alone does not guarantee that the public danger will be addressed, continued pursuit of the matter fulfills the obligation to hold public safety paramount by sustaining pressure on appropriate authorities until the threat is genuinely resolved rather than merely reported.
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

CausalLink_Evaluation Report Submission
type: NamedIndividual
analyzes action: Evaluation Report Submission
comment: Because the submission directly causes the identification of a public health risk, fulfilling the obligations of objectivity and faithful agency here is foundational to every protective action that follows, meaning any compromise in truthfulness at this stage would have suppressed the entire downstream chain of safety interventions.
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

CausalLink_Formal Authority Notification
type: NamedIndividual
analyzes action: Formal Authority Notification
comment: Once the commission overrode the engineers' recommendation and accelerated the project, notifying appropriate authorities became the necessary fulfillment of the paramount duty to public safety, because the client's refusal to act meant that only external regulatory intervention could prevent the identified health risk from materializing.
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

CausalLink_Joint Advisory Recommendation
type: NamedIndividual
analyzes action: Joint Advisory Recommendation
comment: By formally notifying the client of safety concerns with an objective professional opinion, Engineers A and B gave the Metropolitan Water Commission a legitimate opportunity to act responsibly, and the commission's subsequent override of that recommendation is what morally compels the more forceful actions that follow.
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

CausalLink_Project Failure Advisement
type: NamedIndividual
analyzes action: Project Failure Advisement
comment: Advising the client of the project's likely failure fulfills the obligation to provide truthful professional opinion and to notify the employer of safety concerns, ensuring that the commission cannot later claim ignorance of the consequences while the engineers maintain their integrity as faithful agents acting within the bounds of public safety.
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

Conclusion_1
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 1
conclusion number: 1
conclusion text: In fulfillment of their ethical obligations under the Code, Engineers A and B should formally communicate their concerns to the MWC, including that they believe the project will not be successful.
conclusion type: board_explicit
extraction reasoning: Parsed from imported case text (no LLM)
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

Conclusion_101
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 1
cites provision: II 1 a
answers question1: 101
cited provision1: II.1.
cited provision2: II.1.a.
conclusion number: 101
conclusion text: Beyond the Board's finding that Engineers A and B should formally communicate their concerns to the MWC, the structural position of Engineer A as both superintendent and chief engineer of the MWC creates a compounded ethical burden that the Board did not fully address. Because Engineer A is simultaneously the MWC's employee and its chief technical officer, any internal communication he directs to the MWC is, in practical terms, a communication from the MWC to itself. This structural circularity means that internal escalation alone cannot satisfy the ethical obligation to protect public health — the very body that must receive the warning is the same body that has already overridden the warning. Engineer A should therefore have sought independent legal or ethical counsel before and after the MWC vote to clarify the boundaries of his faithful agent duty and to establish a documented record that his escalation was not merely performative compliance with internal process. The Board's conclusion that Engineers A and B should communicate concerns to the MWC is necessary but insufficient when applied to Engineer A's dual role, because it risks treating institutional notification as ethical fulfillment when the institutional recipient has already demonstrated it will not act on that notification.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
synthesis literal: citationProvenance
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

Conclusion_102
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 1
cites provision: II 1 a
cites provision: II 1 c
answers question1: 102
cited provision1: II.1.
cited provision2: II.1.a.
cited provision3: II.1.c.
conclusion number: 102
conclusion text: The Board concluded that Engineers A and B should notify the MWC and appropriate authorities that the premature source change endangers public health, but did not address the distinction between notifying regulatory authorities and directly informing the affected public. The sparsely attended public meeting represents a critical failure point in the democratic oversight mechanism that would ordinarily allow community members to apply political pressure on the MWC. Because that mechanism effectively failed — not through suppression but through low civic engagement — Engineers A and B face a residual ethical obligation to consider whether proactive, direct public disclosure is warranted. The NSPE Code's paramount duty to protect public health and safety is not discharged solely by notifying institutional actors if those actors have already demonstrated they will override safety recommendations and the public remains uninformed of a confirmed lead leaching risk. Engineers A and B should therefore evaluate whether direct public communication — through press statements, public health advisories, or coordination with local media — is necessary to fulfill the spirit of their paramount duty, particularly given that the harm at issue is lead exposure in drinking water, which disproportionately affects children and vulnerable populations who cannot protect themselves through market or political choices.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
synthesis literal: citationProvenance
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

Conclusion_103
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 1 b
cites provision: II 1
cites provision: II 1 a
answers question1: 103
cited provision1: II.1.
cited provision2: II.1.a.
cited provision3: III.1.b.
conclusion number: 103
conclusion text: The Board's conclusion that Engineers A and B have an obligation to notify appropriate authorities implicitly treats that notification as the terminal ethical act, but does not address whether continued participation in the project after the override itself becomes ethically problematic. For Engineer B as a consulting engineer, continued engagement after the MWC's override of joint safety recommendations risks lending professional legitimacy to a transition that both engineers have formally identified as endangering public health. However, withdrawal is not straightforwardly the more ethical choice: Engineer B's continued involvement may represent the last technical safeguard capable of mitigating lead leaching risks during the accelerated process, and abrupt withdrawal could remove the only professional capable of identifying and correcting corrosion control failures in real time. The ethical resolution is not binary. Engineer B should condition continued engagement on explicit written acknowledgment by the MWC of the identified risks, formal documentation that the MWC is proceeding against professional advice, and a defined scope of work that does not require Engineer B to certify the safety of a process he has formally recommended against. Similarly, Engineer A's continued employment should be conditioned on his ability to implement whatever mitigation measures remain available, and he should formally document that his continued service does not constitute endorsement of the MWC's override decision. The Board's framework of notification and escalation must be extended to include the question of conditional continued participation as a distinct ethical obligation.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
synthesis literal: citationProvenance
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

Conclusion_104
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 1
cites provision: II 1 a
cites provision: II 1 c
answers question1: 104
cited provision1: II.1.
cited provision2: II.1.a.
cited provision3: II.1.c.
conclusion number: 104
conclusion text: The Board's conclusions treat the obligations of Engineers A and B as substantially parallel, but the ethical weight of those obligations differs in important ways that the Board did not distinguish. Engineer A, as an employee of the MWC, operates under a faithful agent duty that creates a higher threshold for unilateral external escalation — he must exhaust internal channels more thoroughly before going outside the institution. Engineer B, as an independent consulting engineer with no ongoing employment relationship with the MWC beyond the current engagement, faces fewer institutional constraints on escalating directly to state regulatory authorities and arguably has a lower threshold for doing so. This asymmetry means that the Board's joint framing of their obligations, while correct as a floor, understates the degree to which Engineer B may be independently obligated to escalate to regulatory authorities even if Engineer A, constrained by his dual role, has not yet done so or is unwilling to do so. The NSPE Code's requirement that engineers notify appropriate authorities when their judgment is overruled under circumstances that endanger life or property does not condition that obligation on joint action or client consent, and Engineer B should not treat Engineer A's institutional hesitation as a reason to delay independent regulatory notification.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
synthesis literal: citationProvenance
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

Conclusion_105
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 1 b
cites provision: II 1
answers question1: 203
cited provision1: II.1.
cited provision2: III.1.b.
conclusion number: 105
conclusion text: The Board did not address the economic rationale underlying the MWC's decision, but Engineers A and B's formal communications to the MWC and regulatory authorities should explicitly engage with that rationale rather than presenting their concerns in purely technical terms. The MWC's decision to proceed with the premature source change was motivated by the goal of reducing municipal expenditures and lowering water rates — a legitimate public interest objective. If Engineers A and B frame their formal notifications solely in terms of lead leaching risk without addressing the economic dimension, their concerns are more likely to be dismissed as technically narrow or as resistance to cost-saving measures. A more complete and persuasive formal communication would quantify the potential economic costs of the unsafe transition — including regulatory penalties, remediation costs, litigation exposure, and the public health costs of lead exposure — and demonstrate that the MWC's public funds stewardship rationale is itself undermined by proceeding prematurely. This approach also fulfills the obligation under the NSPE Code to advise clients when a project will not be successful, since a water source transition that triggers regulatory violations and public health liability is not a successful outcome by any measure, including the economic measure the MWC used to justify it.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
synthesis literal: citationProvenance
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

Conclusion_2
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 1
answers question2: 2
conclusion number: 2
conclusion text: Both Engineers A and B have ethical obligations to notify the MWC and other appropriate authorities that prematurely changing the water source puts the public health and safety at risk.
conclusion type: board_explicit
extraction reasoning: Parsed from imported case text (no LLM)
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

Conclusion_201
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 1
cites provision: II 1 a
answers question1: 101
answers question2: 301
cited provision1: II.1.
cited provision2: II.1.a.
conclusion number: 201
conclusion text: Engineer A's dual role as both superintendent and chief engineer for the MWC creates a structurally compromised escalation pathway that cannot be resolved through internal action alone. Because Engineer A is employed by the very body whose decision he must challenge, any formal communication he directs to the MWC is simultaneously an act of professional obligation and an act of institutional self-subordination. The MWC can receive, acknowledge, and then simply re-override Engineer A's concerns without any independent check. This structural conflict does not excuse Engineer A from his obligation to communicate formally with the MWC, but it does mean that such communication is insufficient by itself. Engineer A should have sought independent legal or ethical counsel before the MWC vote to clarify the boundaries of his authority to refuse implementation, and after the override, his escalation to state regulatory authorities is not merely advisable but structurally necessary to compensate for the compromised internal channel. The dual role does not create an irresolvable conflict in the deontological sense, but it does mean that the faithful agent duty and the public welfare paramountcy duty cannot both be satisfied through the same action directed at the same body.
conclusion type: question_response
synthesis literal: citationProvenance
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

Conclusion_202
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 1
cites provision: II 1 a
cites provision: II 1 c
answers question1: 102
answers question2: 403
cited provision1: II.1.
cited provision2: II.1.a.
cited provision3: II.1.c.
conclusion number: 202
conclusion text: The sparsely attended public meeting does not satisfy Engineers A and B's ethical obligation to inform the affected public about the lead leaching risk. A public meeting that is nominally open but practically unattended provides procedural cover without substantive disclosure. Given that the democratic oversight mechanism effectively failed — the public whose health is at risk was not meaningfully present to exert pressure on the MWC's decision — Engineers A and B bear a residual proactive disclosure obligation that extends beyond regulatory notification. The NSPE Code's public welfare paramountcy provision is not satisfied merely by informing the client and regulatory authorities when the affected population remains uninformed of a confirmed drinking water safety risk. Engineers A and B should consider whether direct communication to affected residents, through public health channels or media, is warranted, particularly if state regulatory authorities do not act with sufficient urgency. This conclusion does not require Engineers A and B to act unilaterally in ways that violate confidentiality provisions, but it does mean that the low public attendance at the meeting represents an unresolved gap in their proactive risk disclosure obligation.
conclusion type: question_response
synthesis literal: citationProvenance
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

Conclusion_203
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 1
cites provision: II 1 a
answers question1: 103
cited provision1: II.1.
cited provision2: II.1.a.
conclusion number: 203
conclusion text: Engineer A's continued employment with the MWC after the override decision does not automatically constitute an ethical violation, but it does create a conditional ethical exposure that intensifies over time. As long as Engineer A is actively pursuing escalation to state regulatory authorities and has formally communicated his opposition in writing, his continued presence serves a protective function — he remains the last internal technical safeguard capable of mitigating harm during the accelerated transition. However, if the MWC proceeds to implementation without regulatory intervention and Engineer A continues to superintend the project without further escalation or formal objection, his continued role would lend professional credibility to a decision he has formally opposed, which would constitute a failure of professional integrity. The ethical threshold for resignation or withdrawal is not the override decision itself but the point at which Engineer A's continued participation becomes functional endorsement of an unsafe process rather than a constrained attempt to mitigate it. This distinction is critical: withdrawal that removes the last technical safeguard may itself cause harm, while continued participation without escalation provides institutional cover for the MWC's unsafe decision.
conclusion type: question_response
synthesis literal: citationProvenance
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

Conclusion_204
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 1 b
cites provision: II 1
cites provision: II 1 a
answers question1: 104
cited provision1: II.1.
cited provision2: II.1.a.
cited provision3: III.1.b.
conclusion number: 204
conclusion text: The MWC's decision to proceed simultaneously with the accelerated evaluation and the water source change — rather than outright rejecting the engineers' recommendations — creates a particularly dangerous form of ethical ambiguity. By appearing to retain the evaluation process, the MWC can characterize its decision as a measured compromise rather than a safety override, which may cause Engineers A and B's formal notifications to be received as technical disagreements rather than safety alerts. Engineers A and B must explicitly characterize this distinction in their formal communications: the simultaneous transition is not a modified version of their recommendation but a direct contradiction of it, because the entire basis of their recommendation was that the source change must not precede the completion of corrosion control improvements. Framing the MWC's decision as a partial compliance obscures the fact that the safety-critical sequencing — not merely the timeline — has been abandoned. Engineers A and B's formal notifications to the MWC and to state regulatory authorities should make explicit that the concurrent approach eliminates the protective function of the evaluation period and that lead leaching risk is present from the moment of source transition, not from the moment evaluation concludes.
conclusion type: question_response
synthesis literal: citationProvenance
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

Conclusion_205
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 1
cites provision: II 1 a
answers question1: 201
cited provision1: II.1.
cited provision2: II.1.a.
conclusion number: 205
conclusion text: The tension between the faithful agent duty and public welfare paramountcy is not a symmetric conflict requiring case-by-case balancing — the NSPE Code resolves it hierarchically. Public welfare paramountcy is explicitly designated as paramount, meaning it structurally overrides the faithful agent duty when the two conflict. The MWC's democratically authorized decision does not alter this hierarchy; democratic authorization confers political legitimacy on the MWC's decision but does not confer ethical legitimacy on a decision that endangers public health. Engineers A and B's faithful agent duty yields entirely when the client's decision creates a confirmed public health risk of the magnitude described — lead leaching above drinking water standards into a municipal supply. The faithful agent duty survives only in the form of the obligation to communicate concerns formally to the MWC before escalating externally, which functions as a procedural prerequisite rather than a substantive constraint on escalation. Once that communication has occurred and been overridden, the faithful agent duty is exhausted and the public welfare paramountcy obligation operates without qualification.
conclusion type: question_response
synthesis literal: citationProvenance
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

Conclusion_206
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 1
cites provision: II 1 a
answers question1: 202
answers question2: 302
cited provision1: II.1.
cited provision2: II.1.a.
conclusion number: 206
conclusion text: From a consequentialist perspective, the MWC's simultaneous transition decision produces a net harm severe enough to justify escalation to state regulatory authorities even at significant institutional and economic cost. The relevant comparison is not between the cost of escalation and the cost of inaction, but between the probability-weighted harm of lead exposure in a municipal water supply — which affects an entire service area population including children, for whom there is no safe level of lead exposure — and the institutional disruption and economic costs of regulatory intervention. The asymmetry is decisive: the harms from lead exposure are irreversible, population-scale, and disproportionately borne by the most vulnerable residents, while the costs of regulatory intervention are recoverable and distributed across the municipality. A consequentialist analysis therefore strongly supports Engineers A and B's escalation to state regulatory authorities, and further supports the conclusion that a graduated escalation approach that introduces delay is itself ethically impermissible when the timeline of lead exposure risk begins at the moment of source transition.
conclusion type: question_response
synthesis literal: citationProvenance
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

Conclusion_207
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 1
cites provision: II 1 a
answers question1: 303
cited provision1: II.1.
cited provision2: II.1.a.
conclusion number: 207
conclusion text: From a virtue ethics perspective, Engineer B demonstrated professional integrity and courage in providing a complete and unambiguous report recommending a three-year evaluation timeline and extensive capital investment — a recommendation that carried significant economic and political costs for the MWC. However, the sparsely attended public meeting represents a failure of proactive civic virtue that is not fully attributable to Engineers A and B alone but in which they bear partial responsibility. A virtuous engineer, confronted with a confirmed public health risk of this magnitude, does not merely present findings at a meeting and accept low attendance as a given. The virtue of practical wisdom — phronesis — would have required Engineers A and B to assess whether the public meeting format was adequate to the severity of the risk and to take additional steps to ensure meaningful public awareness before the MWC vote. The fact that the public meeting was the only disclosure mechanism used, and that it was sparsely attended, suggests that the engineers' proactive civic virtue obligation was not fully discharged, even if their technical and professional obligations to the MWC were met.
conclusion type: question_response
synthesis literal: citationProvenance
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

Conclusion_208
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 1
cites provision: II 1 a
answers question1: 304
cited provision1: II.1.
cited provision2: II.1.a.
conclusion number: 208
conclusion text: The NSPE Code's requirement that Engineers A and B notify appropriate authorities when their judgment is overruled under circumstances that endanger life or property functions as an absolute duty in the deontological sense — it cannot be waived by client consent, satisfied by joint action alone, or delegated to the other engineer. Each engineer bears an independent, non-transferable obligation to report. This has a specific implication for the joint obligation structure: while Engineers A and B may coordinate their escalation actions and may report jointly, neither engineer's reporting obligation is discharged by the other's action. If Engineer A reports to state regulatory authorities and Engineer B does not, Engineer B remains in violation of the Code regardless of the joint nature of their prior recommendations. The moral weight of institutional loyalty — Engineer A's employment relationship with the MWC and Engineer B's consulting engagement — is entirely insufficient to override this absolute duty once the conditions triggering it are met: a confirmed public health risk, a formal recommendation, and a client override. Institutional loyalty functions as a reason to exhaust internal channels first, not as a reason to forgo external escalation.
conclusion type: question_response
synthesis literal: citationProvenance
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

Conclusion_209
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 1 b
cites provision: II 1
cites provision: II 1 a
answers question1: 401
cited provision1: II.1.
cited provision2: II.1.a.
cited provision3: III.1.b.
conclusion number: 209
conclusion text: If Engineers A and B had formally communicated their concerns in writing to the MWC before the vote — rather than relying solely on an oral presentation at a sparsely attended public meeting — the written record would have served two distinct functions. First, it would have created a formal, documented predicate for subsequent regulatory escalation, making it unambiguous that the engineers' concerns were communicated with full professional formality and were deliberately overridden. Second, it would have imposed a higher institutional burden on the MWC to justify its override decision, potentially prompting more deliberate consideration. The absence of a written pre-vote communication represents a procedural gap in Engineers A and B's escalation pathway. However, this gap does not diminish their post-override obligation to escalate to state regulatory authorities — it merely means that the written record must now be established retroactively through formal post-override communications to the MWC and to regulatory bodies. The obligation to notify appropriate authorities under Code Section II.1.a is triggered by the override itself, not by the quality of the pre-vote communication.
conclusion type: question_response
synthesis literal: citationProvenance
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

Conclusion_210
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 1
cites provision: II 1 a
answers question1: 402
cited provision1: II.1.
cited provision2: II.1.a.
conclusion number: 210
conclusion text: If Engineer B had withdrawn from the consulting engagement after the MWC override, the ethical outcome would have been worse, not better. Engineer B's continued engagement is the primary remaining mechanism for ensuring that corrosion control evaluation proceeds with technical rigor during the accelerated transition. Withdrawal would have denied the MWC access to the expertise necessary to minimize lead leaching risk during the very period when that risk is most acute. The ethical calculus here is not symmetric: the harm from Engineer B's continued participation — lending some degree of professional legitimacy to the MWC's decision — is substantially outweighed by the harm from withdrawal, which would remove the last technical safeguard. This conclusion is conditioned on Engineer B continuing to escalate to state regulatory authorities independently of the MWC's position. If Engineer B remains engaged but abandons escalation, continued participation does become ethically problematic. The correct course is continued engagement combined with independent regulatory notification — not withdrawal as a form of protest that leaves the public more exposed.
conclusion type: question_response
synthesis literal: citationProvenance
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

Conclusion_211
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 1
cites provision: II 1 a
answers question1: 404
cited provision1: II.1.
cited provision2: II.1.a.
conclusion number: 211
conclusion text: If Engineer A had formally refused to implement the MWC's decision to proceed with the premature water source change, such a refusal would have constituted a strong fulfillment of the paramount duty under the NSPE Code, but it would also have triggered significant institutional and legal consequences that create a systemic deterrence problem. Engineer A, as superintendent and chief engineer, likely has no independent legal authority to override a duly authorized MWC vote, meaning that a formal refusal would almost certainly result in his termination or removal. The consequence is that the engineer most capable of mitigating harm during the transition would be removed and replaced by someone with no professional objection to the unsafe process. This dynamic — where the most ethically compliant engineer is structurally incentivized to remain silent to preserve their protective influence — represents a systemic failure that the NSPE Code does not fully resolve. The Code's escalation framework addresses what engineers must do but does not adequately protect engineers from the institutional consequences of doing it. This gap suggests that the ethical obligation to escalate to state regulatory authorities is not merely a personal professional duty but a structural necessity that compensates for the institutional vulnerability of engineers in dual-role positions.
conclusion type: question_response
synthesis literal: citationProvenance
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

Conclusion_212
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 1 b
cites provision: II 1
cites provision: II 1 a
answers question1: 203
cited provision1: II.1.
cited provision2: II.1.a.
cited provision3: III.1.b.
conclusion number: 212
conclusion text: The economic rationale that originally motivated the water source change — reducing municipal expenditures and lowering water rates — must be explicitly addressed in Engineers A and B's formal communications to state regulatory authorities and to the MWC, not because it is ethically relevant to the safety determination, but because failing to address it leaves their safety concerns vulnerable to dismissal as technically narrow or economically uninformed. Engineers A and B should acknowledge the legitimate public interest in cost reduction while making explicit that the economic savings from the accelerated transition are not merely offset but structurally incomparable to the costs of lead exposure at a population scale — including health costs, remediation costs, legal liability, and the long-term costs of infrastructure damage from corrosion. The MWC's public funds stewardship rationale, if left unaddressed, creates a rhetorical frame in which the engineers' recommendations appear to be in tension with the public interest rather than in service of it. Proactively reframing the economic analysis as part of their formal communications strengthens the persuasive force of the safety argument and reduces the likelihood that the MWC or regulatory authorities will treat the engineers' concerns as a technical disagreement rather than a public health imperative.
conclusion type: question_response
synthesis literal: citationProvenance
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

Conclusion_301
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 1
cites provision: II 1 a
answers question1: 201
answers question2: 301
cited provision1: II.1.
cited provision2: II.1.a.
conclusion number: 301
conclusion text: The tension between Engineers A and B's Faithful Agent Duty and their Public Welfare Paramountcy was resolved decisively in favor of public welfare, but the resolution was not automatic — it was triggered by a specific threshold condition: the MWC's override of safety recommendations created a confirmed, quantifiable risk of lead leaching above drinking water standards into a municipal supply. This case teaches that Faithful Agent Duty is not merely subordinate to Public Welfare Paramountcy in the abstract; rather, it remains operative and legitimate until a client decision crosses from the domain of professional disagreement into the domain of confirmed public endangerment. Once that threshold is crossed, the faithful agent relationship does not simply yield — it is structurally transformed, such that continued loyal implementation of the client's decision would itself constitute a violation of the engineer's paramount duty. The MWC's vote did not merely override a recommendation; it converted Engineers A and B's ongoing professional roles into potential instruments of public harm, making escalation not merely permissible but obligatory.
conclusion type: principle_synthesis
synthesis literal: citationProvenance
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

Conclusion_302
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 1
cites provision: II 1 a
answers question1: 202
answers question2: 302
cited provision1: II.1.
cited provision2: II.1.a.
conclusion number: 302
conclusion text: The interaction between Engineers A and B's Graduated Escalation Response and their Concurrent Safety Reporting obligation reveals that the standard stepwise model of escalation — from internal client notification to external regulatory reporting — is temporally conditioned by the nature of the risk. In cases involving continuous public exposure to a confirmed health hazard, such as ongoing lead leaching into a municipal drinking water supply, a purely sequential escalation approach is itself ethically deficient because each step of delay corresponds to a period of unmitigated public harm. This case therefore establishes that Graduated Escalation Response and Concurrent Safety Reporting are not mutually exclusive principles but are context-sensitive complements: graduated escalation governs the sequence of communication channels, while concurrent reporting governs the permissible compression of that sequence when the harm timeline is immediate and irreversible. The MWC's decision to proceed simultaneously with evaluation and source change — rather than completing safeguards first — created precisely the kind of immediate, ongoing risk that compresses the ethical timeline and justifies concurrent rather than sequential notification to state regulatory authorities.
conclusion type: principle_synthesis
synthesis literal: citationProvenance
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

Conclusion_303
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 1 b
cites provision: II 1
answers question1: 203
answers question2: 303
cited provision1: II.1.
cited provision2: III.1.b.
conclusion number: 303
conclusion text: The interaction between MWC Public Funds Stewardship and Engineers A and B's Public Welfare Paramountcy exposes a structural asymmetry in how economic and safety rationales are weighted within the NSPE Code framework. The MWC's decision was motivated by a legitimate public interest — reducing municipal expenditures and lowering water rates — which means the conflict was not between public welfare and private profit, but between two competing conceptions of public benefit. This case teaches that when economic stewardship and physical safety both claim public interest justifications, the Code resolves the tension by treating physical safety as lexically prior: no level of cost savings can ethically offset a confirmed risk of lead contamination in drinking water. Furthermore, Engineers A and B's Complete Reporting obligation implies that their formal communications to the MWC and regulatory authorities should explicitly address the economic rationale — not to validate it, but to demonstrate that the safety risk was assessed in full awareness of the fiscal pressures and was nonetheless found to be non-negotiable. Failure to engage the economic argument in their formal notifications would risk having their safety concerns dismissed as technically narrow or professionally self-interested, undermining the persuasive force of the escalation.
conclusion type: principle_synthesis
synthesis literal: citationProvenance
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

Conclusion_304
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 1 b
cites provision: II 1 a
cites provision: II 1 c
answers question1: 204
answers question2: 304
cited provision1: II.1.a.
cited provision2: II.1.c.
cited provision3: III.1.b.
conclusion number: 304
conclusion text: The tension between Engineers A and B's Complete Reporting principle and their Client Override Refusal principle reveals a critical distinction between reporting as ethical fulfillment and reporting as institutional cover. Once Engineers A and B had fully disclosed their findings and recommendations to the MWC and been overridden, continued internal reporting to the same body — without concurrent external escalation — would satisfy the letter of the Complete Reporting obligation while failing its spirit. The Board's conclusion that Engineers A and B must notify both the MWC and appropriate authorities implicitly resolves this tension by recognizing that Complete Reporting, after a client override of a safety-critical recommendation, must be directed outward to entities with independent authority to act, not merely inward to the overriding client. This principle interaction teaches that the ethical weight of Complete Reporting is not discharged by repetition to an unresponsive audience; it is discharged only when the report reaches a party with both the authority and the independence to intervene. Continued exclusive internal reporting after override would not constitute ethical fulfillment — it would constitute complicity through procedural formalism.
conclusion type: principle_synthesis
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

DP1
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP1
decision question: Should Engineers A and B submit a fully objective and complete evaluation report to the MWC, including the lead leaching risk and the recommended three-year improvement timeline, even if doing so conflicts with the commission's cost-reduction goals?
focus: Engineers A and B have completed their technical evaluation and Engineer B's report identifies a serious lead leaching risk associated with the planned water source change. The engineers must decide whether to submit an objective, complete report to the Metropolitan Water Commission or to soften findings in response to the commission's cost-reduction motivation. This is the foundational decision because any compromise in truthfulness at this stage would suppress every downstream protective action.
option1: Submit the full evaluation report identifying the lead leaching risk and recommending extensive capital investments and a three-year corrosion control improvement timeline, without softening findings to accommodate the commission's economic preferences.
option2: Downplay or omit the severity of the lead leaching risk in order to align the report with the commission's cost-reduction objectives, avoiding conflict with the client.
option3: Withhold the completed report until informal discussions with the commission clarify what level of risk disclosure the client is willing to accept, effectively allowing client preference to shape technical conclusions.
role label: Engineers A and B
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

DP2
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP2
decision question: Should Engineers A and B jointly and formally recommend to the MWC that the water source change be substantially delayed until all corrosion control improvements are completed?
focus: After submitting their evaluation report, Engineers A and B must decide whether to formalize their safety concerns in a joint advisory recommendation to the Metropolitan Water Commission, explicitly advising that the water source change be substantially delayed until corrosion control improvements are completed. The commission has signaled its preference to proceed quickly, and a formal joint recommendation creates a documented record that the client was warned and given a legitimate opportunity to act responsibly.
option1: Present a coordinated, formal written recommendation to the MWC advising substantial delay of the water source change until the identified corrosion control improvements are fully completed, creating an unambiguous documented record of the safety concern.
option2: Convey safety concerns through informal discussions with commission members without issuing a formal joint recommendation, leaving the record of client notification ambiguous and incomplete.
option3: Accept the commission's preferred accelerated schedule and limit professional input to technical implementation support, treating the client's schedule decision as outside the engineers' advisory scope.
role label: Engineers A and B
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

DP3
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP3
decision question: Must Engineers A and B formally notify the state regulatory authority of the public health risk created by the MWC's decision to proceed with the water source change before corrosion control improvements are completed?
focus: The Metropolitan Water Commission has voted to override the engineers' joint recommendation and proceed with the accelerated water source change despite the identified lead leaching risk. Engineers A and B must now decide whether to notify the appropriate state regulatory authority of the public health danger. This is the critical escalation decision: the client has refused to act, and only external regulatory intervention can prevent the risk from materializing. Multiple compliance statuses remain unclear, indicating this step was not straightforwardly taken.
option1: Contact the state regulatory agency and make a formal presentation of facts, findings, and recommendations regarding the lead leaching risk, creating an official record and triggering the agency's authority to intervene before the project proceeds.
option2: Reach out informally to a contact at the state regulatory agency to flag the concern without submitting a formal presentation, leaving the decision to escalate entirely to the agency's discretion.
option3: Treat the commission's override as a final client decision, withdraw from further advisory involvement, and take no action to notify regulatory authorities, on the grounds that the engineers have fulfilled their duty by warning the client.
role label: Engineers A and B
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

DP4
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP4
decision question: Should Engineers A and B continue to actively pursue the matter with regulatory authorities and other appropriate parties until the public health risk is genuinely resolved, rather than treating a single formal notification as sufficient?
focus: Having notified the state regulatory authority, Engineers A and B must decide whether to continue actively pursuing the matter until the public health threat is genuinely resolved, or whether a single formal notification satisfies their professional obligations. The commission has proceeded with the project, and there is no guarantee that the regulatory agency will act swiftly or decisively. Continued pursuit requires sustained effort that may prolong conflict with the client and expose the engineers to professional and legal risk.
option1: Continue engaging with the state regulatory agency and any other appropriate authorities, providing additional technical support, follow-up presentations, and documentation as needed until the lead leaching risk is definitively addressed and the public is protected.
option2: Consider the professional obligation fulfilled upon submission of the formal regulatory notification and take no further action, leaving resolution entirely to the regulatory agency and the commission.
role label: Engineers A and B
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

DP5
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP5
decision question: Should Engineers A and B formally advise the MWC that the project as currently configured is likely to fail and to produce the lead leaching harm identified in their evaluation, even after the commission has overridden their recommendation?
focus: As the project proceeds despite the engineers' objections, Engineers A and B must decide whether to formally advise the Metropolitan Water Commission that the project, as currently configured without the required corrosion control improvements, is likely to fail and to cause the public health harm they identified. This advisement serves both to fulfill the duty of truthful professional opinion and to ensure the commission cannot later claim ignorance of the consequences, while also maintaining the engineers' integrity as faithful agents acting within the bounds of public safety.
option1: Provide the MWC with a formal written advisement that the project as currently configured, without the required corrosion control improvements, is likely to fail and to produce the lead leaching risk identified in the evaluation report, creating a documented record that the commission was warned of the consequences.
option2: Treat the commission's override as closing the advisory relationship on this issue and provide no further formal opinion on project outcomes, on the grounds that the engineers have already discharged their notification duty through the joint recommendation.
option3: Terminate all further professional engagement with the MWC on this project, neither issuing a failure advisement nor continuing regulatory pursuit, in order to avoid prolonged conflict with a client that has explicitly rejected the engineers' professional judgment.
role label: Engineers A and B
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

II.1.
type: NamedIndividual
comment: Engineers shall hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public.
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

II.1.a.
type: NamedIndividual
comment: If engineers' judgment is overruled under circumstances that endanger life or property, they shall notify their employer or client and such other authority as may be appropriate.
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

II.1.c.
type: NamedIndividual
comment: Engineers shall not reveal facts, data, or information without the prior consent of the client or employer except as authorized or required by law or this Code.
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

III.1.b.
type: NamedIndividual
comment: Engineers shall advise their clients or employers when they believe a project will not be successful.
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_1
type: NamedIndividual
comment: This question emerged because the MWC's override of the engineers' joint safety recommendation created a direct collision between two legitimate professional obligations, each grounded in recognized engineering ethics codes. Neither obligation is trivially subordinate to the other, so the situation forces an explicit determination of which duty governs, under what conditions, and what specific actions each engineer must take given their distinct roles as an employee and as an outside consultant.
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_10
type: NamedIndividual
comment: This question emerged because the MWC override transformed a completed act of professional disclosure into a potentially complicit one, forcing a determination of whether continued internal reporting after override satisfies the engineers' ethical duty or instead allows the MWC to use that reporting as institutional cover for an unsafe decision. The tension is not resolvable by appealing to either principle alone because each principle was designed for a different phase of the professional relationship, and the override event collapsed those phases into a single unresolved moment.
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_11
type: NamedIndividual
comment: This question emerged because the dual role state placed Engineer A inside the very client organization whose decision he was ethically obligated to resist, collapsing the normal separation between faithful agency and public safety advocacy into a single person. The MWC's override of the joint recommendation then forced that internal contradiction into an active conflict, making it genuinely unclear whether any single action, compliance, refusal, or escalation, could satisfy both warrants without violating the other.
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_12
type: NamedIndividual
comment: This question emerged because the MWC's override of a joint professional recommendation, combined with the simultaneous acceleration of a source transition before corrosion control safeguards were in place, created a situation where two legitimate warrants point in opposite directions. The consequentialist framing sharpens the tension by demanding a net harm calculation that must weigh a concrete public health risk against institutional disruption and economic costs, neither of which has a settled answer given the facts available to Engineers A and B at the time of the decision.
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_13
type: NamedIndividual
comment: The question emerged because virtue ethics evaluates character and motivation rather than rule compliance alone, so the same set of actions that satisfy a deontological reading of complete reporting can still fall short of the courage and civic engagement a virtuous consulting engineer would demonstrate when a confirmed public health risk is at stake. The low public attendance at the meeting created a factual gap between the formal act of disclosure and the substantive outcome of an informed public, and that gap is precisely where virtue ethics locates the moral question about whether Engineer B did enough.
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_14
type: NamedIndividual
comment: This question emerged because the MWC's active override of safety recommendations created a direct collision between the institutional loyalty embedded in the faithful agent duty and the absolute priority assigned to public health protection by the NSPE Code. The question sharpens further because Engineers A and B acted jointly, leaving open whether joint action discharges what the Code may treat as two separate, individually held, non-transferable obligations to report to regulatory authorities.
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_15
type: NamedIndividual
comment: This question arose because the engineers' only formal act of dissent occurred at a meeting with low public attendance, leaving open whether that act was sufficient to discharge their obligation to the MWC before the vote and whether it was sufficient to anchor a subsequent duty to escalate. The gap between an oral presentation at a poorly attended meeting and a formal written communication to the commission before its decision created genuine uncertainty about whether the engineers had done enough to trigger, or to satisfy, their escalation obligations under the public safety paramountcy principle.
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_16
type: NamedIndividual
comment: This question arose because the Recommendation Override event placed Engineer B at the intersection of two legitimate but irreconcilable professional obligations: the obligation to refuse participation in a process that endangers the public, and the obligation to persist in protecting the public through whatever access remains available. The accelerated timeline made the stakes of that choice immediate, because withdrawal and continued engagement each carried a distinct and serious risk of harm to water consumers, and the ethical framework provided no clear rule for choosing between them.
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_17
type: NamedIndividual
comment: The question emerged because low public attendance created a factual gap between the existence of a public forum and actual public awareness of the confirmed risk, forcing a judgment about whether Engineers A and B bore an affirmative obligation to close that gap through additional disclosure channels. The MWC's subsequent override of the safety recommendation sharpened the question by showing that the formal meeting process did not produce a protective outcome, raising the issue of whether the engineers should have anticipated that possibility and acted more broadly before the vote occurred.
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_18
type: NamedIndividual
comment: This question arose because Engineer A occupied a structurally unique position in which the same person held both the authority to implement the MWC's decision and the professional obligation to refuse it, making the abstract tension between faithful agency and public safety paramountcy a concrete operational choice with immediate institutional consequences. The question of deterrence emerged alongside it because the institutional and legal costs of formal refusal, including potential termination and liability exposure, constitute rebuttal conditions that could neutralize the public safety warrant in practice even when it is theoretically paramount.
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_2
type: NamedIndividual
comment: This question arose because the MWC override created a direct collision between two legitimate professional obligations that engineers ordinarily balance without conflict. Once the client rejected the joint recommendation and the public health risk was confirmed, neither engineer could satisfy both duties simultaneously, forcing the question of which obligation governs and what specific steps each must take.
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_3
type: NamedIndividual
comment: This question emerged because Engineer A's dual role as both superintendent and chief engineer for the MWC created a structural condition in which the normal escalation path for a safety concern, reporting to the client or employer, was identical to the source of the conflict itself. The MWC's override of the joint safety recommendation then activated the tension between his obligation as a faithful agent and his paramount duty to protect public health, making it necessary to ask whether his institutional position structurally prevented him from fulfilling the independent judgment that public safety obligations require.
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_4
type: NamedIndividual
comment: This question emerged because the Low Public Attendance event exposed a gap between procedural compliance and substantive protection: Engineers A and B could satisfy the letter of their escalation obligations by notifying the State Regulatory Agency Authority, yet the public most at risk from the MWC Lead Leaching Risk may remain uninformed and unprotected. The question forces a determination of whether the Engineers A B Proactive Risk Disclosure principle extends beyond formal channels to direct public communication when the democratic safeguard that was supposed to make formal channels sufficient has effectively not functioned.
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_5
type: NamedIndividual
comment: This question arose because Engineer A occupies a dual role as both superintendent and chief engineer for the MWC, meaning his continued presence after the override is not neutral. It signals to the public, to regulators, and to the MWC itself that a qualified engineer remains professionally associated with a decision he has formally opposed, and the ethical framework provides no bright line for when that association becomes complicity.
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_6
type: NamedIndividual
comment: This question emerged because the MWC's simultaneous-evaluation-and-transition decision occupies a structural middle ground that neither warrant fully anticipated. Engineers A and B face a characterization problem in their formal notifications precisely because the MWC's framing obscures whether the safety risk is being managed or merely deferred, and the answer to that factual question determines which warrant controls and therefore what language the engineers are obligated to use.
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_7
type: NamedIndividual
comment: This question arose because the MWC is not a rogue private actor but a democratically authorized public body, which gives its override decision a legitimacy that a purely private client override would lack. That legitimacy strengthens the Faithful Agent Duty claim precisely at the moment when the Public Welfare Paramountcy claim is also at its strongest, forcing a direct collision between the two principles rather than a straightforward resolution in favor of safety.
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_8
type: NamedIndividual
comment: This question emerged because the MWC's decision to override the joint recommendations and accelerate the source transition transformed the risk from hypothetical to confirmed and immediate, placing the two principles in direct temporal conflict. The Graduated Escalation Response was designed for situations where time permits ordered steps, but the Concurrent Safety Reporting principle exists for situations where that assumption fails, and the data here contest which assumption applies.
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_9
type: NamedIndividual
comment: This question emerged because the MWC did not override the engineering recommendations arbitrarily but did so under a principle, Public Funds Stewardship, that carries genuine institutional legitimacy. Engineers A and B face a structural communication problem: their safety concerns are grounded in Public Welfare Paramountcy, but unless their formal communications acknowledge and directly address the competing economic warrant, decision makers and regulators may perceive the engineers as ignoring a valid institutional concern rather than superseding it with a higher obligation.
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

Question_1
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 1
question text: What are the ethical obligations of Engineer A and Engineer B in this circumstance?
question type: board_explicit
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

Question_101
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 101
question text: Does Engineer A's dual role as both superintendent and chief engineer for the MWC create a structural conflict of interest that compromises his ability to independently escalate safety concerns to the very body that employs him, and should he have sought independent legal or ethical counsel before the MWC vote?
question type: implicit
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

Question_102
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 102
question text: Given that the public meeting was sparsely attended, do Engineers A and B have an obligation to proactively and directly inform the affected public — not merely regulatory authorities — about the lead leaching risk, particularly when the democratic oversight mechanism has effectively failed?
question type: implicit
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

Question_103
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 103
question text: At what point, if any, does Engineer A's continued employment with the MWC after the override decision itself become an ethical violation, and should he consider resignation or withdrawal from the project to avoid lending professional credibility to a decision he has formally opposed?
question type: implicit
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

Question_104
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 104
question text: Does the MWC's decision to proceed simultaneously with evaluation and source change — rather than outright rejecting the engineers' recommendations — create an ambiguous ethical situation where partial compliance obscures the full magnitude of the safety risk, and how should Engineers A and B characterize this distinction in their formal notifications?
question type: implicit
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

Question_2
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 2
question text: What should Engineer A and Engineer B do?
question type: board_explicit
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

Question_201
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 201
question text: Does the principle of Engineers A and B's Faithful Agent Duty — requiring them to act as loyal agents of the MWC — directly conflict with the principle of Engineers A and B's Public Welfare Paramountcy when the MWC's democratically authorized decision is the very source of the public health threat, and which principle must yield and under what conditions?
question type: principle_tension
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

Question_202
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 202
question text: Does the principle of Engineers A and B's Graduated Escalation Response — suggesting a stepwise approach from client notification to regulatory reporting — conflict with the principle of Engineers A and B's Concurrent Safety Reporting when the timeline of lead exposure risk is immediate and a graduated approach may itself cause harm through delay?
question type: principle_tension
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

Question_203
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 203
question text: Does the principle of MWC Public Funds Stewardship — which originally motivated the water source change to reduce municipal expenditures — conflict with the principle of Engineers A and B's Public Welfare Paramountcy, and to what extent should Engineers A and B address this economic rationale in their formal communications to avoid their safety concerns being dismissed as technically narrow?
question type: principle_tension
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

Question_204
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 204
question text: Does the principle of Engineers A and B's Complete Reporting — requiring full disclosure of findings to the MWC — conflict with the principle of Engineers A and B's Client Override Refusal when complete reporting has already occurred and been overridden, raising the question of whether continued internal reporting constitutes ethical fulfillment or merely provides institutional cover for the MWC's unsafe decision?
question type: principle_tension
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

Question_301
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 301
question text: From a deontological perspective, does Engineer A's dual role as both superintendent and chief engineer of the MWC create an irresolvable conflict of duty, such that no single course of action can simultaneously satisfy the obligation to serve as a faithful agent to the MWC and the paramount duty to protect public health and safety?
question type: theoretical
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

Question_302
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 302
question text: From a consequentialist perspective, does the MWC's decision to proceed simultaneously with the accelerated evaluation and the water source change produce a net harm so severe — specifically the risk of lead leaching above drinking water standards into a municipal supply — that Engineers A and B are ethically justified in escalating to state regulatory authorities even if doing so undermines the MWC's institutional authority and imposes significant economic costs on the municipality?
question type: theoretical
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

Question_303
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 303
question text: From a virtue ethics perspective, did Engineer B demonstrate the professional integrity and courage expected of a consulting engineer by providing a complete and unambiguous report recommending delay, and does the sparsely attended public meeting represent a failure of proactive civic virtue in communicating a confirmed public health risk to those most affected?
question type: theoretical
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

Question_304
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 304
question text: From a deontological perspective, does the NSPE Code's requirement that Engineers A and B report their concerns to state regulatory authorities independently of client consent constitute an absolute duty — one that cannot be waived, delegated, or satisfied by joint action alone — and what does this imply about the moral weight of institutional loyalty versus professional obligation when a client actively overrides safety recommendations?
question type: theoretical
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

Question_401
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 401
question text: If Engineers A and B had formally communicated their concerns in writing to the MWC before the vote — rather than only presenting recommendations at a sparsely attended public meeting — would the MWC have been more likely to delay the water source change, and would that written record have strengthened the engineers' subsequent obligation to escalate to state regulatory authorities?
question type: counterfactual
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

Question_402
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 402
question text: What if Engineer B had refused to continue the consulting engagement after the MWC voted to override the joint safety recommendations — would withdrawal have better protected the public by denying the MWC a veneer of professional legitimacy for the premature transition, or would it have removed the last technical safeguard capable of mitigating lead leaching risks during the accelerated process?
question type: counterfactual
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

Question_403
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 403
question text: If the public meeting had been well-attended and community members had been fully informed of the lead leaching risk before the MWC vote, would public pressure have changed the MWC's decision, and does the low public attendance at the meeting reflect a missed ethical obligation by Engineers A and B to proactively seek broader public disclosure of a confirmed health risk?
question type: counterfactual
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

Question_404
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 404
question text: If Engineer A, as superintendent and chief engineer of the MWC, had formally refused to implement the MWC's decision to proceed with the premature water source change on the grounds that it endangered public health, would that refusal have constituted a fulfillment of the paramount duty under the NSPE Code, and what institutional and legal consequences might have followed that could deter other engineers in similar positions from taking the same stand?
question type: counterfactual
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_1
type: NamedIndividual
comment: Because the engineers had jointly identified a confirmed lead leaching risk and the MWC had proceeded despite their recommendations, the board concluded that formal written communication to the MWC was the necessary first step, satisfying both the project success notification obligation under III.1.b and the preliminary requirement of II.1.a before external escalation becomes warranted.
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_10
type: NamedIndividual
comment: Because Engineer A's continued employment is the only remaining internal check on the MWC's unsafe decision during the accelerated transition, the board concluded that resignation is not ethically required at the point of override but becomes ethically necessary if Engineer A's participation shifts from active opposition and escalation to passive superintendence of a process he has formally opposed, since that shift would convert his presence from a safeguard into institutional cover for the MWC's decision.
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_11
type: NamedIndividual
comment: Because the MWC's simultaneous-transition decision preserved the appearance of an evaluation process while eliminating the sequencing that gave that process its protective function, the board concluded that Engineers A and B bore an affirmative obligation to characterize the distinction explicitly in formal communications, so that regulatory authorities would not mistake the MWC's decision for a measured compromise rather than a direct safety override.
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_12
type: NamedIndividual
comment: Because the Code's hierarchy is explicit and the MWC's democratic authorization does not convert a health-endangering decision into an ethically legitimate one, the board concluded that once Engineers A and B discharged the procedural prerequisite of formal internal notification, the faithful agent duty was fully exhausted and the obligation to escalate to state regulatory authorities operated without any remaining constraint from client loyalty.
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_13
type: NamedIndividual
comment: Because lead leaching risk attaches at the moment of source transition and the resulting harms are irreversible and fall most heavily on the most vulnerable residents, the board concluded that the consequentialist calculus strongly supports immediate escalation to state regulatory authorities, and that treating graduated escalation as a default in this context would itself constitute an ethical failure by converting procedural caution into a mechanism of harm.
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_14
type: NamedIndividual
comment: Because the sparsely attended public meeting was the sole disclosure mechanism and the risk was confirmed and population-scale, the board concluded that Engineers A and B bore partial responsibility for a failure of proactive civic virtue, even though their technical obligations to the MWC were met, because practical wisdom required them to assess whether that format was adequate and to act on that assessment.
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_15
type: NamedIndividual
comment: Because all three triggering conditions were met and the Code assigns the reporting obligation independently to each engineer, the board concluded that neither Engineer A nor Engineer B can discharge the other's obligation through joint action, and that institutional loyalty in the form of employment or consulting relationships functions only as a reason to use internal channels first, not as any basis for forgoing external escalation once those channels are exhausted.
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_16
type: NamedIndividual
comment: Because Engineers A and B relied solely on an oral presentation at a poorly attended meeting rather than submitting written pre-vote communications, the board found that the formal record must now be established retroactively through post-override written notifications to the MWC and to state regulatory authorities. The override itself, not the quality of the prior communication, is what triggers the obligation under Code Section II.1.a.
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_17
type: NamedIndividual
comment: Because Engineer B's presence was the only remaining technical safeguard during the period of highest lead leaching risk, the board concluded that withdrawal would have produced a worse ethical outcome than continued engagement. This resolution depends entirely on Engineer B pursuing independent regulatory escalation alongside continued participation, not instead of it.
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_18
type: NamedIndividual
comment: Because Engineer A could not legally override the MWC vote and would likely have been terminated upon formal refusal, the board found that the paramount duty is better fulfilled through continued engagement combined with independent regulatory escalation than through a refusal that removes the protective engineer from the process entirely. The board identified this as a systemic gap in the NSPE Code rather than a resolution that endorses institutional silence.
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_19
type: NamedIndividual
comment: Because the MWC grounded its override in a public funds stewardship rationale, the board concluded that Engineers A and B must address that rationale directly in their formal communications, not to concede its validity but to prevent it from framing their safety concerns as anti-public-interest. The board found that proactively demonstrating the economic incomparability of lead exposure costs to transition savings strengthens rather than dilutes the safety argument.
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_2
type: NamedIndividual
comment: Because the MWC overrode a confirmed safety recommendation and proceeded with a transition that the engineers had formally identified as endangering public health, the board concluded that II.1.a required both engineers to notify the MWC and appropriate authorities, treating that notification as a non-waivable obligation that the client's override decision could not extinguish.
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_20
type: NamedIndividual
comment: Because the MWC's override produced a confirmed risk of lead leaching above regulatory standards rather than a mere difference of professional opinion, the board found that the faithful agent relationship was structurally transformed at the moment of the override. The board concluded that escalation to state regulatory authorities was not merely permissible but obligatory under Code Section II.1.a, and that continued implementation without escalation would have converted the engineers' professional roles into instruments of public harm.
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_21
type: NamedIndividual
comment: Because the MWC had already begun the source transition without completing corrosion control safeguards, the board found that the public was being continuously exposed to a confirmed lead leaching risk, and that waiting to complete each step of a graduated escalation sequence before moving to the next would itself constitute a period of unmitigated harm. Given those conditions, the board concluded that concurrent notification to state regulatory authorities was not a departure from graduated escalation but a required compression of it.
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_22
type: NamedIndividual
comment: Because both the MWC's fiscal rationale and the engineers' safety rationale were grounded in genuine public interest, the board could not resolve the conflict by dismissing one side as illegitimate. Instead, the board held that the NSPE Code treats physical safety as lexically prior to economic benefit, and further required that Engineers A and B explicitly address the fiscal argument in their formal communications so that their safety conclusions would be understood as having been reached in full awareness of the competing pressure.
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_23
type: NamedIndividual
comment: Because Engineers A and B had already delivered a complete report to the MWC and the MWC had voted to override it, the board found that the MWC was no longer a party capable of providing independent corrective action. Repeating the report internally would have satisfied the procedural form of Complete Reporting while functioning as institutional cover for the MWC's unsafe decision, so the board concluded that the obligation could only be genuinely discharged by directing the report outward to state regulatory authorities with independent authority to act.
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_3
type: NamedIndividual
comment: Because Engineer A was simultaneously the MWC's employee and its chief technical officer, the board's standard conclusion that he should communicate concerns to the MWC was necessary but insufficient, and the dual role created a compounded ethical burden requiring independent legal or ethical counsel to document that his escalation was substantive rather than performative compliance with internal process.
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_4
type: NamedIndividual
comment: Because the sparsely attended public meeting left the affected community uninformed of a confirmed lead leaching risk after the MWC had already shown it would override safety recommendations, the board's conclusion that notification of institutional actors was sufficient was incomplete, and Engineers A and B faced a residual obligation to evaluate whether direct public communication was necessary to fulfill the spirit of their paramount duty.
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_5
type: NamedIndividual
comment: Because Engineer B's withdrawal would remove the last technical safeguard during an already-initiated accelerated transition while continued unconditional engagement would lend professional credibility to a decision he formally opposed, the board's escalation framework required extension to include conditional continued participation, with explicit written acknowledgment of risks and a defined scope that did not require Engineer B to certify the safety of a process he had recommended against.
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_6
type: NamedIndividual
comment: Because Engineer B's relationship with the MWC is bounded by a single consulting engagement rather than employment, the board concluded that Engineer B faces a lower threshold for independent regulatory escalation than Engineer A, and that Engineer B should not treat Engineer A's institutional hesitation as a reason to delay that escalation, given that the NSPE Code's notification obligation is unconditional on client consent or joint action.
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_7
type: NamedIndividual
comment: Because the MWC justified its override on public funds stewardship grounds and Engineers A and B had not engaged that rationale, the board concluded that formal notifications framed solely in technical terms were likely to be dismissed, and that a complete communication under the NSPE Code's project success notification provision required demonstrating that the premature transition undermines the MWC's own economic objectives through regulatory penalties, remediation costs, and litigation exposure.
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_8
type: NamedIndividual
comment: Because Engineer A's dual role as superintendent and chief engineer places him in a position where his formal objections are directed at the very body that employs him and can simply re-override them, the board concluded that internal communication is a necessary but insufficient step, and that escalation to state regulatory authorities is structurally required rather than merely advisable, with independent legal or ethical counsel having been warranted before the vote to clarify the limits of his authority.
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_9
type: NamedIndividual
comment: Because the sparsely attended public meeting provided procedural cover without substantive disclosure to the affected population, the board concluded that Engineers A and B bear a residual proactive disclosure obligation that the NSPE Code's public welfare paramountcy provision does not allow to be satisfied by client and regulatory notification alone, and that direct communication to affected residents through public health channels or media warrants consideration if regulatory action is not prompt.
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

capital improvements (corrosion control construction) before change in water source
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: The improvements are needed prior to the change in water source to ensure that sufficient corrosion control is provided so that old service pipes in the MWC service area don't leach lead at levels in excess of drinking water standards.
from entity text: capital improvements (corrosion control construction)
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: change in water source
synthesis literal: allenRelation
synthesis literal: description
synthesis literal: evidence
synthesis literal: fromEntity
synthesis literal: owlTimeURI
synthesis literal: toEntity
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

three-year evaluation, design, and construction timeline before change in water source
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: providing a report to Engineer A recommending extensive capital investments and a three-year timeline for further evaluation of water quality, design, and construction of improvements [prior to the change in water source]
from entity text: three-year evaluation, design, and construction timeline
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: change in water source
synthesis literal: allenRelation
synthesis literal: description
synthesis literal: evidence
synthesis literal: fromEntity
synthesis literal: owlTimeURI
synthesis literal: toEntity
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

joint presentation by Engineers A and B at MWC meeting before MWC vote to proceed with simultaneous source change and evaluation
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: Both Engineer A and Engineer B met with the MWC at a meeting sparsely attended by the public and recommended that the change in water source be substantially delayed...Despite those recommendations, the MWC voted to proceed
from entity text: joint presentation by Engineers A and B at MWC meeting
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: MWC vote to proceed with simultaneous source change and evaluation
synthesis literal: allenRelation
synthesis literal: description
synthesis literal: evidence
synthesis literal: fromEntity
synthesis literal: owlTimeURI
synthesis literal: toEntity
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

Causal edge (cause)
type: Derivation
comment: property=cause; causal chain's cause text resolved to the case individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Formal Authority Notification

Causal edge (effect)
type: Derivation
comment: property=effect; causal chain's effect text resolved to the case individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Continued Pursuit of Matter

Causal edge (responsibleAgent)
type: Derivation
comment: property=responsibleAgent; causal chain's responsibleAgent text resolved to the case individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Engineers A and B

Causal edge (responsibleAgent)
type: Derivation
comment: property=responsibleAgent; causal chain's responsibleAgent text resolved to the case individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Engineers A and B

Causal edge (cause)
type: Derivation
comment: property=cause; causal chain's cause text resolved to the case individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Water Source Consideration

Causal edge (effect)
type: Derivation
comment: property=effect; causal chain's effect text resolved to the case individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Engineer Retention

Causal edge (responsibleAgent)
type: Derivation
comment: property=responsibleAgent; causal chain's responsibleAgent text resolved to the case individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Metropolitan Water Commission (MWC)

Causal edge (cause)
type: Derivation
comment: property=cause; causal chain's cause text resolved to the case individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Engineer Retention

Causal edge (effect)
type: Derivation
comment: property=effect; causal chain's effect text resolved to the case individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Evaluation Report Submission

Causal edge (responsibleAgent)
type: Derivation
comment: property=responsibleAgent; causal chain's responsibleAgent text resolved to the case individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Engineer B

Causal edge (responsibleAgent)
type: Derivation
comment: property=responsibleAgent; causal chain's responsibleAgent text resolved to the case individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Engineer B

Causal edge (cause)
type: Derivation
comment: property=cause; causal chain's cause text resolved to the case individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Public Health Risk Identified

Causal edge (effect)
type: Derivation
comment: property=effect; causal chain's effect text resolved to the case individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Joint Advisory Recommendation

Causal edge (responsibleAgent)
type: Derivation
comment: property=responsibleAgent; causal chain's responsibleAgent text resolved to the case individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Engineers A and B

Causal edge (responsibleAgent)
type: Derivation
comment: property=responsibleAgent; causal chain's responsibleAgent text resolved to the case individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Engineers A and B

Causal edge (cause)
type: Derivation
comment: property=cause; causal chain's cause text resolved to the case individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Low Public Attendance

Causal edge (effect)
type: Derivation
comment: property=effect; causal chain's effect text resolved to the case individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Recommendation Override

Causal edge (responsibleAgent)
type: Derivation
comment: property=responsibleAgent; causal chain's responsibleAgent text resolved to the case individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Metropolitan Water Commission (MWC)

Causal edge (cause)
type: Derivation
comment: property=cause; causal chain's cause text resolved to the case individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Joint Advisory Recommendation

Causal edge (effect)
type: Derivation
comment: property=effect; causal chain's effect text resolved to the case individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Recommendation Override

Causal edge (responsibleAgent)
type: Derivation
comment: property=responsibleAgent; causal chain's responsibleAgent text resolved to the case individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Metropolitan Water Commission (MWC)

Causal edge (cause)
type: Derivation
comment: property=cause; causal chain's cause text resolved to the case individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Recommendation Override

Causal edge (effect)
type: Derivation
comment: property=effect; causal chain's effect text resolved to the case individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Accelerated Project Initiation

Causal edge (responsibleAgent)
type: Derivation
comment: property=responsibleAgent; causal chain's responsibleAgent text resolved to the case individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Metropolitan Water Commission (MWC)

Causal edge (cause)
type: Derivation
comment: property=cause; causal chain's cause text resolved to the case individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Recommendation Override

Causal edge (effect)
type: Derivation
comment: property=effect; causal chain's effect text resolved to the case individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Formal Authority Notification

Causal edge (responsibleAgent)
type: Derivation
comment: property=responsibleAgent; causal chain's responsibleAgent text resolved to the case individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Engineers A and B

Causal edge (responsibleAgent)
type: Derivation
comment: property=responsibleAgent; causal chain's responsibleAgent text resolved to the case individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Engineers A and B

Causal edge (cause)
type: Derivation
comment: property=cause; causal chain's cause text resolved to the case individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Recommendation Override

Causal edge (effect)
type: Derivation
comment: property=effect; causal chain's effect text resolved to the case individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Project Failure Advisement

Causal edge (responsibleAgent)
type: Derivation
comment: property=responsibleAgent; causal chain's responsibleAgent text resolved to the case individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Engineers A and B

Causal edge (responsibleAgent)
type: Derivation
comment: property=responsibleAgent; causal chain's responsibleAgent text resolved to the case individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Engineers A and B

Causal edge (causedByAction)
type: Derivation
comment: property=causedByAction; causal chain's causedByAction text resolved to the case individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: http://proethica.org/ontology/case/76#Action_Joint_Advisory_Recommendation

Causal edge (causedByAction)
type: Derivation
comment: property=causedByAction; causal chain's causedByAction text resolved to the case individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: http://proethica.org/ontology/case/76#Action_Evaluation_Report_Submission

Causal edge (causedByAction)
type: Derivation
comment: property=causedByAction; causal chain's causedByAction text resolved to the case individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: http://proethica.org/ontology/case/76#Action_Joint_Advisory_Recommendation

Defeasibility edge from casecontext
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=casecontext; confidence=0.92
generated at time: 2026-06-05T11:54:07.222866+00:00
value: Engineer A served as both superintendent and chief engineer for the MWC, creating a dual role in which the faithful agent duty to the employer and the paramount duty to public welfare came into direct conflict after the MWC voted to override the joint engineering recommendation.

Defeasibility edge from casecontext
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=casecontext; confidence=0.91
generated at time: 2026-06-05T11:54:07.223123+00:00
value: After the MWC voted to override the joint recommendation, Engineer A's faithful agent duty was defeasible in the face of the public health risk.

Defeasibility edge from casecontext
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=casecontext; confidence=0.92
generated at time: 2026-06-05T11:54:07.223651+00:00
value: Engineer A served as both superintendent and chief engineer for the MWC, creating a dual role in which the faithful agent duty to the employer and the paramount duty to public welfare came into direct conflict after the MWC voted to override the joint engineering recommendation.

Defeasibility edge from obligationstatement
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=obligationstatement; confidence=0.9
generated at time: 2026-06-05T11:54:07.223008+00:00
value: Engineer A was obligated after the MWC override to report the public health risk to the appropriate state regulatory authority, placing the paramount duty to public welfare above the faithful agent duty to the MWC as employer.

Defeasibility edge from obligationstatement
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=obligationstatement; confidence=0.92
generated at time: 2026-06-05T11:54:07.223230+00:00
value: Engineer B was obligated after the MWC override to report the public health risk to the appropriate state regulatory authority, placing the paramount duty to public welfare above the faithful agent duty to the MWC as client.

Defeasibility edge from casecontext
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=casecontext; confidence=0.91
generated at time: 2026-06-05T11:54:07.223443+00:00
value: After the MWC voted to override the joint recommendation, Engineer B's faithful agent duty to the client was defeasible in the face of the identified public health risk.

Defeasibility edge from obligationstatement
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=obligationstatement; confidence=0.92
generated at time: 2026-06-05T11:54:07.223754+00:00
value: Engineer B was obligated after the MWC override to report the public health risk to the appropriate state regulatory authority, placing the paramount duty to public welfare above the faithful agent duty to the MWC as client.

Defeasibility edge from obligationstatement
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=obligationstatement; confidence=0.9
generated at time: 2026-06-05T11:54:07.223338+00:00
value: Engineer B was obligated after the MWC override to report the public health risk to the appropriate state regulatory authority, placing the paramount duty to public welfare above the faithful agent duty to the MWC as client.

Defeasibility edge from interpretation
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=interpretation; confidence=0.85
generated at time: 2026-06-05T11:54:07.223548+00:00
value: Public welfare paramountcy means that the MWC's overruling of the joint engineering recommendations does not relieve Engineers A and B of their obligation to protect the public, and client consent is not a prerequisite for fulfilling that obligation.

Fluent edge (initiates)
type: Derivation
comment: property=initiates; happening's initiates state text resolved to the case State(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select (Event Calculus fluent transition)
value: Ongoing Public Safety Risk; Unapproved Project Proceeding State

Fluent edge (initiates)
type: Derivation
comment: property=initiates; happening's initiates state text resolved to the case State(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select (Event Calculus fluent transition)
value: Ongoing Public Safety Risk; Unapproved Project Proceeding State

Fluent edge (initiates)
type: Derivation
comment: property=initiates; happening's initiates state text resolved to the case State(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select (Event Calculus fluent transition)
value: Ongoing Public Safety Risk; Unapproved Project Proceeding State

Fluent edge (initiates)
type: Derivation
comment: property=initiates; happening's initiates state text resolved to the case State(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select (Event Calculus fluent transition)
value: Ongoing Public Safety Risk; Unapproved Project Proceeding State

Fluent edge (initiates)
type: Derivation
comment: property=initiates; happening's initiates state text resolved to the case State(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select (Event Calculus fluent transition)
value: Escalated Safety Pursuit Active; Further Regulatory or Public Engagement Initiated

Fluent edge (initiates)
type: Derivation
comment: property=initiates; happening's initiates state text resolved to the case State(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select (Event Calculus fluent transition)
value: Active Consulting Engagement; Professional Duty to Client

Fluent edge (initiates)
type: Derivation
comment: property=initiates; happening's initiates state text resolved to the case State(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select (Event Calculus fluent transition)
value: Active Consulting Engagement; Professional Duty to Client

Fluent edge (initiates)
type: Derivation
comment: property=initiates; happening's initiates state text resolved to the case State(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select (Event Calculus fluent transition)
value: Formal Safety Recommendation on Record; MWC Informed of Lead Leaching Risk; Three-Year Timeline Requirement Documented

Fluent edge (initiates)
type: Derivation
comment: property=initiates; happening's initiates state text resolved to the case State(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select (Event Calculus fluent transition)
value: Formal Safety Recommendation on Record; MWC Informed of Lead Leaching Risk; Three-Year Timeline Requirement Documented

Fluent edge (initiates)
type: Derivation
comment: property=initiates; happening's initiates state text resolved to the case State(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select (Event Calculus fluent transition)
value: Formal Safety Recommendation on Record; MWC Informed of Lead Leaching Risk; Three-Year Timeline Requirement Documented

Fluent edge (initiates)
type: Derivation
comment: property=initiates; happening's initiates state text resolved to the case State(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select (Event Calculus fluent transition)
value: Formal Project Failure Warning on Record; MWC Formally Advised of Inadequate Safety Approach

Fluent edge (initiates)
type: Derivation
comment: property=initiates; happening's initiates state text resolved to the case State(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select (Event Calculus fluent transition)
value: Formal Project Failure Warning on Record; MWC Formally Advised of Inadequate Safety Approach

Fluent edge (initiates)
type: Derivation
comment: property=initiates; happening's initiates state text resolved to the case State(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select (Event Calculus fluent transition)
value: Public Safety Risk; Lead Leaching Hazard Documented; Informed Client State

Fluent edge (initiates)
type: Derivation
comment: property=initiates; happening's initiates state text resolved to the case State(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select (Event Calculus fluent transition)
value: Public Safety Risk; Lead Leaching Hazard Documented; Informed Client State

Fluent edge (initiates)
type: Derivation
comment: property=initiates; happening's initiates state text resolved to the case State(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select (Event Calculus fluent transition)
value: Public Safety Risk; Lead Leaching Hazard Documented; Informed Client State

Fluent edge (initiates)
type: Derivation
comment: property=initiates; happening's initiates state text resolved to the case State(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select (Event Calculus fluent transition)
value: Client Directive Contrary to Safety; Accelerated Source Change Proceeding; Engineer Ethical Conflict State; Public Safety Risk Active

Fluent edge (initiates)
type: Derivation
comment: property=initiates; happening's initiates state text resolved to the case State(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select (Event Calculus fluent transition)
value: Client Directive Contrary to Safety; Accelerated Source Change Proceeding; Engineer Ethical Conflict State; Public Safety Risk Active

Fluent edge (initiates)
type: Derivation
comment: property=initiates; happening's initiates state text resolved to the case State(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select (Event Calculus fluent transition)
value: Client Directive Contrary to Safety; Accelerated Source Change Proceeding; Engineer Ethical Conflict State; Public Safety Risk Active

Fluent edge (initiates)
type: Derivation
comment: property=initiates; happening's initiates state text resolved to the case State(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select (Event Calculus fluent transition)
value: Client Directive Contrary to Safety; Accelerated Source Change Proceeding; Engineer Ethical Conflict State; Public Safety Risk Active

Fluent edge (initiates)
type: Derivation
comment: property=initiates; happening's initiates state text resolved to the case State(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select (Event Calculus fluent transition)
value: Client Directive Contrary to Safety; Accelerated Source Change Proceeding; Engineer Ethical Conflict State; Public Safety Risk Active

Fluent edge (initiates)
type: Derivation
comment: property=initiates; happening's initiates state text resolved to the case State(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select (Event Calculus fluent transition)
value: Client Directive Contrary to Safety; Accelerated Source Change Proceeding; Engineer Ethical Conflict State; Public Safety Risk Active

Fluent edge (terminates)
type: Derivation
comment: property=terminates; happening's terminates state text resolved to the case State(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select (Event Calculus fluent transition)
value: Recommendation Under Consideration; Source Change Under Consideration

Fluent edge (terminates)
type: Derivation
comment: property=terminates; happening's terminates state text resolved to the case State(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select (Event Calculus fluent transition)
value: Recommendation Under Consideration; Source Change Under Consideration

Normative edge (fulfillsObligation)
type: Derivation
comment: property=fulfillsObligation; action's fulfillsObligation text resolved to the case Obligation/Principle individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select (obligation-engagement grounding)
value: Hold Paramount Public Safety Health and Welfare; Duty to Report Safety Violations to Appropriate Public Authorities; Notify All Appropriate Authorities When Life or Property Is Endangered

Normative edge (fulfillsObligation)
type: Derivation
comment: property=fulfillsObligation; action's fulfillsObligation text resolved to the case Obligation/Principle individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select (obligation-engagement grounding)
value: Hold Paramount Public Safety Health and Welfare; Duty to Report Safety Violations to Appropriate Public Authorities; Notify All Appropriate Authorities When Life or Property Is Endangered

Normative edge (fulfillsObligation)
type: Derivation
comment: property=fulfillsObligation; action's fulfillsObligation text resolved to the case Obligation/Principle individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select (obligation-engagement grounding)
value: Hold Paramount Public Safety Health and Welfare; Duty to Report Safety Violations to Appropriate Public Authorities; Notify All Appropriate Authorities When Life or Property Is Endangered

Normative edge (guidedByPrinciple)
type: Derivation
comment: property=guidedByPrinciple; action's guidedByPrinciple text resolved to the case Obligation/Principle individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select (obligation-engagement grounding)
value: Public Safety Paramountcy; Professional Obligation to Act Without Client Consent When Public Is Endangered

Normative edge (guidedByPrinciple)
type: Derivation
comment: property=guidedByPrinciple; action's guidedByPrinciple text resolved to the case Obligation/Principle individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select (obligation-engagement grounding)
value: Public Safety Paramountcy; Professional Obligation to Act Without Client Consent When Public Is Endangered

Normative edge (guidedByPrinciple)
type: Derivation
comment: property=guidedByPrinciple; action's guidedByPrinciple text resolved to the case Obligation/Principle individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select (obligation-engagement grounding)
value: Public Safety Paramountcy; Professional Obligation to Act Without Client Consent When Public Is Endangered

Normative edge (guidedByPrinciple)
type: Derivation
comment: property=guidedByPrinciple; action's guidedByPrinciple text resolved to the case Obligation/Principle individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select (obligation-engagement grounding)
value: Public Safety Paramountcy; Professional Obligation to Act Without Client Consent When Public Is Endangered

Normative edge (guidedByPrinciple)
type: Derivation
comment: property=guidedByPrinciple; action's guidedByPrinciple text resolved to the case Obligation/Principle individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select (obligation-engagement grounding)
value: Public Safety Paramountcy; Professional Obligation to Act Without Client Consent When Public Is Endangered

Normative edge (guidedByPrinciple)
type: Derivation
comment: property=guidedByPrinciple; action's guidedByPrinciple text resolved to the case Obligation/Principle individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select (obligation-engagement grounding)
value: Public Safety Paramountcy; Professional Obligation to Act Without Client Consent When Public Is Endangered

Normative edge (fulfillsObligation)
type: Derivation
comment: property=fulfillsObligation; action's fulfillsObligation text resolved to the case Obligation/Principle individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select (obligation-engagement grounding)
value: Provide Objective and Truthful Professional Opinion; Act as Faithful Agent within Bounds of Public Safety

Normative edge (fulfillsObligation)
type: Derivation
comment: property=fulfillsObligation; action's fulfillsObligation text resolved to the case Obligation/Principle individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select (obligation-engagement grounding)
value: Provide Objective and Truthful Professional Opinion; Act as Faithful Agent within Bounds of Public Safety

Normative edge (fulfillsObligation)
type: Derivation
comment: property=fulfillsObligation; action's fulfillsObligation text resolved to the case Obligation/Principle individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select (obligation-engagement grounding)
value: Hold Paramount Public Safety Health and Welfare; Notify All Appropriate Authorities When Life or Property Is Endangered; Duty to Report Safety Violations to Appropriate Public Authorities

Normative edge (fulfillsObligation)
type: Derivation
comment: property=fulfillsObligation; action's fulfillsObligation text resolved to the case Obligation/Principle individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select (obligation-engagement grounding)
value: Hold Paramount Public Safety Health and Welfare; Notify All Appropriate Authorities When Life or Property Is Endangered; Duty to Report Safety Violations to Appropriate Public Authorities

Normative edge (fulfillsObligation)
type: Derivation
comment: property=fulfillsObligation; action's fulfillsObligation text resolved to the case Obligation/Principle individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select (obligation-engagement grounding)
value: Hold Paramount Public Safety Health and Welfare; Notify All Appropriate Authorities When Life or Property Is Endangered; Duty to Report Safety Violations to Appropriate Public Authorities

Normative edge (fulfillsObligation)
type: Derivation
comment: property=fulfillsObligation; action's fulfillsObligation text resolved to the case Obligation/Principle individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select (obligation-engagement grounding)
value: Hold Paramount Public Safety Health and Welfare; Notify All Appropriate Authorities When Life or Property Is Endangered; Duty to Report Safety Violations to Appropriate Public Authorities

Normative edge (guidedByPrinciple)
type: Derivation
comment: property=guidedByPrinciple; action's guidedByPrinciple text resolved to the case Obligation/Principle individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select (obligation-engagement grounding)
value: Public Safety Paramountcy; Professional Obligation to Act Without Client Consent When Public Is Endangered

Normative edge (guidedByPrinciple)
type: Derivation
comment: property=guidedByPrinciple; action's guidedByPrinciple text resolved to the case Obligation/Principle individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select (obligation-engagement grounding)
value: Public Safety Paramountcy; Professional Obligation to Act Without Client Consent When Public Is Endangered

Normative edge (guidedByPrinciple)
type: Derivation
comment: property=guidedByPrinciple; action's guidedByPrinciple text resolved to the case Obligation/Principle individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select (obligation-engagement grounding)
value: Public Safety Paramountcy; Professional Obligation to Act Without Client Consent When Public Is Endangered

Normative edge (guidedByPrinciple)
type: Derivation
comment: property=guidedByPrinciple; action's guidedByPrinciple text resolved to the case Obligation/Principle individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select (obligation-engagement grounding)
value: Public Safety Paramountcy; Professional Obligation to Act Without Client Consent When Public Is Endangered

Normative edge (guidedByPrinciple)
type: Derivation
comment: property=guidedByPrinciple; action's guidedByPrinciple text resolved to the case Obligation/Principle individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select (obligation-engagement grounding)
value: Public Safety Paramountcy; Professional Obligation to Act Without Client Consent When Public Is Endangered

Normative edge (fulfillsObligation)
type: Derivation
comment: property=fulfillsObligation; action's fulfillsObligation text resolved to the case Obligation/Principle individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select (obligation-engagement grounding)
value: Notify Employer or Client of Safety Concerns; Provide Objective and Truthful Professional Opinion

Normative edge (fulfillsObligation)
type: Derivation
comment: property=fulfillsObligation; action's fulfillsObligation text resolved to the case Obligation/Principle individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select (obligation-engagement grounding)
value: Notify Employer or Client of Safety Concerns; Provide Objective and Truthful Professional Opinion

Normative edge (fulfillsObligation)
type: Derivation
comment: property=fulfillsObligation; action's fulfillsObligation text resolved to the case Obligation/Principle individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select (obligation-engagement grounding)
value: Notify Employer or Client of Safety Concerns; Provide Objective and Truthful Professional Opinion

Normative edge (guidedByPrinciple)
type: Derivation
comment: property=guidedByPrinciple; action's guidedByPrinciple text resolved to the case Obligation/Principle individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select (obligation-engagement grounding)
value: Public Safety Paramountcy; Faithful Agency within Bounds of Public Safety

Normative edge (guidedByPrinciple)
type: Derivation
comment: property=guidedByPrinciple; action's guidedByPrinciple text resolved to the case Obligation/Principle individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select (obligation-engagement grounding)
value: Public Safety Paramountcy; Faithful Agency within Bounds of Public Safety

Normative edge (guidedByPrinciple)
type: Derivation
comment: property=guidedByPrinciple; action's guidedByPrinciple text resolved to the case Obligation/Principle individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select (obligation-engagement grounding)
value: Public Safety Paramountcy; Faithful Agency within Bounds of Public Safety

Normative edge (guidedByPrinciple)
type: Derivation
comment: property=guidedByPrinciple; action's guidedByPrinciple text resolved to the case Obligation/Principle individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select (obligation-engagement grounding)
value: Public Safety Paramountcy; Faithful Agency within Bounds of Public Safety

Normative edge (guidedByPrinciple)
type: Derivation
comment: property=guidedByPrinciple; action's guidedByPrinciple text resolved to the case Obligation/Principle individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select (obligation-engagement grounding)
value: Public Safety Paramountcy; Faithful Agency within Bounds of Public Safety

Normative edge (guidedByPrinciple)
type: Derivation
comment: property=guidedByPrinciple; action's guidedByPrinciple text resolved to the case Obligation/Principle individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select (obligation-engagement grounding)
value: Public Safety Paramountcy; Faithful Agency within Bounds of Public Safety

Normative edge (fulfillsObligation)
type: Derivation
comment: property=fulfillsObligation; action's fulfillsObligation text resolved to the case Obligation/Principle individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select (obligation-engagement grounding)
value: Notify Employer or Client of Safety Concerns; Provide Objective and Truthful Professional Opinion

Normative edge (fulfillsObligation)
type: Derivation
comment: property=fulfillsObligation; action's fulfillsObligation text resolved to the case Obligation/Principle individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select (obligation-engagement grounding)
value: Notify Employer or Client of Safety Concerns; Provide Objective and Truthful Professional Opinion

Normative edge (guidedByPrinciple)
type: Derivation
comment: property=guidedByPrinciple; action's guidedByPrinciple text resolved to the case Obligation/Principle individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select (obligation-engagement grounding)
value: Public Safety Paramountcy; Faithful Agency within Bounds of Public Safety

Normative edge (guidedByPrinciple)
type: Derivation
comment: property=guidedByPrinciple; action's guidedByPrinciple text resolved to the case Obligation/Principle individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select (obligation-engagement grounding)
value: Public Safety Paramountcy; Faithful Agency within Bounds of Public Safety

Normative edge (guidedByPrinciple)
type: Derivation
comment: property=guidedByPrinciple; action's guidedByPrinciple text resolved to the case Obligation/Principle individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select (obligation-engagement grounding)
value: Public Safety Paramountcy; Faithful Agency within Bounds of Public Safety

Normative edge (guidedByPrinciple)
type: Derivation
comment: property=guidedByPrinciple; action's guidedByPrinciple text resolved to the case Obligation/Principle individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select (obligation-engagement grounding)
value: Public Safety Paramountcy; Faithful Agency within Bounds of Public Safety

Normative edge (guidedByPrinciple)
type: Derivation
comment: property=guidedByPrinciple; action's guidedByPrinciple text resolved to the case Obligation/Principle individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select (obligation-engagement grounding)
value: Public Safety Paramountcy; Faithful Agency within Bounds of Public Safety

Normative edge (guidedByPrinciple)
type: Derivation
comment: property=guidedByPrinciple; action's guidedByPrinciple text resolved to the case Obligation/Principle individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select (obligation-engagement grounding)
value: Public Safety Paramountcy; Faithful Agency within Bounds of Public Safety

Normative edge (guidedByPrinciple)
type: Derivation
comment: property=guidedByPrinciple; action's guidedByPrinciple text resolved to the case Obligation/Principle individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select (obligation-engagement grounding)
value: Public Safety Paramountcy; Faithful Agency within Bounds of Public Safety

Participant edge (obligatedParty)
type: Derivation
comment: property=obligatedParty; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Engineer A

Participant edge (possessedBy)
type: Derivation
comment: property=possessedBy; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Engineer A

Participant edge (constrainedEntity)
type: Derivation
comment: property=constrainedEntity; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Engineer A

Participant edge (constrainedEntity)
type: Derivation
comment: property=constrainedEntity; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Engineer A

Participant edge (possessedBy)
type: Derivation
comment: property=possessedBy; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Engineer A

Participant edge (constrainedEntity)
type: Derivation
comment: property=constrainedEntity; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Engineer A

Participant edge (constrainedEntity)
type: Derivation
comment: property=constrainedEntity; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Engineer A

Participant edge (possessedBy)
type: Derivation
comment: property=possessedBy; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Engineer A

Participant edge (constrainedEntity)
type: Derivation
comment: property=constrainedEntity; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Engineer A

Participant edge (obligatedParty)
type: Derivation
comment: property=obligatedParty; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Engineer A

Participant edge (possessedBy)
type: Derivation
comment: property=possessedBy; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Engineer A

Participant edge (possessedBy)
type: Derivation
comment: property=possessedBy; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Engineer A

Participant edge (obligatedParty)
type: Derivation
comment: property=obligatedParty; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Engineer A

Participant edge (possessedBy)
type: Derivation
comment: property=possessedBy; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Engineer A

Participant edge (possessedBy)
type: Derivation
comment: property=possessedBy; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Engineer A

Participant edge (constrainedEntity)
type: Derivation
comment: property=constrainedEntity; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Engineer A

Participant edge (possessedBy)
type: Derivation
comment: property=possessedBy; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Engineer A

Participant edge (invokedBy)
type: Derivation
comment: property=invokedBy; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Engineer A Water Commission Chief Engineer

Participant edge (obligatedParty)
type: Derivation
comment: property=obligatedParty; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Engineer A

Participant edge (obligatedParty)
type: Derivation
comment: property=obligatedParty; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Engineer A

Participant edge (possessedBy)
type: Derivation
comment: property=possessedBy; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Engineer B

Participant edge (constrainedEntity)
type: Derivation
comment: property=constrainedEntity; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Engineer B

Participant edge (constrainedEntity)
type: Derivation
comment: property=constrainedEntity; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Engineer B

Participant edge (constrainedEntity)
type: Derivation
comment: property=constrainedEntity; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Engineer B

Participant edge (obligatedParty)
type: Derivation
comment: property=obligatedParty; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Engineer B

Participant edge (invokedBy)
type: Derivation
comment: property=invokedBy; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Engineer B Water Treatment Consultant

Participant edge (possessedBy)
type: Derivation
comment: property=possessedBy; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Engineer B

Participant edge (obligatedParty)
type: Derivation
comment: property=obligatedParty; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Engineer B

Participant edge (possessedBy)
type: Derivation
comment: property=possessedBy; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Engineer B

Participant edge (constrainedEntity)
type: Derivation
comment: property=constrainedEntity; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Engineer B

Participant edge (obligatedParty)
type: Derivation
comment: property=obligatedParty; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Engineer B

Participant edge (possessedBy)
type: Derivation
comment: property=possessedBy; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Engineer B

Participant edge (possessedBy)
type: Derivation
comment: property=possessedBy; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Engineer B

Participant edge (obligatedParty)
type: Derivation
comment: property=obligatedParty; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Engineer B

Participant edge (possessedBy)
type: Derivation
comment: property=possessedBy; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Engineer B

Participant edge (possessedBy)
type: Derivation
comment: property=possessedBy; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Engineer B

Participant edge (constrainedEntity)
type: Derivation
comment: property=constrainedEntity; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Engineer B

Participant edge (possessedBy)
type: Derivation
comment: property=possessedBy; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Engineer B

Participant edge (invokedBy)
type: Derivation
comment: property=invokedBy; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Engineer B Water Treatment Consultant

Participant edge (possessedBy)
type: Derivation
comment: property=possessedBy; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Engineer B

Participant edge (obligatedParty)
type: Derivation
comment: property=obligatedParty; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Engineer B

Participant edge (obligatedParty)
type: Derivation
comment: property=obligatedParty; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Engineer B

Participant edge (possessedBy)
type: Derivation
comment: property=possessedBy; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Engineer B

Participant edge (possessedBy)
type: Derivation
comment: property=possessedBy; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Engineers A and B

Participant edge (possessedBy)
type: Derivation
comment: property=possessedBy; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Engineers A and B

Participant edge (obligatedParty)
type: Derivation
comment: property=obligatedParty; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Engineers A and B jointly

Participant edge (obligatedParty)
type: Derivation
comment: property=obligatedParty; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Engineers A and B jointly

Participant edge (invokedBy)
type: Derivation
comment: property=invokedBy; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Engineer A Safety Reporting; Engineer B Safety Reporting

Participant edge (invokedBy)
type: Derivation
comment: property=invokedBy; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Engineer A Safety Reporting; Engineer B Safety Reporting

Participant edge (invokedBy)
type: Derivation
comment: property=invokedBy; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Engineer A Safety Reporting; Engineer B Safety Reporting

Participant edge (invokedBy)
type: Derivation
comment: property=invokedBy; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Engineer A Safety Reporting; Engineer B Safety Reporting

Participant edge (invokedBy)
type: Derivation
comment: property=invokedBy; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Engineer A Safety Reporting; Engineer B Safety Reporting

Participant edge (invokedBy)
type: Derivation
comment: property=invokedBy; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Engineer A Safety Reporting; Engineer B Safety Reporting

Participant edge (obligatedParty)
type: Derivation
comment: property=obligatedParty; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Engineers A and B jointly

Participant edge (obligatedParty)
type: Derivation
comment: property=obligatedParty; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Engineers A and B jointly

Participant edge (possessedBy)
type: Derivation
comment: property=possessedBy; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Engineers A and B

Participant edge (possessedBy)
type: Derivation
comment: property=possessedBy; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Engineers A and B

Participant edge (invokedBy)
type: Derivation
comment: property=invokedBy; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Engineer A Safety Reporting; Engineer B Safety Reporting

Participant edge (invokedBy)
type: Derivation
comment: property=invokedBy; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Engineer A Safety Reporting; Engineer B Safety Reporting

Participant edge (possessedBy)
type: Derivation
comment: property=possessedBy; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Engineers A and B

Participant edge (possessedBy)
type: Derivation
comment: property=possessedBy; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Engineers A and B

Participant edge (constrainedEntity)
type: Derivation
comment: property=constrainedEntity; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Engineers A and B

Participant edge (constrainedEntity)
type: Derivation
comment: property=constrainedEntity; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Engineers A and B

Participant edge (constrainedEntity)
type: Derivation
comment: property=constrainedEntity; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Engineers A and B

Participant edge (constrainedEntity)
type: Derivation
comment: property=constrainedEntity; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Engineers A and B

Participant edge (constrainedEntity)
type: Derivation
comment: property=constrainedEntity; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Engineers A and B

Participant edge (constrainedEntity)
type: Derivation
comment: property=constrainedEntity; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Engineers A and B

Participant edge (obligatedParty)
type: Derivation
comment: property=obligatedParty; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Engineers A and B

Participant edge (obligatedParty)
type: Derivation
comment: property=obligatedParty; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Engineers A and B

Participant edge (obligatedParty)
type: Derivation
comment: property=obligatedParty; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Engineers A and B jointly

Participant edge (obligatedParty)
type: Derivation
comment: property=obligatedParty; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Engineers A and B jointly

Participant edge (constrainedEntity)
type: Derivation
comment: property=constrainedEntity; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Engineers A and B

Participant edge (constrainedEntity)
type: Derivation
comment: property=constrainedEntity; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Engineers A and B

Participant edge (invokedBy)
type: Derivation
comment: property=invokedBy; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Engineer A Water Commission Chief Engineer; Engineer B Water Treatment Consultant

Participant edge (invokedBy)
type: Derivation
comment: property=invokedBy; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Engineer A Water Commission Chief Engineer; Engineer B Water Treatment Consultant

Participant edge (invokedBy)
type: Derivation
comment: property=invokedBy; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Engineer A Safety Reporting; Engineer B Safety Reporting

Participant edge (invokedBy)
type: Derivation
comment: property=invokedBy; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Engineer A Safety Reporting; Engineer B Safety Reporting

Participant edge (obligatedParty)
type: Derivation
comment: property=obligatedParty; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Engineers A and B jointly

Participant edge (obligatedParty)
type: Derivation
comment: property=obligatedParty; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Engineers A and B jointly

Participant edge (possessedBy)
type: Derivation
comment: property=possessedBy; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Engineers A and B

Participant edge (possessedBy)
type: Derivation
comment: property=possessedBy; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Engineers A and B

Participant edge (constrainedEntity)
type: Derivation
comment: property=constrainedEntity; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Engineers A and B

Participant edge (constrainedEntity)
type: Derivation
comment: property=constrainedEntity; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Engineers A and B

Participant edge (obligatedParty)
type: Derivation
comment: property=obligatedParty; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Engineers A and B jointly

Participant edge (obligatedParty)
type: Derivation
comment: property=obligatedParty; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Engineers A and B jointly

Participant edge (invokedBy)
type: Derivation
comment: property=invokedBy; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Engineer A Safety Reporting; Engineer B Safety Reporting

Participant edge (invokedBy)
type: Derivation
comment: property=invokedBy; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Engineer A Safety Reporting; Engineer B Safety Reporting

Participant edge (invokedBy)
type: Derivation
comment: property=invokedBy; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Engineer A Safety Reporting; Engineer B Safety Reporting

Participant edge (invokedBy)
type: Derivation
comment: property=invokedBy; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Engineer A Safety Reporting; Engineer B Safety Reporting

Participant edge (possessedBy)
type: Derivation
comment: property=possessedBy; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Engineers A and B jointly

Participant edge (possessedBy)
type: Derivation
comment: property=possessedBy; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Engineers A and B jointly

Participant edge (possessedBy)
type: Derivation
comment: property=possessedBy; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Engineers A and B

Participant edge (possessedBy)
type: Derivation
comment: property=possessedBy; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Engineers A and B

Participant edge (possessedBy)
type: Derivation
comment: property=possessedBy; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Engineers A and B

Participant edge (possessedBy)
type: Derivation
comment: property=possessedBy; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Engineers A and B

Participant edge (invokedBy)
type: Derivation
comment: property=invokedBy; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Engineer A Safety Reporting; Engineer B Safety Reporting

Participant edge (invokedBy)
type: Derivation
comment: property=invokedBy; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Engineer A Safety Reporting; Engineer B Safety Reporting

Participant edge (obligatedParty)
type: Derivation
comment: property=obligatedParty; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Engineers A and B

Participant edge (obligatedParty)
type: Derivation
comment: property=obligatedParty; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Engineers A and B

Participant edge (possessedBy)
type: Derivation
comment: property=possessedBy; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Engineers A and B

Participant edge (possessedBy)
type: Derivation
comment: property=possessedBy; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Engineers A and B

Participant edge (constrainedEntity)
type: Derivation
comment: property=constrainedEntity; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Engineers A and B

Participant edge (constrainedEntity)
type: Derivation
comment: property=constrainedEntity; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Engineers A and B

Participant edge (obligatedParty)
type: Derivation
comment: property=obligatedParty; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Engineers A and B jointly

Participant edge (obligatedParty)
type: Derivation
comment: property=obligatedParty; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Engineers A and B jointly

Participant edge (possessedBy)
type: Derivation
comment: property=possessedBy; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Engineers A and B

Participant edge (possessedBy)
type: Derivation
comment: property=possessedBy; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Engineers A and B

Participant edge (constrainedEntity)
type: Derivation
comment: property=constrainedEntity; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Engineers A and B

Participant edge (constrainedEntity)
type: Derivation
comment: property=constrainedEntity; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Engineers A and B

Participant edge (invokedBy)
type: Derivation
comment: property=invokedBy; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Engineer A Safety Reporting; Engineer B Safety Reporting

Participant edge (invokedBy)
type: Derivation
comment: property=invokedBy; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Engineer A Safety Reporting; Engineer B Safety Reporting

Participant edge (possessedBy)
type: Derivation
comment: property=possessedBy; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Engineers A and B

Participant edge (possessedBy)
type: Derivation
comment: property=possessedBy; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Engineers A and B

Participant edge (constrainedEntity)
type: Derivation
comment: property=constrainedEntity; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Engineers A and B

Participant edge (constrainedEntity)
type: Derivation
comment: property=constrainedEntity; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Engineers A and B

Participant edge (constrainedEntity)
type: Derivation
comment: property=constrainedEntity; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Engineers A and B

Participant edge (constrainedEntity)
type: Derivation
comment: property=constrainedEntity; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Engineers A and B

Participant edge (invokedBy)
type: Derivation
comment: property=invokedBy; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Engineer A Safety Reporting; Engineer B Safety Reporting

Participant edge (invokedBy)
type: Derivation
comment: property=invokedBy; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Engineer A Safety Reporting; Engineer B Safety Reporting

Participant edge (obligatedParty)
type: Derivation
comment: property=obligatedParty; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Engineers A and B

Participant edge (obligatedParty)
type: Derivation
comment: property=obligatedParty; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Engineers A and B

Participant edge (invokedBy)
type: Derivation
comment: property=invokedBy; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Engineer A Water Commission Chief Engineer; Engineer B Water Treatment Consultant

Participant edge (invokedBy)
type: Derivation
comment: property=invokedBy; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Engineer A Water Commission Chief Engineer; Engineer B Water Treatment Consultant

Participant edge (obligatedParty)
type: Derivation
comment: property=obligatedParty; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Engineers A and B jointly

Participant edge (obligatedParty)
type: Derivation
comment: property=obligatedParty; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Engineers A and B jointly

Participant edge (constrainedEntity)
type: Derivation
comment: property=constrainedEntity; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Engineers A and B

Participant edge (constrainedEntity)
type: Derivation
comment: property=constrainedEntity; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Engineers A and B

Participant edge (possessedBy)
type: Derivation
comment: property=possessedBy; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Engineers A and B

Participant edge (possessedBy)
type: Derivation
comment: property=possessedBy; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Engineers A and B

Participant edge (invokedBy)
type: Derivation
comment: property=invokedBy; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Engineer A Safety Reporting; Engineer B Safety Reporting

Participant edge (invokedBy)
type: Derivation
comment: property=invokedBy; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Engineer A Safety Reporting; Engineer B Safety Reporting

Participant edge (constrainedEntity)
type: Derivation
comment: property=constrainedEntity; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Engineers A and B

Participant edge (constrainedEntity)
type: Derivation
comment: property=constrainedEntity; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Engineers A and B

Participant edge (constrainedEntity)
type: Derivation
comment: property=constrainedEntity; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Engineers A and B

Participant edge (constrainedEntity)
type: Derivation
comment: property=constrainedEntity; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Engineers A and B

Participant edge (constrainedEntity)
type: Derivation
comment: property=constrainedEntity; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Engineers A and B

Participant edge (constrainedEntity)
type: Derivation
comment: property=constrainedEntity; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Engineers A and B

Participant edge (invokedBy)
type: Derivation
comment: property=invokedBy; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Engineer A Water Commission Chief Engineer; Engineer B Water Treatment Consultant

Participant edge (invokedBy)
type: Derivation
comment: property=invokedBy; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Engineer A Water Commission Chief Engineer; Engineer B Water Treatment Consultant

Participant edge (constrainedEntity)
type: Derivation
comment: property=constrainedEntity; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Engineers A and B

Participant edge (constrainedEntity)
type: Derivation
comment: property=constrainedEntity; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Engineers A and B

Actor relationship edge (employed_by)
type: Derivation
comment: relation_type=employed_by; property=employedBy
generated at time: 2026-06-05T11:53:44.489079+00:00
value: Engineer A is a professional engineer who serves as the superintendent and chief engineer for the Metropolitan Water Commission (MWC)

Actor relationship edge (has_client)
type: Derivation
comment: relation_type=has_client; property=hasClient
generated at time: 2026-06-05T11:53:44.499643+00:00
value: the MWC. If Engineers A and B believe life or property is endangered, Section II.1.a. provides that not only shall the employer or client be notified

Actor relationship edge (peer)
type: Derivation
comment: relation_type=peer; property=professionalPeerOf
generated at time: 2026-06-05T11:53:44.489421+00:00
value: Both Engineer A and Engineer B met with the MWC at a meeting sparsely attended by the public and recommended that the change in water source be substantially delayed

Actor relationship edge (has_provider)
type: Derivation
comment: relation_type=has_provider; property=hasClient
generated at time: 2026-06-05T11:53:44.489255+00:00
value: Engineer B, a consulting engineer retained by the MWC charged with evaluating water treatment needs for the change in water source, provided a report to Engineer A

Actor relationship edge (has_client)
type: Derivation
comment: relation_type=has_client; property=hasClient
generated at time: 2026-06-05T11:53:44.490343+00:00
value: Engineer B, a consulting engineer retained by the MWC charged with evaluating water treatment needs for the change in water source

Actor relationship edge (peer)
type: Derivation
comment: relation_type=peer; property=professionalPeerOf
generated at time: 2026-06-05T11:53:44.490511+00:00
value: Both Engineer A and Engineer B met with the MWC at a meeting sparsely attended by the public and recommended that the change in water source be substantially delayed

Resource edge (availableTo)
type: Derivation
comment: property=availableTo; resource used_by text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select
value: Engineer A and Engineer B

Resource edge (availableTo)
type: Derivation
comment: property=availableTo; resource used_by text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select
value: Engineer A and Engineer B

Resource edge (availableTo)
type: Derivation
comment: property=availableTo; resource used_by text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select
value: Engineer A and Engineer B

Resource edge (availableTo)
type: Derivation
comment: property=availableTo; resource used_by text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select
value: Engineer A and Engineer B

Resource edge (availableTo)
type: Derivation
comment: property=availableTo; resource used_by text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select
value: Engineer A and Engineer B

Resource edge (availableTo)
type: Derivation
comment: property=availableTo; resource used_by text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select
value: Engineer A and Engineer B

Resource edge (availableTo)
type: Derivation
comment: property=availableTo; resource used_by text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select
value: Engineer A and Engineer B

Resource edge (availableTo)
type: Derivation
comment: property=availableTo; resource used_by text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select
value: Engineer A and Engineer B

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: When the MWC overruled the joint engineering recommendations regarding water treatment requirements, Engineers A and B were required to refuse to allow the project to proceed without escalating to appropriate authorities.

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineers A and B were required to include all relevant technical findings regarding the lead exposure risk in their formal presentations to the MWC and the state regulatory agency, without selective omission of facts that could alter the r

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineers A and B were required to make a formal presentation of facts, findings, and recommendations to that agency, and to formally advise the MWC of the predicte

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineers A and B were directed to proceed through escalating steps: first notifying the client, then making formal presentations to the state regulatory agency

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineers A and B identified that proceeding with the water source change without adequate treatment would endanger public health through lead exposure, and their paramount obligation to public welfare required them to act even without clie

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Because Engineers A and B jointly presented their findings and recommendations to the MWC, their subsequent safety reporting actions were required to be coordinated and conducted in concert

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineers A and B disclosed the lead leaching risk and the need for a three-year improvement timeline to the MWC before the vote.

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: If the formal presentations to the MWC and the state regulatory agency failed to produce a change in the MWC's plans, Engineers A and B had an obligation to further pursue the matter through additional available channels

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The MWC is a public water utility making infrastructure decisions with public funds. Engineers A and B bear a heightened obligation to ensure the MWC and the public understand the full cost and liability implications of proceeding without a

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: As engineers engaged on a public water utility project funded by public resources, Engineers A and B bore a heightened responsibility to ensure that their formal presentations were complete and honest

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineers A and B served as faithful agents to the MWC by conducting thorough evaluations, providing complete and honest recommendations, and presenting those recommendations to the MWC before the vote.

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A, as chief engineer and superintendent of the MWC, jointly recommended delay of the water source change to protect public health, and following the MWC override, bears an obligation to escalate the identified risk to appropriate a

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer B's report to Engineer A and the joint presentation to the MWC included the full scope of required improvements, the three-year timeline, and the lead leaching risk

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer B identified that changing the water source without adequate corrosion control would cause old service pipes to leach lead at levels exceeding drinking water standards, posing a direct public health risk to water consumers

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: When the MWC overruled the joint engineering recommendations regarding water treatment requirements, Engineers A and B were required to refuse to allow the project to proceed without escalating to appropriate authorities.

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: When the MWC overruled the joint engineering recommendations regarding water treatment requirements, Engineers A and B were required to refuse to allow the project to proceed without escalating to appropriate authorities.

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineers A and B were required to make a formal presentation of facts, findings, and recommendations to that agency

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineers A and B were required to include all relevant technical findings regarding the lead exposure risk in their formal presentations to the MWC and the state regulatory agency, without selective omission of facts that could alter the r

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: If the formal presentations to the MWC and the state regulatory agency failed to produce a change in the MWC's plans, Engineers A and B had an obligation to further pursue the matter through additional available channels

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Following the override, the graduated response principle requires them to proceed to the next proportionate step of formal written notification

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Because Engineers A and B jointly presented their findings and recommendations to the MWC, their subsequent safety reporting actions were required to be coordinated and conducted in concert

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineers A and B advised the MWC that the water source change would not achieve safe outcomes without prior completion of corrosion control improvements, satisfying the project success notification obligation

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineers A and B identified that proceeding with the water source change without adequate treatment would endanger public health through lead exposure, and their paramount obligation to public welfare required them to act

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineers A and B served as faithful agents to the MWC by conducting thorough evaluations, providing complete and honest recommendations

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineers A and B served as faithful agents to the MWC by conducting thorough evaluations, providing complete and honest recommendations

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineers A and B disclosed the lead leaching risk and the need for a three-year improvement timeline to the MWC before the vote.

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineers A and B disclosed the lead leaching risk and the need for a three-year improvement timeline to the MWC before the vote.

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer B identified that changing the water source without adequate corrosion control would cause old service pipes to leach lead at levels exceeding drinking water standards, posing a direct public health risk to water consumers

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer B's report to Engineer A and the joint presentation to the MWC included the full scope of required improvements, the three-year timeline, and the lead leaching risk

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The MWC voted to proceed with the water source change simultaneously with evaluation and design of improvements, directly overriding the joint recommendation of Engineers A and B to delay until improvements were completed

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineers A and B advised the MWC that the water source change would not achieve safe outcomes without prior completion of corrosion control improvements

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A, as chief engineer and superintendent of the MWC, was obligated to escalate the public health risk to the state regulatory authority after the MWC overruled the joint recommendation to delay the water source change.

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: As chief engineer and superintendent of the MWC, Engineer A was obligated after the MWC override to report the public health risk to the appropriate state regulatory authority, placing the paramount duty to public welfare above the faithful

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer B was obligated to provide Engineer A with a complete report including all relevant technical findings, the full scope of required improvements, the three-year timeline, and the specific risk of lead leaching from old service pipes

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer B was obligated to ensure that the water treatment evaluation and recommendations were sufficient to protect public health by preventing lead leaching from old service pipes at levels exceeding drinking water standards

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to serve the MWC's legitimate interests as a faithful agent while refusing to allow the faithful agent duty to override the paramount duty to public welfare when the MWC's decision created a risk of lead exposure to

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to refuse to endorse or facilitate the MWC's decision to proceed with the water source change when that decision was motivated by cost reduction goals and overrode the safety-based recommendation to delay

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to disclose to the MWC the risk that proceeding with the water source change without completing corrosion control improvements would result in lead leaching from old service pipes at levels exceeding drinking water

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to serve the MWC's legitimate interests as a faithful agent while refusing to allow the faithful agent duty to override the paramount duty to public welfare when the MWC's decision created a risk of lead exposure to

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer B, as the retained water treatment consulting engineer, was obligated to escalate the public health risk to the state regulatory authority after the MWC overruled the joint recommendation to delay the water source change.

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: As the retained consulting engineer who identified the lead leaching risk, Engineer B was obligated after the MWC override to report the public health risk to the appropriate state regulatory authority, placing the paramount duty to public

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer B was obligated to disclose to the MWC the specific risk that changing the water source without prior corrosion control improvements would cause old service pipes to leach lead at levels exceeding drinking water standards

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer B was obligated to serve the MWC's legitimate interests as a retained consulting engineer while refusing to allow the faithful agent duty to override the paramount duty to public welfare when the MWC's decision created a risk of le

State edge (affects)
type: Derivation
comment: property=affects; state affectedParties text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select
value: Engineer A; MWC

State edge (affects)
type: Derivation
comment: property=affects; state affectedParties text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select
value: Engineer A; MWC; Public water consumers

State edge (affects)
type: Derivation
comment: property=affects; state affectedParties text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select
value: Engineer A; MWC; Public water consumers

State edge (affects)
type: Derivation
comment: property=affects; state affectedParties text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select
value: Engineer A; MWC; Public water consumers

State edge (affects)
type: Derivation
comment: property=affects; state affectedParties text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select
value: Engineer A; MWC; Public water consumers

State edge (affects)
type: Derivation
comment: property=affects; state affectedParties text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select
value: Engineer A; MWC; Public water consumers

State edge (affects)
type: Derivation
comment: property=affects; state affectedParties text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select
value: Engineer A; MWC; Public water consumers

State edge (affects)
type: Derivation
comment: property=affects; state affectedParties text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select
value: Engineer B; MWC

State edge (affects)
type: Derivation
comment: property=affects; state affectedParties text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select
value: Engineer A; Engineer B; Municipal Water Commission; Public

State edge (affects)
type: Derivation
comment: property=affects; state affectedParties text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select
value: Engineer A; Engineer B; Municipal Water Commission; Public

State edge (affects)
type: Derivation
comment: property=affects; state affectedParties text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select
value: Engineer A; Engineer B; Municipal Water Commission; Public

State edge (affects)
type: Derivation
comment: property=affects; state affectedParties text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select
value: Engineer A; Engineer B; Municipal Water Commission; Public

State edge (affects)
type: Derivation
comment: property=affects; state affectedParties text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select
value: Engineer A; Engineer B; State regulatory agency; Municipal Water Commission; Public

State edge (affects)
type: Derivation
comment: property=affects; state affectedParties text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select
value: Engineer A; Engineer B; State regulatory agency; Municipal Water Commission; Public

State edge (affects)
type: Derivation
comment: property=affects; state affectedParties text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select
value: Engineer A; Engineer B; State regulatory agency; Municipal Water Commission; Public

State edge (affects)
type: Derivation
comment: property=affects; state affectedParties text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select
value: Engineer A; Engineer B; State regulatory agency; Municipal Water Commission; Public

State edge (affects)
type: Derivation
comment: property=affects; state affectedParties text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select
value: Engineer A; Engineer B; State regulatory agency; Municipal Water Commission; Public

State edge (affects)
type: Derivation
comment: property=affects; state affectedParties text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select
value: Engineer A; Engineer B; Municipal Water Commission; State regulatory agency; Public

State edge (affects)
type: Derivation
comment: property=affects; state affectedParties text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select
value: Engineer A; Engineer B; Municipal Water Commission; State regulatory agency; Public

State edge (affects)
type: Derivation
comment: property=affects; state affectedParties text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select
value: Engineer A; Engineer B; Municipal Water Commission; State regulatory agency; Public

State edge (affects)
type: Derivation
comment: property=affects; state affectedParties text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select
value: Engineer A; Engineer B; Municipal Water Commission; State regulatory agency; Public

State edge (affects)
type: Derivation
comment: property=affects; state affectedParties text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select
value: Engineer A; Engineer B; Municipal Water Commission; State regulatory agency; Public

State edge (affects)
type: Derivation
comment: property=affects; state affectedParties text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select
value: Engineer A; Engineer B; Municipal Water Commission; State regulatory agency; Public

State edge (affects)
type: Derivation
comment: property=affects; state affectedParties text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select
value: Engineer A; Engineer B; Municipal Water Commission; State regulatory agency; Public

State edge (affects)
type: Derivation
comment: property=affects; state affectedParties text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select
value: Engineer A; Engineer B; Municipal Water Commission; State regulatory agency; Public

State edge (affects)
type: Derivation
comment: property=affects; state affectedParties text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select
value: Engineer A; Engineer B; Municipal Water Commission; State regulatory agency; Public

State edge (affects)
type: Derivation
comment: property=affects; state affectedParties text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select
value: Engineer A; Engineer B; Municipal Water Commission; State regulatory agency; Public

State edge (affects)
type: Derivation
comment: property=affects; state affectedParties text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select
value: Public served by the water system; Engineer A; Engineer B; Municipal Water Commission

State edge (affects)
type: Derivation
comment: property=affects; state affectedParties text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select
value: Public served by the water system; Engineer A; Engineer B; Municipal Water Commission

State edge (affects)
type: Derivation
comment: property=affects; state affectedParties text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select
value: Public served by the water system; Engineer A; Engineer B; Municipal Water Commission

State edge (affects)
type: Derivation
comment: property=affects; state affectedParties text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select
value: Public served by the water system; Engineer A; Engineer B; Municipal Water Commission

State edge (affects)
type: Derivation
comment: property=affects; state affectedParties text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select
value: Public served by the water system; Engineer A; Engineer B; Municipal Water Commission

State edge (affects)
type: Derivation
comment: property=affects; state affectedParties text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select
value: Public served by the water system; Engineer A; Engineer B; Municipal Water Commission

State edge (affects)
type: Derivation
comment: property=affects; state affectedParties text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select
value: Public served by the water system; Engineer A; Engineer B; Municipal Water Commission

State edge (affects)
type: Derivation
comment: property=affects; state affectedParties text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select
value: Public served by the water system; Engineer A; Engineer B; Municipal Water Commission

State edge (affects)
type: Derivation
comment: property=affects; state affectedParties text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select
value: Public water consumers; Engineer A; Engineer B; MWC

State edge (affects)
type: Derivation
comment: property=affects; state affectedParties text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select
value: Public water consumers; Engineer A; Engineer B; MWC

State edge (affects)
type: Derivation
comment: property=affects; state affectedParties text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select
value: Public water consumers; Engineer A; Engineer B; MWC

State edge (affects)
type: Derivation
comment: property=affects; state affectedParties text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select
value: Public water consumers; Engineer A; Engineer B; MWC

State edge (affects)
type: Derivation
comment: property=affects; state affectedParties text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select
value: Public water consumers in MWC service area; Engineer A; Engineer B; MWC

State edge (affects)
type: Derivation
comment: property=affects; state affectedParties text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select
value: Public water consumers in MWC service area; Engineer A; Engineer B; MWC

State edge (affects)
type: Derivation
comment: property=affects; state affectedParties text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select
value: Public water consumers in MWC service area; Engineer A; Engineer B; MWC

State edge (affects)
type: Derivation
comment: property=affects; state affectedParties text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select
value: Public water consumers in MWC service area; Engineer A; Engineer B; MWC

State edge (affects)
type: Derivation
comment: property=affects; state affectedParties text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select
value: Engineer A; Engineer B; Municipal Water Commission; Public served by the water system

State edge (affects)
type: Derivation
comment: property=affects; state affectedParties text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select
value: Engineer A; Engineer B; Municipal Water Commission; Public served by the water system

State edge (affects)
type: Derivation
comment: property=affects; state affectedParties text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select
value: Engineer A; Engineer B; Municipal Water Commission; Public served by the water system

State edge (affects)
type: Derivation
comment: property=affects; state affectedParties text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select
value: Engineer A; Engineer B; Municipal Water Commission; Public served by the water system

State edge (affects)
type: Derivation
comment: property=affects; state affectedParties text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select
value: Public water consumers in MWC service area; Engineer A; Engineer B; MWC

State edge (affects)
type: Derivation
comment: property=affects; state affectedParties text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select
value: Public water consumers in MWC service area; Engineer A; Engineer B; MWC

State edge (affects)
type: Derivation
comment: property=affects; state affectedParties text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select
value: Public water consumers in MWC service area; Engineer A; Engineer B; MWC

State edge (affects)
type: Derivation
comment: property=affects; state affectedParties text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select
value: Public water consumers in MWC service area; Engineer A; Engineer B; MWC

State edge (affects)
type: Derivation
comment: property=affects; state affectedParties text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select
value: Engineer A; Engineer B; MWC; Public water consumers in MWC service area

State edge (affects)
type: Derivation
comment: property=affects; state affectedParties text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select
value: Engineer A; Engineer B; MWC; Public water consumers in MWC service area

State edge (affects)
type: Derivation
comment: property=affects; state affectedParties text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select
value: Engineer A; Engineer B; MWC; Public water consumers in MWC service area

State edge (affects)
type: Derivation
comment: property=affects; state affectedParties text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select
value: Engineer A; Engineer B; MWC; Public water consumers in MWC service area

State edge (activatesConstraint)
type: Derivation
comment: property=activatesConstraint; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Actions need not be identical but must be coordinated

State edge (activatesObligation)
type: Derivation
comment: property=activatesObligation; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Duty to coordinate formal presentations to authorities

State edge (terminatedByEvent)
type: Derivation
comment: property=terminatedByEvent; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: The professional relationship between the co-presenting engineers concludes

State edge (activatesConstraint)
type: Derivation
comment: property=activatesConstraint; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Professional must not allow administrative loyalty to suppress required safety disclosures

State edge (activatesObligation)
type: Derivation
comment: property=activatesObligation; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Duty to clearly communicate technical objections through appropriate channels

State edge (activatedByEvent)
type: Derivation
comment: property=activatedByEvent; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: The underlying public safety risk remains unmitigated

State edge (activatesObligation)
type: Derivation
comment: property=activatesObligation; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Duty to continue advocacy for public safety even after initial reporting obligations are technically satisfied

State edge (terminatedByEvent)
type: Derivation
comment: property=terminatedByEvent; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Engineer withdraws from the project after exhausting available escalation options

State edge (terminatedByEvent)
type: Derivation
comment: property=terminatedByEvent; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: The safety risk is otherwise resolved

State edge (activatedByEvent)
type: Derivation
comment: property=activatedByEvent; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Professional engineers have identified that improvements are necessary prior to transition

State edge (activatedByEvent)
type: Derivation
comment: property=activatedByEvent; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: MWC's retention of Engineer B as consulting engineer

State edge (activatesConstraint)
type: Derivation
comment: property=activatesConstraint; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Professional must not certify the transition as safe without adequate safeguards

State edge (activatesObligation)
type: Derivation
comment: property=activatesObligation; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Duty to document professional objection

State edge (activatesObligation)
type: Derivation
comment: property=activatesObligation; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Duty to notify regulatory authorities of public health risk

State edge (activatedByEvent)
type: Derivation
comment: property=activatedByEvent; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: The underlying public safety risk remains unmitigated

State edge (activatesObligation)
type: Derivation
comment: property=activatesObligation; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Duty to continue advocacy for public safety even after initial reporting obligations are technically satisfied

State edge (terminatedByEvent)
type: Derivation
comment: property=terminatedByEvent; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Engineer withdraws from the project after exhausting available escalation options

State edge (terminatedByEvent)
type: Derivation
comment: property=terminatedByEvent; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: The safety risk is otherwise resolved

State edge (activatedByEvent)
type: Derivation
comment: property=activatedByEvent; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Engineer has confirmed a public safety risk

State edge (activatesObligation)
type: Derivation
comment: property=activatesObligation; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Duty to advise client formally that the project will not be successful if safety is not addressed

State edge (activatesObligation)
type: Derivation
comment: property=activatesObligation; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Duty to present facts, findings, and recommendations formally in writing to regulatory agencies

State edge (activatesObligation)
type: Derivation
comment: property=activatesObligation; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Duty to further pursue the matter if formal presentations fail to produce corrective action

State edge (terminatedByEvent)
type: Derivation
comment: property=terminatedByEvent; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Engineer withdraws from engagement after completing notification duties

State edge (activatesConstraint)
type: Derivation
comment: property=activatesConstraint; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Actions need not be identical but must be coordinated

State edge (activatesObligation)
type: Derivation
comment: property=activatesObligation; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Duty to coordinate formal presentations to authorities

State edge (terminatedByEvent)
type: Derivation
comment: property=terminatedByEvent; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: The professional relationship between the co-presenting engineers concludes

State edge (activatedByEvent)
type: Derivation
comment: property=activatedByEvent; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: The underlying public safety risk remains unmitigated

State edge (activatesObligation)
type: Derivation
comment: property=activatesObligation; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Duty to continue advocacy for public safety even after initial reporting obligations are technically satisfied

State edge (terminatedByEvent)
type: Derivation
comment: property=terminatedByEvent; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Engineer withdraws from the project after exhausting available escalation options

State edge (terminatedByEvent)
type: Derivation
comment: property=terminatedByEvent; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: The safety risk is otherwise resolved

State edge (activatedByEvent)
type: Derivation
comment: property=activatedByEvent; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Professional engineers have identified that improvements are necessary prior to transition

State edge (activatesConstraint)
type: Derivation
comment: property=activatesConstraint; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Professional must not certify the transition as safe without adequate safeguards

State edge (activatesObligation)
type: Derivation
comment: property=activatesObligation; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Duty to document professional objection

State edge (activatesObligation)
type: Derivation
comment: property=activatesObligation; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Duty to notify regulatory authorities of public health risk

State edge (activatedByEvent)
type: Derivation
comment: property=activatedByEvent; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Engineer has confirmed a public safety risk

State edge (activatesObligation)
type: Derivation
comment: property=activatesObligation; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Duty to advise client formally that the project will not be successful if safety is not addressed

State edge (activatesObligation)
type: Derivation
comment: property=activatesObligation; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Duty to present facts, findings, and recommendations formally in writing to regulatory agencies

State edge (activatesObligation)
type: Derivation
comment: property=activatesObligation; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Duty to further pursue the matter if formal presentations fail to produce corrective action

State edge (terminatedByEvent)
type: Derivation
comment: property=terminatedByEvent; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Engineer withdraws from engagement after completing notification duties

State edge (activatedByEvent)
type: Derivation
comment: property=activatedByEvent; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Professional engineers have identified that improvements are necessary prior to transition

State edge (activatesConstraint)
type: Derivation
comment: property=activatesConstraint; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Professional must not certify the transition as safe without adequate safeguards

State edge (activatesObligation)
type: Derivation
comment: property=activatesObligation; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Duty to document professional objection

State edge (activatesObligation)
type: Derivation
comment: property=activatesObligation; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Duty to notify regulatory authorities of public health risk

State edge (activatedByEvent)
type: Derivation
comment: property=activatedByEvent; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Professional engineers have identified that improvements are necessary prior to transition

State edge (activatedByEvent)
type: Derivation
comment: property=activatedByEvent; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: MWC decision to change water source before the three-year evaluation and improvement timeline recommended by Engineer B could be completed

State edge (activatesConstraint)
type: Derivation
comment: property=activatesConstraint; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Professional must not certify the transition as safe without adequate safeguards

State edge (activatesObligation)
type: Derivation
comment: property=activatesObligation; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Duty to document professional objection

State edge (activatesObligation)
type: Derivation
comment: property=activatesObligation; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Duty to notify regulatory authorities of public health risk

State edge (activatedByEvent)
type: Derivation
comment: property=activatedByEvent; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Safety risk remains unmitigated

State edge (activatedByEvent)
type: Derivation
comment: property=activatedByEvent; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Client or governing body votes to proceed contrary to recommendation

State edge (activatesConstraint)
type: Derivation
comment: property=activatesConstraint; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Professional must not represent the overridden plan as meeting safety standards

State edge (activatesConstraint)
type: Derivation
comment: property=activatesConstraint; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Professional may not silently acquiesce to override when public safety is at stake

State edge (activatesObligation)
type: Derivation
comment: property=activatesObligation; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Duty to notify relevant authorities if public safety is at risk

State edge (terminatedByEvent)
type: Derivation
comment: property=terminatedByEvent; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: MWC adoption of corrective measures, regulatory intervention, or engineer withdrawal

State edge (activatedByEvent)
type: Derivation
comment: property=activatedByEvent; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Professional engineers have identified that improvements are necessary prior to transition

State edge (activatedByEvent)
type: Derivation
comment: property=activatedByEvent; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: MWC decision to change water source before required corrosion control improvements are in place, combined with the presence of old service pipes susceptible to lead leaching

State edge (activatesConstraint)
type: Derivation
comment: property=activatesConstraint; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Professional must not certify the transition as safe without adequate safeguards

State edge (activatesObligation)
type: Derivation
comment: property=activatesObligation; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Duty to document professional objection

State edge (activatesObligation)
type: Derivation
comment: property=activatesObligation; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Duty to notify regulatory authorities of public health risk

State edge (activatedByEvent)
type: Derivation
comment: property=activatedByEvent; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Safety risk remains unmitigated

State edge (activatedByEvent)
type: Derivation
comment: property=activatedByEvent; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Client or governing body votes to proceed contrary to recommendation

State edge (activatesConstraint)
type: Derivation
comment: property=activatesConstraint; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Professional must not represent the overridden plan as meeting safety standards

State edge (activatesConstraint)
type: Derivation
comment: property=activatesConstraint; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Professional may not silently acquiesce to override when public safety is at stake

State edge (activatesObligation)
type: Derivation
comment: property=activatesObligation; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Duty to notify relevant authorities if public safety is at risk

Temporal relation edge (fromEntity)
type: Derivation
comment: property=fromEntity; temporal relation's fromEntity text resolved to the case Action/Event individual by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: the MWC voted to proceed simultaneously with the accelerated evaluation and design of needed water treatment improvements and the change in water source

Temporal relation edge (fromEntity)
type: Derivation
comment: property=fromEntity; temporal relation's fromEntity text resolved to the case Action/Event individual by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Engineer B...provided a report to Engineer A recommending extensive capital investments and a three-year timeline...Both Engineer A and Engineer B met with the MWC at a meeting...Despite those recommendations, the MWC voted to proceed

Temporal relation edge (fromEntity)
type: Derivation
comment: property=fromEntity; temporal relation's fromEntity text resolved to the case Action/Event individual by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: The formal presentations satisfy Engineer A's and Engineer B's duty to report. However, in the event that these formal presentations fail to sway the MWC to change its plans...Engineers A and B have an obligation to further pursue the matter.

Temporal relation edge (toEntity)
type: Derivation
comment: property=toEntity; temporal relation's toEntity text resolved to the case Action/Event individual by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: The engineering judgments of Engineer A and Engineer B were overruled by the MWC. If Engineers A and B believe life or property is endangered, Section II.1.a. provides that not only shall the employer or client be notified, but also all other appropriate authorities.

Evaluation Report Submission → Public Health Risk Identified
type: CausalChain
type: NamedIndividual
causal language: The improvements are needed prior to the change in water source to ensure that sufficient corrosion control is provided so that old service pipes in the MWC service area don't leach lead at levels in excess of drinking water standards
causal step1: Evaluation Report Submission -- Engineer B submits findings on treatment needs
causal step2: Public Health Risk Identified -- Switching source without improvements would cause lead leaching exceeding drinking water standards
cause text: Evaluation Report Submission
counterfactual: Without Engineer B's evaluation, the lead leaching risk would not have been formally identified
effect text: Public Health Risk Identified
necessary factors: Engineer B's technical evaluation
necessary factors: Existence of old lead-bearing service pipes
necessary factors: Recognition that local river water without corrosion control would cause leaching
responsibility type: direct
responsible agent: Engineer B
responsible agent text: Engineer B
sufficient factors: Engineer B's evaluation identifying inadequate corrosion control plus existing lead pipes
within agent control: true
discovered in section: facts
synthesis literal: causalLanguage
synthesis literal: causalSequence
synthesis literal: counterfactual
synthesis literal: necessaryFactors
synthesis literal: responsibilityType
synthesis literal: sufficientFactors
synthesis literal: withinAgentControl
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

Engineer A Client Economic Pressure Resistance
type: ClientEconomicPressureResistanceCapability
type: NamedIndividual
possessed by: Engineer A
capability class: Client Economic Pressure Resistance Capability
capability statement: Engineer A was required to recognize that the MWC's decision to proceed with the water source change was motivated by the goal of reducing municipal expenditures and lowering water rates, and to resist that economic pressure by refusing to endorse a decision that would compromise public health protection.
case context: The MWC's stated motivation for the water source change was to reduce municipal expenditures and lower water rates, creating economic pressure on Engineer A as chief engineer to support the change.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.86
demonstrated through: Joint recommendation to delay the source change despite the MWC's cost-reduction motivation for proceeding.
proficiency level: advanced
text references: In order to reduce municipal expenditures and lower water rates, the MWC has been considering changing its water supply source from purchasing water from remote reservoirs from another regional authority to using the local river as the MWC's source.
discovered in case: 76
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: facts
first discovered at: 2026-06-05T11:25:14.530972+00:00
first discovered in case: 76
match confidence: 0.95
match reasoning: Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Client Economic Pressure Resistance Capability'
matched ontology class: ClientEconomicPressureResistanceCapability
matched ontology label: Client Economic Pressure Resistance Capability
matches existing: true
source text: In order to reduce municipal expenditures and lower water rates, the MWC has been considering changing its water supply source from purchasing water from remote reservoirs from another regional authority to using the local river as the MWC's source.
synthesis literal: capabilityClass
synthesis literal: capabilityStatement
synthesis literal: caseContext
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: demonstratedThrough
synthesis literal: proficiencyLevel
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineer A was required to recognize that the MWC's decision to proceed with the water source change was motivated by the goal of reducing municipal expenditures and lowering water rates, and to resist that economic pressure by refusing to endorse a decision that would compromise public health protection.
generated at time: 2026-06-05T11:25:14.530972+00:00
was attributed to: Case 76 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

Engineer A Client Economic Pressure Safety
type: ClientEconomicPressureSafetyContinuationConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
constrained entity: Engineer A
case context: The MWC's motivation for the water source change was explicitly economic, to reduce municipal expenditures and lower water rates. The MWC voted to proceed over the safety recommendation rather than incur the cost and delay of completing corrosion control improvements first. Engineer A's continued administrative facilitation of this economically motivated override was constrained by the paramount safety duty.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.91
constraint class: Client Economic Pressure Safety Continuation Constraint
constraint statement: Engineer A was prohibited from continuing to facilitate the MWC's water source change after the MWC declined to implement the required safety measures, when the MWC's refusal was grounded in the economic objective of reducing municipal expenditures and lowering water rates.
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code Section II.1
temporal scope: From the MWC override vote forward
text references: Despite those recommendations, the MWC voted to proceed simultaneously with the accelerated evaluation and design of needed water treatment improvements and the change in water source
text references: In order to reduce municipal expenditures and lower water rates, the MWC has been considering changing its water supply source
discovered in case: 76
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: facts
first discovered at: 2026-06-05T11:25:13.430491+00:00
first discovered in case: 76
match confidence: 0.95
match reasoning: Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Client Economic Pressure Safety Continuation Constraint'
matched ontology class: ClientEconomicPressureSafetyContinuationConstraint
matched ontology label: Client Economic Pressure Safety Continuation Constraint
matches existing: true
source text: In order to reduce municipal expenditures and lower water rates, the MWC has been considering changing its water supply source
synthesis literal: caseContext
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: constraintClass
synthesis literal: constraintStatement
synthesis literal: severity
synthesis literal: source
synthesis literal: temporalScope
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineer A was prohibited from continuing to facilitate the MWC's water source change after the MWC declined to implement the required safety measures, when the MWC's refusal was grounded in the economic objective of reducing municipal expenditures and lowering water rates.
generated at time: 2026-06-05T11:25:13.430491+00:00
was attributed to: Case 76 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

Engineer A Client Override Withdrawal
type: ClientOverrideSafetyWithdrawalConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
constrained entity: Engineer A
case context: The MWC voted to proceed simultaneously with the water source change and corrosion control improvements despite Engineer A's recommendation for substantial delay. This override created the condition under which Engineer A's continued administrative facilitation of the transition would constitute a violation of the paramount safety duty.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.9
constraint class: Client Override Safety Withdrawal Constraint
constraint statement: When the MWC explicitly overrode Engineer A's safety recommendation to delay the water source change, Engineer A was constrained to decline continued participation in facilitating the unsafe transition rather than proceed in violation of the paramount public safety duty.
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code Section II.1; NSPE Code Section II.1.a
temporal scope: From the MWC override vote forward
text references: Despite those recommendations, the MWC voted to proceed simultaneously with the accelerated evaluation and design of needed water treatment improvements and the change in water source
discovered in case: 76
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: facts
first discovered at: 2026-06-05T11:25:13.430491+00:00
first discovered in case: 76
match confidence: 0.95
match reasoning: Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Client Override Safety Withdrawal Constraint'
matched ontology class: ClientOverrideSafetyWithdrawalConstraint
matched ontology label: Client Override Safety Withdrawal Constraint
matches existing: true
source text: Despite those recommendations, the MWC voted to proceed simultaneously with the accelerated evaluation and design of needed water treatment improvements and the change in water source
synthesis literal: caseContext
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: constraintClass
synthesis literal: constraintStatement
synthesis literal: severity
synthesis literal: source
synthesis literal: temporalScope
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: When the MWC explicitly overrode Engineer A's safety recommendation to delay the water source change, Engineer A was constrained to decline continued participation in facilitating the unsafe transition rather than proceed in violation of the paramount public safety duty.
generated at time: 2026-06-05T11:25:13.430491+00:00
was attributed to: Case 76 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

Engineer A Corrosion Control Assessment
type: CorrosionControlAssessmentCapability
type: NamedIndividual
possessed by: Engineer A
capability class: Corrosion Control Assessment Capability
capability statement: Engineer A, as chief engineer and superintendent of the MWC, possessed the technical capability to assess corrosion control requirements for the public water distribution system, including the risk of lead leaching from old service pipes when water chemistry changed with the source switch.
case context: Engineer A jointly identified with Engineer B that changing the water source without prior corrosion control improvements would cause lead leaching from old service pipes, endangering public health.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstrated through: Joint recommendation with Engineer B to the MWC that corrosion control improvements were required before the water source change could safely proceed.
proficiency level: advanced
text references: The engineering judgments of Engineer A and Engineer B were overruled by the MWC.
discovered in case: 76
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: discussion
first discovered at: 2026-06-05T11:29:39.466339+00:00
first discovered in case: 76
match confidence: 0.0
matches existing: false
source text: The engineering judgments of Engineer A and Engineer B were overruled by the MWC.
synthesis literal: capabilityClass
synthesis literal: capabilityStatement
synthesis literal: caseContext
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: demonstratedThrough
synthesis literal: proficiencyLevel
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineer A, as chief engineer and superintendent of the MWC, possessed the technical capability to assess corrosion control requirements for the public water distribution system, including the risk of lead leaching from old service pipes when water chemistry changed with the source switch.
generated at time: 2026-06-05T11:29:39.466339+00:00
was attributed to: Case 76 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

Engineer A Dual Role Conflict
type: ConflictofInterestAvoidanceConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
constrained entity: Engineer A
case context: Engineer A served both as the MWC's superintendent, an administrative role subject to the commission's direction, and as chief engineer, a professional role requiring independent safety judgment. When the MWC voted to proceed over Engineer A's safety recommendation, the dual role created pressure to subordinate engineering judgment to administrative compliance.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.85
constraint class: Conflict of Interest Avoidance (Constraint)
constraint statement: Engineer A's simultaneous role as superintendent and chief engineer for the MWC created a structural conflict between administrative loyalty to the MWC and independent professional engineering judgment, requiring Engineer A to ensure that the administrative role did not suppress safety findings or override the paramount duty to protect public health.
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics, professional ethics provisions on conflict of interest and faithful agent boundaries
temporal scope: Throughout Engineer A's employment with the MWC and specifically during the water source change deliberations
text references: Engineer A is a professional engineer who serves as the superintendent and chief engineer for the Metropolitan Water Commission (MWC)
discovered in case: 76
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: facts
first discovered at: 2026-06-05T11:25:13.430491+00:00
first discovered in case: 76
match confidence: 0.95
match reasoning: Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Conflict of Interest Avoidance (Constraint)'
matched ontology class: Conflict of Interest Avoidance
matched ontology label: Conflict of Interest Avoidance (Constraint)
matches existing: true
source text: Engineer A is a professional engineer who serves as the superintendent and chief engineer for the Metropolitan Water Commission (MWC)
synthesis literal: caseContext
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: constraintClass
synthesis literal: constraintStatement
synthesis literal: severity
synthesis literal: source
synthesis literal: temporalScope
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineer A's simultaneous role as superintendent and chief engineer for the MWC created a structural conflict between administrative loyalty to the MWC and independent professional engineering judgment, requiring Engineer A to ensure that the administrative role did not suppress safety findings or override the paramount duty to protect public health.
generated at time: 2026-06-05T11:25:13.430491+00:00
was attributed to: Case 76 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

Engineer A Dual Role Safety
type: DualRoleSafetyConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
constrained entity: Engineer A
case context: Engineer A held both an internal administrative role as superintendent and a professional engineering role as chief engineer for the MWC. This dual role created tension between his duty to carry out MWC decisions and his paramount duty to protect public health, which the Board of Ethical Review resolved in favor of the safety obligation.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.9
constraint class: Dual Role Safety Constraint
constraint statement: Engineer A was constrained by the requirement that his simultaneous role as superintendent and chief engineer of the MWC not suppress or subordinate his independent professional safety judgment, requiring him to act on the confirmed public health risk findings regardless of organizational pressure arising from his administrative role.
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.1
temporal scope: Throughout Engineer A's employment with the MWC
text references: The role of the professional engineer in protecting the public health, safety, and welfare is fundamental to the practice of engineering and is the overriding charge in the NSPE Code of Ethics
discovered in case: 76
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: discussion
first discovered at: 2026-06-05T11:29:35.133297+00:00
first discovered in case: 76
match confidence: 0.0
matches existing: false
source text: The role of the professional engineer in protecting the public health, safety, and welfare is fundamental to the practice of engineering and is the overriding charge in the NSPE Code of Ethics
synthesis literal: caseContext
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: constraintClass
synthesis literal: constraintStatement
synthesis literal: severity
synthesis literal: source
synthesis literal: temporalScope
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineer A was constrained by the requirement that his simultaneous role as superintendent and chief engineer of the MWC not suppress or subordinate his independent professional safety judgment, requiring him to act on the confirmed public health risk findings regardless of organizational pressure arising from his administrative role.
generated at time: 2026-06-05T11:29:35.133297+00:00
was attributed to: Case 76 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

Engineer A Faithful Agent Boundary
type: FaithfulAgentBoundaryCapability
type: NamedIndividual
possessed by: Engineer A
capability class: Faithful Agent Boundary Capability
capability statement: Engineer A was required to distinguish between serving the MWC's legitimate interests as a faithful agent and complying with the MWC's override decision in a manner that would compromise the professional obligation to protect public health, and to act accordingly by refusing to endorse the override.
case context: Engineer A served simultaneously as superintendent and chief engineer for the MWC, creating a dual loyalty tension when the MWC voted to override the joint engineering recommendation.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.87
demonstrated through: Joint recommendation to delay the source change, representing the boundary between legitimate client service and compliance with a client decision that endangers public health.
proficiency level: advanced
text references: Despite those recommendations, the MWC voted to proceed simultaneously with the accelerated evaluation and design of needed water treatment improvements and the change in water source.
discovered in case: 76
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: facts
first discovered at: 2026-06-05T11:25:14.530972+00:00
first discovered in case: 76
match confidence: 0.95
match reasoning: Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Faithful Agent Boundary Capability'
matched ontology class: FaithfulAgentBoundaryCapability
matched ontology label: Faithful Agent Boundary Capability
matches existing: true
source text: Despite those recommendations, the MWC voted to proceed simultaneously with the accelerated evaluation and design of needed water treatment improvements and the change in water source.
synthesis literal: capabilityClass
synthesis literal: capabilityStatement
synthesis literal: caseContext
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: demonstratedThrough
synthesis literal: proficiencyLevel
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineer A was required to distinguish between serving the MWC's legitimate interests as a faithful agent and complying with the MWC's override decision in a manner that would compromise the professional obligation to protect public health, and to act accordingly by refusing to endorse the override.
generated at time: 2026-06-05T11:25:14.530972+00:00
was attributed to: Case 76 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

Engineer A Faithful Agent Boundary
type: FaithfulAgentBoundaryConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
constrained entity: Engineer A
case context: Engineer A's administrative role as superintendent created a duty of loyalty to the MWC, but that duty could not extend to implementing a decision that posed a confirmed public health risk. The faithful agent boundary constraint prohibited Engineer A from treating the MWC's override vote as sufficient authority to proceed with the unsafe transition.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.92
constraint class: Faithful Agent Boundary Constraint
constraint statement: Engineer A's duty to serve the MWC as a faithful agent and superintendent was constrained by the paramount obligation to protect public health, safety, and welfare, prohibiting Engineer A from following MWC directives that required facilitating a water source transition known to pose a confirmed lead leaching risk to the public.
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code Section II.1; professional ethics provisions on faithful agent duty
temporal scope: Throughout Engineer A's employment with the MWC, and specifically after the MWC override vote
text references: Despite those recommendations, the MWC voted to proceed simultaneously with the accelerated evaluation and design of needed water treatment improvements and the change in water source
text references: Engineer A is a professional engineer who serves as the superintendent and chief engineer for the Metropolitan Water Commission (MWC)
discovered in case: 76
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: facts
first discovered at: 2026-06-05T11:25:13.430491+00:00
first discovered in case: 76
match confidence: 0.95
match reasoning: Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Faithful Agent Boundary Constraint'
matched ontology class: FaithfulAgentBoundaryConstraint
matched ontology label: Faithful Agent Boundary Constraint
matches existing: true
source text: Engineer A is a professional engineer who serves as the superintendent and chief engineer for the Metropolitan Water Commission (MWC)
synthesis literal: caseContext
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: constraintClass
synthesis literal: constraintStatement
synthesis literal: severity
synthesis literal: source
synthesis literal: temporalScope
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineer A's duty to serve the MWC as a faithful agent and superintendent was constrained by the paramount obligation to protect public health, safety, and welfare, prohibiting Engineer A from following MWC directives that required facilitating a water source transition known to pose a confirmed lead leaching risk to the public.
generated at time: 2026-06-05T11:25:13.430491+00:00
was attributed to: Case 76 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

Engineer A Non-Engineer Client Communication
type: Non-EngineerClientCommunicationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
possessed by: Engineer A
capability class: Non-Engineer Client Communication Capability
capability statement: Engineer A possessed the capability to communicate the technical findings and recommendations regarding lead leaching risk and corrosion control requirements to the MWC governing body, which included non-engineer members, in a manner that enabled informed decision-making about the water source change.
case context: The MWC as a governing body included non-engineer members who needed to understand the technical basis for the recommendation to delay the source change in order to make an informed decision.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.83
demonstrated through: Joint presentation with Engineer B to the MWC recommending delay of the water source change, communicating the technical basis for that recommendation to a governing body that included non-engineer members.
proficiency level: advanced
text references: Both Engineer A and Engineer B met with the MWC at a meeting sparsely attended by the public and recommended that the change in water source be substantially delayed until improvements could be completed.
discovered in case: 76
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: facts
first discovered at: 2026-06-05T11:25:14.530972+00:00
first discovered in case: 76
match confidence: 0.95
match reasoning: Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Non-Engineer Client Communication Capability'
matched ontology class: Non-EngineerClientCommunicationCapability
matched ontology label: Non-Engineer Client Communication Capability
matches existing: true
source text: Both Engineer A and Engineer B met with the MWC at a meeting sparsely attended by the public and recommended that the change in water source be substantially delayed until improvements could be completed.
synthesis literal: capabilityClass
synthesis literal: capabilityStatement
synthesis literal: caseContext
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: demonstratedThrough
synthesis literal: proficiencyLevel
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineer A possessed the capability to communicate the technical findings and recommendations regarding lead leaching risk and corrosion control requirements to the MWC governing body, which included non-engineer members, in a manner that enabled informed decision-making about the water source change.
generated at time: 2026-06-05T11:25:14.530972+00:00
was attributed to: Case 76 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

Engineer A Override Escalation Judgment
type: OverrideEscalationJudgmentCapability
type: NamedIndividual
possessed by: Engineer A
capability class: Override Escalation Judgment Capability
capability statement: Engineer A was required to recognize that the MWC's vote to override the joint engineering recommendation created a public health risk that triggered an obligation to escalate the matter to the appropriate state regulatory authority.
case context: After the MWC voted to proceed with the water source change over the joint recommendation of Engineers A and B, Engineer A as chief engineer and superintendent faced the obligation to determine whether to escalate the matter to state regulatory authorities.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.84
demonstrated through: The obligation arising after the MWC voted to proceed despite the joint recommendation to delay, requiring Engineer A to judge whether and how to escalate to regulatory authorities.
proficiency level: advanced
text references: Despite those recommendations, the MWC voted to proceed simultaneously with the accelerated evaluation and design of needed water treatment improvements and the change in water source.
discovered in case: 76
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: facts
first discovered at: 2026-06-05T11:25:14.530972+00:00
first discovered in case: 76
match confidence: 0.75
match reasoning: Via class 'Override Escalation Judgment Capability': Safety Disclosure Escalation Capability covers recognition of when internal resolution has failed and escalation to regulatory authorities is required. The present capability is a variant that specifically addresses the scenario where a client or governing body override, rather than internal failure, triggers the escalation obligation. The existing class is the closest match but does not fully capture the override-specific trigger or the judgment about when an override rises to the level requiring regulatory escalation. Matching as a variant with medium confidence.
matched ontology class: SafetyDisclosureEscalationCapability
matched ontology label: Safety Disclosure Escalation Capability
matches existing: true
source text: Despite those recommendations, the MWC voted to proceed simultaneously with the accelerated evaluation and design of needed water treatment improvements and the change in water source.
synthesis literal: capabilityClass
synthesis literal: capabilityStatement
synthesis literal: caseContext
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: demonstratedThrough
synthesis literal: proficiencyLevel
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineer A was required to recognize that the MWC's vote to override the joint engineering recommendation created a public health risk that triggered an obligation to escalate the matter to the appropriate state regulatory authority.
generated at time: 2026-06-05T11:25:14.530972+00:00
was attributed to: Case 76 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

Engineer A Preliminary Risk Disclosure
type: PreliminaryRiskDisclosureCapability
type: NamedIndividual
possessed by: Engineer A
capability class: Preliminary Risk Disclosure Capability
capability statement: Engineer A possessed the capability to recognize that the identified risk of lead leaching from old service pipes was sufficiently developed to warrant disclosure to the MWC before the source change proceeded, and to communicate that risk in a manner calibrated to the level of certainty available.
case context: Engineer A received Engineer B's report identifying the lead leaching risk and was obligated to disclose that risk to the MWC before the source change proceeded.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.87
demonstrated through: Joint presentation with Engineer B to the MWC recommending that the source change be delayed until improvements were completed, communicating the lead leaching risk.
proficiency level: advanced
text references: Both Engineer A and Engineer B met with the MWC at a meeting sparsely attended by the public and recommended that the change in water source be substantially delayed until improvements could be completed.
discovered in case: 76
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: facts
first discovered at: 2026-06-05T11:25:14.530972+00:00
first discovered in case: 76
match confidence: 0.95
match reasoning: Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Preliminary Risk Disclosure Capability'
matched ontology class: PreliminaryRiskDisclosureCapability
matched ontology label: Preliminary Risk Disclosure Capability
matches existing: true
source text: Both Engineer A and Engineer B met with the MWC at a meeting sparsely attended by the public and recommended that the change in water source be substantially delayed until improvements could be completed.
synthesis literal: capabilityClass
synthesis literal: capabilityStatement
synthesis literal: caseContext
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: demonstratedThrough
synthesis literal: proficiencyLevel
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineer A possessed the capability to recognize that the identified risk of lead leaching from old service pipes was sufficiently developed to warrant disclosure to the MWC before the source change proceeded, and to communicate that risk in a manner calibrated to the level of certainty available.
generated at time: 2026-06-05T11:25:14.530972+00:00
was attributed to: Case 76 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

Engineer A Project Success Notification
type: ProjectSuccessNotificationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
possessed by: Engineer A
capability class: Project Success Notification Capability
capability statement: Engineer A possessed the capability to advise the MWC that the water source change would not achieve safe outcomes without prior completion of corrosion control improvements, and to communicate that the project as proposed would not be successful in terms of public health protection.
case context: Engineer A served as superintendent and chief engineer for the MWC and jointly presented findings and recommendations with Engineer B before the MWC voted to override those recommendations.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstrated through: Joint recommendation with Engineer B to the MWC that the water source change be substantially delayed until improvements could be completed.
proficiency level: advanced
text references: Both Engineer A and Engineer B met with the MWC at a meeting sparsely attended by the public and recommended that the change in water source be substantially delayed until improvements could be completed.
discovered in case: 76
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: facts
first discovered at: 2026-06-05T11:25:14.530972+00:00
first discovered in case: 76
match confidence: 0.95
match reasoning: Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Project Success Notification Capability'
matched ontology class: ProjectSuccessNotificationCapability
matched ontology label: Project Success Notification Capability
matches existing: true
source text: Both Engineer A and Engineer B met with the MWC at a meeting sparsely attended by the public and recommended that the change in water source be substantially delayed until improvements could be completed.
synthesis literal: capabilityClass
synthesis literal: capabilityStatement
synthesis literal: caseContext
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: demonstratedThrough
synthesis literal: proficiencyLevel
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineer A possessed the capability to advise the MWC that the water source change would not achieve safe outcomes without prior completion of corrosion control improvements, and to communicate that the project as proposed would not be successful in terms of public health protection.
generated at time: 2026-06-05T11:25:14.530972+00:00
was attributed to: Case 76 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

Engineer A Public Safety Paramount
type: PublicSafetyParamountConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
constrained entity: Engineer A
case context: The MWC voted to proceed with the water source change simultaneously with evaluation and design of corrosion control improvements, over the joint recommendation of Engineers A and B that the change be substantially delayed. Engineer A's paramount safety duty constrained any administrative compliance with the MWC's decision that would facilitate the unsafe transition.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.97
constraint class: Public Safety Paramount Constraint
constraint statement: Engineer A was constrained by the inviolable duty to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public, requiring that the MWC's decision to proceed with the water source change before corrosion control improvements were completed not be endorsed or facilitated, regardless of Engineer A's administrative role as superintendent.
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code Section II.1
temporal scope: From the point at which Engineer B's report confirmed the lead leaching risk through and after the MWC override vote
text references: Both Engineer A and Engineer B met with the MWC at a meeting sparsely attended by the public and recommended that the change in water source be substantially delayed until improvements could be completed
text references: Despite those recommendations, the MWC voted to proceed simultaneously with the accelerated evaluation and design of needed water treatment improvements and the change in water source
discovered in case: 76
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: facts
first discovered at: 2026-06-05T11:25:13.430491+00:00
first discovered in case: 76
match confidence: 0.95
match reasoning: Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Public Safety Paramount Constraint'
matched ontology class: PublicSafetyParamountConstraint
matched ontology label: Public Safety Paramount Constraint
matches existing: true
source text: Both Engineer A and Engineer B met with the MWC at a meeting sparsely attended by the public and recommended that the change in water source be substantially delayed until improvements could be completed
synthesis literal: caseContext
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: constraintClass
synthesis literal: constraintStatement
synthesis literal: severity
synthesis literal: source
synthesis literal: temporalScope
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineer A was constrained by the inviolable duty to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public, requiring that the MWC's decision to proceed with the water source change before corrosion control improvements were completed not be endorsed or facilitated, regardless of Engineer A's administrative role as superintendent.
generated at time: 2026-06-05T11:25:13.430491+00:00
was attributed to: Case 76 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

Engineer A Public Safety Reporting
type: PublicSafetyReportingCapability
type: NamedIndividual
possessed by: Engineer A
capability class: Public Safety Reporting Capability
capability statement: Engineer A possessed the capability to recognize that the professional obligation to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public required reporting the lead leaching risk to the appropriate regulatory authority after the MWC overrode the joint engineering recommendation.
case context: As chief engineer and superintendent of the MWC, Engineer A faced the obligation to report the public health risk to the appropriate regulatory authority after the MWC voted to proceed over the joint recommendation.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstrated through: The obligation to report arising from the MWC's override of the recommendation to delay the water source change until corrosion control improvements were completed.
proficiency level: advanced
text references: Despite those recommendations, the MWC voted to proceed simultaneously with the accelerated evaluation and design of needed water treatment improvements and the change in water source.
text references: The improvements are needed prior to the change in water source to ensure that sufficient corrosion control is provided so that old service pipes in the MWC service area don't leach lead at levels in excess of drinking water standards.
discovered in case: 76
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: facts
first discovered at: 2026-06-05T11:25:14.530972+00:00
first discovered in case: 76
match confidence: 0.95
match reasoning: Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Public Safety Reporting Capability'
matched ontology class: PublicSafetyReportingCapability
matched ontology label: Public Safety Reporting Capability
matches existing: true
source text: Despite those recommendations, the MWC voted to proceed simultaneously with the accelerated evaluation and design of needed water treatment improvements and the change in water source.
synthesis literal: capabilityClass
synthesis literal: capabilityStatement
synthesis literal: caseContext
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: demonstratedThrough
synthesis literal: proficiencyLevel
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineer A possessed the capability to recognize that the professional obligation to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public required reporting the lead leaching risk to the appropriate regulatory authority after the MWC overrode the joint engineering recommendation.
generated at time: 2026-06-05T11:25:14.530972+00:00
was attributed to: Case 76 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

Engineer B Client Economic Pressure Resistance
type: ClientEconomicPressureResistanceCapability
type: NamedIndividual
possessed by: Engineer B
capability class: Client Economic Pressure Resistance Capability
capability statement: Engineer B was required to recognize that the MWC's decision to proceed with the water source change was motivated by cost-reduction goals, and to resist that economic pressure by maintaining the professional recommendation that the change be delayed until safety improvements were completed.
case context: The MWC's stated motivation for the water source change was to reduce municipal expenditures and lower water rates, creating economic pressure on Engineer B as retained consultant to minimize the scope or cost of recommended improvements.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.86
demonstrated through: Delivery of a report recommending extensive capital investments and a three-year timeline despite the MWC's cost-reduction motivation, and joint recommendation to delay the source change.
proficiency level: advanced
text references: In order to reduce municipal expenditures and lower water rates, the MWC has been considering changing its water supply source from purchasing water from remote reservoirs from another regional authority to using the local river as the MWC's source.
discovered in case: 76
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: facts
first discovered at: 2026-06-05T11:25:14.530972+00:00
first discovered in case: 76
match confidence: 0.95
match reasoning: Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Client Economic Pressure Resistance Capability'
matched ontology class: ClientEconomicPressureResistanceCapability
matched ontology label: Client Economic Pressure Resistance Capability
matches existing: true
source text: In order to reduce municipal expenditures and lower water rates, the MWC has been considering changing its water supply source from purchasing water from remote reservoirs from another regional authority to using the local river as the MWC's source.
synthesis literal: capabilityClass
synthesis literal: capabilityStatement
synthesis literal: caseContext
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: demonstratedThrough
synthesis literal: proficiencyLevel
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineer B was required to recognize that the MWC's decision to proceed with the water source change was motivated by cost-reduction goals, and to resist that economic pressure by maintaining the professional recommendation that the change be delayed until safety improvements were completed.
generated at time: 2026-06-05T11:25:14.530972+00:00
was attributed to: Case 76 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

Engineer B Client Economic Pressure Safety
type: ClientEconomicPressureSafetyContinuationConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
constrained entity: Engineer B
case context: The MWC's decision to proceed simultaneously with the water source change and corrosion control improvements was driven by the economic goal of reducing expenditures and lowering water rates. Engineer B's continued consulting involvement could not extend to facilitating this economically motivated override of the safety recommendation.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.91
constraint class: Client Economic Pressure Safety Continuation Constraint
constraint statement: Engineer B was prohibited from continuing professional involvement in the MWC's water source change in a manner that facilitated the unsafe transition, after the MWC declined to implement required safety measures for economic reasons.
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code Section II.1
temporal scope: From the MWC override vote forward
text references: Despite those recommendations, the MWC voted to proceed simultaneously with the accelerated evaluation and design of needed water treatment improvements and the change in water source
text references: In order to reduce municipal expenditures and lower water rates, the MWC has been considering changing its water supply source
discovered in case: 76
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: facts
first discovered at: 2026-06-05T11:25:13.430491+00:00
first discovered in case: 76
match confidence: 0.95
match reasoning: Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Client Economic Pressure Safety Continuation Constraint'
matched ontology class: ClientEconomicPressureSafetyContinuationConstraint
matched ontology label: Client Economic Pressure Safety Continuation Constraint
matches existing: true
source text: In order to reduce municipal expenditures and lower water rates, the MWC has been considering changing its water supply source
synthesis literal: caseContext
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: constraintClass
synthesis literal: constraintStatement
synthesis literal: severity
synthesis literal: source
synthesis literal: temporalScope
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineer B was prohibited from continuing professional involvement in the MWC's water source change in a manner that facilitated the unsafe transition, after the MWC declined to implement required safety measures for economic reasons.
generated at time: 2026-06-05T11:25:13.430491+00:00
was attributed to: Case 76 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

Engineer B Client Override Withdrawal
type: ClientOverrideSafetyWithdrawalConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
constrained entity: Engineer B
case context: Engineer B's consulting engagement produced findings that the water source change must be delayed until corrosion control improvements were completed. After the MWC voted to proceed over that recommendation, Engineer B's continued professional involvement could not extend to endorsing or facilitating the unsafe simultaneous transition.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.9
constraint class: Client Override Safety Withdrawal Constraint
constraint statement: When the MWC explicitly overrode Engineer B's safety recommendation to delay the water source change, Engineer B was constrained to decline continued participation in the project in a manner that would facilitate the unsafe transition rather than proceed in violation of the paramount public safety duty.
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code Section II.1; NSPE Code Section II.1.a
temporal scope: From the MWC override vote forward
text references: Despite those recommendations, the MWC voted to proceed simultaneously with the accelerated evaluation and design of needed water treatment improvements and the change in water source
discovered in case: 76
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: facts
first discovered at: 2026-06-05T11:25:13.430491+00:00
first discovered in case: 76
match confidence: 0.95
match reasoning: Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Client Override Safety Withdrawal Constraint'
matched ontology class: ClientOverrideSafetyWithdrawalConstraint
matched ontology label: Client Override Safety Withdrawal Constraint
matches existing: true
source text: Despite those recommendations, the MWC voted to proceed simultaneously with the accelerated evaluation and design of needed water treatment improvements and the change in water source
synthesis literal: caseContext
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: constraintClass
synthesis literal: constraintStatement
synthesis literal: severity
synthesis literal: source
synthesis literal: temporalScope
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: When the MWC explicitly overrode Engineer B's safety recommendation to delay the water source change, Engineer B was constrained to decline continued participation in the project in a manner that would facilitate the unsafe transition rather than proceed in violation of the paramount public safety duty.
generated at time: 2026-06-05T11:25:13.430491+00:00
was attributed to: Case 76 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

Engineer B Complete Report to Engineer A
type: CompleteReportingConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
constrained entity: Engineer B
case context: Engineer B's report to Engineer A recommended extensive capital investments and a three-year timeline. The complete reporting constraint required that the report include all material findings, including the specific lead leaching risk and the sequential requirement, so that Engineer A and the MWC could make a fully informed decision about the water source change.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.86
constraint class: Complete Reporting Constraint
constraint statement: Engineer B was constrained to provide Engineer A and the MWC with a complete report including all relevant technical findings, the full scope of required improvements, the three-year timeline, and the basis for concluding that improvements must precede the water source change, without selective omission of material technical facts.
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; professional ethics provisions on complete and objective reporting
temporal scope: At the time of delivering the water treatment evaluation report
text references: Engineer B, a consulting engineer retained by the MWC charged with evaluating water treatment needs for the change in water source, provided a report to Engineer A recommending extensive capital investments and a three-year timeline for further evaluation of water quality, design, and construction of improvements
discovered in case: 76
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: facts
first discovered at: 2026-06-05T11:25:13.430491+00:00
first discovered in case: 76
match confidence: 0.95
match reasoning: Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Complete Reporting Constraint'
matched ontology class: CompleteReportingConstraint
matched ontology label: Complete Reporting Constraint
matches existing: true
source text: Engineer B, a consulting engineer retained by the MWC charged with evaluating water treatment needs for the change in water source, provided a report to Engineer A recommending extensive capital investments and a three-year timeline for further evaluation of water quality, design, and construction of improvements
synthesis literal: caseContext
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: constraintClass
synthesis literal: constraintStatement
synthesis literal: severity
synthesis literal: source
synthesis literal: temporalScope
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineer B was constrained to provide Engineer A and the MWC with a complete report including all relevant technical findings, the full scope of required improvements, the three-year timeline, and the basis for concluding that improvements must precede the water source change, without selective omission of material technical facts.
generated at time: 2026-06-05T11:25:13.430491+00:00
was attributed to: Case 76 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

Engineer B Corrosion Control Assessment
type: CorrosionControlAssessmentCapability
type: NamedIndividual
possessed by: Engineer B
capability class: Corrosion Control Assessment Capability
capability statement: Engineer B possessed the technical competency to assess corrosion control requirements for the MWC water system and to determine that old service pipes would leach lead at unsafe levels if the water source change proceeded without prior treatment improvements.
case context: Engineer B was retained by the MWC to evaluate water treatment needs associated with changing the supply source from remote reservoirs to the local river.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.92
demonstrated through: Preparation of a report recommending extensive capital investments and a three-year timeline for corrosion control improvements before the water source change.
proficiency level: expert
text references: The improvements are needed prior to the change in water source to ensure that sufficient corrosion control is provided so that old service pipes in the MWC service area don't leach lead at levels in excess of drinking water standards.
discovered in case: 76
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: facts
first discovered at: 2026-06-05T11:25:14.530972+00:00
first discovered in case: 76
match confidence: 0.0
matches existing: false
source text: The improvements are needed prior to the change in water source to ensure that sufficient corrosion control is provided so that old service pipes in the MWC service area don't leach lead at levels in excess of drinking water standards.
synthesis literal: capabilityClass
synthesis literal: capabilityStatement
synthesis literal: caseContext
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: demonstratedThrough
synthesis literal: proficiencyLevel
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineer B possessed the technical competency to assess corrosion control requirements for the MWC water system and to determine that old service pipes would leach lead at unsafe levels if the water source change proceeded without prior treatment improvements.
generated at time: 2026-06-05T11:25:14.530972+00:00
was attributed to: Case 76 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

Engineer B Faithful Agent Boundary
type: FaithfulAgentBoundaryCapability
type: NamedIndividual
possessed by: Engineer B
capability class: Faithful Agent Boundary Capability
capability statement: Engineer B was required to distinguish between serving the MWC's legitimate interests as a retained consulting engineer and complying with the MWC's override decision in a manner that would compromise the professional obligation to protect public health, and to act accordingly.
case context: Engineer B was retained by the MWC as a consulting engineer and faced the obligation to serve the client's legitimate interests while refusing to allow that duty to override the public health protection obligation after the MWC voted to override the joint recommendation.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.87
demonstrated through: Delivery of a complete technical report and joint recommendation to delay the source change, representing the boundary between legitimate client service and compliance with a client decision that endangers public health.
proficiency level: advanced
text references: Despite those recommendations, the MWC voted to proceed simultaneously with the accelerated evaluation and design of needed water treatment improvements and the change in water source.
discovered in case: 76
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: facts
first discovered at: 2026-06-05T11:25:14.530972+00:00
first discovered in case: 76
match confidence: 0.95
match reasoning: Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Faithful Agent Boundary Capability'
matched ontology class: FaithfulAgentBoundaryCapability
matched ontology label: Faithful Agent Boundary Capability
matches existing: true
source text: Despite those recommendations, the MWC voted to proceed simultaneously with the accelerated evaluation and design of needed water treatment improvements and the change in water source.
synthesis literal: capabilityClass
synthesis literal: capabilityStatement
synthesis literal: caseContext
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: demonstratedThrough
synthesis literal: proficiencyLevel
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineer B was required to distinguish between serving the MWC's legitimate interests as a retained consulting engineer and complying with the MWC's override decision in a manner that would compromise the professional obligation to protect public health, and to act accordingly.
generated at time: 2026-06-05T11:25:14.530972+00:00
was attributed to: Case 76 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

Engineer B Faithful Agent Boundary
type: FaithfulAgentBoundaryConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
constrained entity: Engineer B
case context: Engineer B's consulting role created a duty of loyalty to the MWC as client, but that duty could not extend to providing professional services that facilitated an unsafe transition. The faithful agent boundary constraint prohibited Engineer B from treating client preference as sufficient justification for continued professional involvement in the unsafe course of action.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.92
constraint class: Faithful Agent Boundary Constraint
constraint statement: Engineer B's duty to serve the MWC as a faithful agent in the consulting engagement was constrained by the paramount obligation to protect public health, safety, and welfare, prohibiting Engineer B from orienting professional services toward facilitating a water source transition known to pose a confirmed lead leaching risk.
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code Section II.1; professional ethics provisions on faithful agent duty
temporal scope: Throughout Engineer B's consulting engagement with the MWC, and specifically after the MWC override vote
text references: Despite those recommendations, the MWC voted to proceed simultaneously with the accelerated evaluation and design of needed water treatment improvements and the change in water source
text references: Engineer B, a consulting engineer retained by the MWC charged with evaluating water treatment needs for the change in water source
discovered in case: 76
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: facts
first discovered at: 2026-06-05T11:25:13.430491+00:00
first discovered in case: 76
match confidence: 0.95
match reasoning: Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Faithful Agent Boundary Constraint'
matched ontology class: FaithfulAgentBoundaryConstraint
matched ontology label: Faithful Agent Boundary Constraint
matches existing: true
source text: Engineer B, a consulting engineer retained by the MWC charged with evaluating water treatment needs for the change in water source
synthesis literal: caseContext
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: constraintClass
synthesis literal: constraintStatement
synthesis literal: severity
synthesis literal: source
synthesis literal: temporalScope
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineer B's duty to serve the MWC as a faithful agent in the consulting engagement was constrained by the paramount obligation to protect public health, safety, and welfare, prohibiting Engineer B from orienting professional services toward facilitating a water source transition known to pose a confirmed lead leaching risk.
generated at time: 2026-06-05T11:25:13.430491+00:00
was attributed to: Case 76 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

Engineer B Non-Engineer Client Communication
type: Non-EngineerClientCommunicationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
possessed by: Engineer B
capability class: Non-Engineer Client Communication Capability
capability statement: Engineer B possessed the capability to communicate the technical findings and recommendations regarding lead leaching risk and corrosion control requirements to the MWC governing body, which included non-engineer members, in a manner that enabled informed decision-making about the water source change.
case context: The MWC as a governing body included non-engineer members who needed to understand the technical basis for the recommendation to delay the source change in order to make an informed decision.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.83
demonstrated through: Joint presentation with Engineer A to the MWC recommending delay of the water source change, communicating the technical basis for that recommendation to a governing body that included non-engineer members.
proficiency level: advanced
text references: Both Engineer A and Engineer B met with the MWC at a meeting sparsely attended by the public and recommended that the change in water source be substantially delayed until improvements could be completed.
discovered in case: 76
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: facts
first discovered at: 2026-06-05T11:25:14.530972+00:00
first discovered in case: 76
match confidence: 0.95
match reasoning: Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Non-Engineer Client Communication Capability'
matched ontology class: Non-EngineerClientCommunicationCapability
matched ontology label: Non-Engineer Client Communication Capability
matches existing: true
source text: Both Engineer A and Engineer B met with the MWC at a meeting sparsely attended by the public and recommended that the change in water source be substantially delayed until improvements could be completed.
synthesis literal: capabilityClass
synthesis literal: capabilityStatement
synthesis literal: caseContext
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: demonstratedThrough
synthesis literal: proficiencyLevel
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineer B possessed the capability to communicate the technical findings and recommendations regarding lead leaching risk and corrosion control requirements to the MWC governing body, which included non-engineer members, in a manner that enabled informed decision-making about the water source change.
generated at time: 2026-06-05T11:25:14.530972+00:00
was attributed to: Case 76 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

Engineer B Override Escalation Judgment
type: OverrideEscalationJudgmentCapability
type: NamedIndividual
possessed by: Engineer B
capability class: Override Escalation Judgment Capability
capability statement: Engineer B was required to recognize that the MWC's vote to override the joint engineering recommendation created a public health risk that triggered an obligation to escalate the matter to the appropriate state regulatory authority.
case context: After the MWC voted to proceed with the water source change over the joint recommendation of Engineers A and B, Engineer B as retained consulting engineer faced the obligation to determine whether to escalate the matter to state regulatory authorities.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.84
demonstrated through: The obligation arising after the MWC voted to proceed despite the joint recommendation to delay, requiring Engineer B to judge whether and how to escalate to regulatory authorities.
proficiency level: advanced
text references: Despite those recommendations, the MWC voted to proceed simultaneously with the accelerated evaluation and design of needed water treatment improvements and the change in water source.
discovered in case: 76
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: facts
first discovered at: 2026-06-05T11:25:14.530972+00:00
first discovered in case: 76
match confidence: 0.75
match reasoning: Via class 'Override Escalation Judgment Capability': Safety Disclosure Escalation Capability covers recognition of when internal resolution has failed and escalation to regulatory authorities is required. The present capability is a variant that specifically addresses the scenario where a client or governing body override, rather than internal failure, triggers the escalation obligation. The existing class is the closest match but does not fully capture the override-specific trigger or the judgment about when an override rises to the level requiring regulatory escalation. Matching as a variant with medium confidence.
matched ontology class: SafetyDisclosureEscalationCapability
matched ontology label: Safety Disclosure Escalation Capability
matches existing: true
source text: Despite those recommendations, the MWC voted to proceed simultaneously with the accelerated evaluation and design of needed water treatment improvements and the change in water source.
synthesis literal: capabilityClass
synthesis literal: capabilityStatement
synthesis literal: caseContext
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: demonstratedThrough
synthesis literal: proficiencyLevel
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineer B was required to recognize that the MWC's vote to override the joint engineering recommendation created a public health risk that triggered an obligation to escalate the matter to the appropriate state regulatory authority.
generated at time: 2026-06-05T11:25:14.530972+00:00
was attributed to: Case 76 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

Engineer B Preliminary Risk Disclosure
type: PreliminaryRiskDisclosureCapability
type: NamedIndividual
possessed by: Engineer B
capability class: Preliminary Risk Disclosure Capability
capability statement: Engineer B possessed the capability to recognize that the identified risk of lead leaching from old service pipes was sufficiently developed to warrant disclosure to the MWC before the source change proceeded, and to communicate that risk in a manner calibrated to the level of certainty available.
case context: Engineer B identified the lead leaching risk during the water treatment evaluation and was obligated to disclose it to the MWC before the source change proceeded, even though full quantification of all risk parameters may not have been complete.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstrated through: Delivery of a report identifying the lead leaching risk and recommending that improvements be completed before the source change, and joint presentation of that risk to the MWC.
proficiency level: advanced
text references: Engineer B, a consulting engineer retained by the MWC charged with evaluating water treatment needs for the change in water source, provided a report to Engineer A recommending extensive capital investments and a three-year timeline for further evaluation of water quality, design, and construction of improvements.
text references: The improvements are needed prior to the change in water source to ensure that sufficient corrosion control is provided so that old service pipes in the MWC service area don't leach lead at levels in excess of drinking water standards.
discovered in case: 76
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: facts
first discovered at: 2026-06-05T11:25:14.530972+00:00
first discovered in case: 76
match confidence: 0.95
match reasoning: Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Preliminary Risk Disclosure Capability'
matched ontology class: PreliminaryRiskDisclosureCapability
matched ontology label: Preliminary Risk Disclosure Capability
matches existing: true
source text: Engineer B, a consulting engineer retained by the MWC charged with evaluating water treatment needs for the change in water source, provided a report to Engineer A recommending extensive capital investments and a three-year timeline for further evaluation of water quality, design, and construction of improvements.
synthesis literal: capabilityClass
synthesis literal: capabilityStatement
synthesis literal: caseContext
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: demonstratedThrough
synthesis literal: proficiencyLevel
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineer B possessed the capability to recognize that the identified risk of lead leaching from old service pipes was sufficiently developed to warrant disclosure to the MWC before the source change proceeded, and to communicate that risk in a manner calibrated to the level of certainty available.
generated at time: 2026-06-05T11:25:14.530972+00:00
was attributed to: Case 76 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

Engineer B Project Success Notification
type: ProjectSuccessNotificationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
possessed by: Engineer B
capability class: Project Success Notification Capability
capability statement: Engineer B possessed the capability to advise the MWC that the water source change would not achieve safe outcomes without prior completion of corrosion control improvements, and to communicate that the project as proposed would not be successful in terms of public health protection.
case context: Engineer B was the retained consulting engineer who identified the lead leaching risk and jointly presented findings and recommendations with Engineer A before the MWC voted to override those recommendations.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstrated through: Joint recommendation with Engineer A to the MWC that the water source change be substantially delayed until improvements could be completed.
proficiency level: advanced
text references: Both Engineer A and Engineer B met with the MWC at a meeting sparsely attended by the public and recommended that the change in water source be substantially delayed until improvements could be completed.
discovered in case: 76
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: facts
first discovered at: 2026-06-05T11:25:14.530972+00:00
first discovered in case: 76
match confidence: 0.95
match reasoning: Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Project Success Notification Capability'
matched ontology class: ProjectSuccessNotificationCapability
matched ontology label: Project Success Notification Capability
matches existing: true
source text: Both Engineer A and Engineer B met with the MWC at a meeting sparsely attended by the public and recommended that the change in water source be substantially delayed until improvements could be completed.
synthesis literal: capabilityClass
synthesis literal: capabilityStatement
synthesis literal: caseContext
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: demonstratedThrough
synthesis literal: proficiencyLevel
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineer B possessed the capability to advise the MWC that the water source change would not achieve safe outcomes without prior completion of corrosion control improvements, and to communicate that the project as proposed would not be successful in terms of public health protection.
generated at time: 2026-06-05T11:25:14.530972+00:00
was attributed to: Case 76 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

Engineer B Public Safety Paramount
type: PublicSafetyParamountConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
constrained entity: Engineer B
case context: Engineer B's report identified the need for corrosion control improvements prior to the water source change to prevent lead leaching above drinking water standards. After the MWC voted to proceed over the joint recommendation, Engineer B's paramount safety duty constrained any further professional conduct that would facilitate the unsafe transition.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.97
constraint class: Public Safety Paramount Constraint
constraint statement: Engineer B was constrained by the inviolable duty to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public, requiring that the confirmed lead leaching risk be fully disclosed and that Engineer B not facilitate or endorse the MWC's decision to proceed with the water source change before corrosion control improvements were in place.
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code Section II.1
temporal scope: From the completion of the water treatment evaluation report through and after the MWC override vote
text references: Engineer B, a consulting engineer retained by the MWC charged with evaluating water treatment needs for the change in water source, provided a report to Engineer A recommending extensive capital investments and a three-year timeline
text references: The improvements are needed prior to the change in water source to ensure that sufficient corrosion control is provided so that old service pipes in the MWC service area don't leach lead at levels in excess of drinking water standards
discovered in case: 76
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: facts
first discovered at: 2026-06-05T11:25:13.430491+00:00
first discovered in case: 76
match confidence: 0.95
match reasoning: Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Public Safety Paramount Constraint'
matched ontology class: PublicSafetyParamountConstraint
matched ontology label: Public Safety Paramount Constraint
matches existing: true
source text: Engineer B, a consulting engineer retained by the MWC charged with evaluating water treatment needs for the change in water source, provided a report to Engineer A recommending extensive capital investments and a three-year timeline
synthesis literal: caseContext
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: constraintClass
synthesis literal: constraintStatement
synthesis literal: severity
synthesis literal: source
synthesis literal: temporalScope
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineer B was constrained by the inviolable duty to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public, requiring that the confirmed lead leaching risk be fully disclosed and that Engineer B not facilitate or endorse the MWC's decision to proceed with the water source change before corrosion control improvements were in place.
generated at time: 2026-06-05T11:25:13.430491+00:00
was attributed to: Case 76 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

Engineer B Public Safety Reporting
type: PublicSafetyReportingCapability
type: NamedIndividual
possessed by: Engineer B
capability class: Public Safety Reporting Capability
capability statement: Engineer B possessed the capability to recognize that the professional obligation to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public required reporting the lead leaching risk to the appropriate regulatory authority after the MWC overrode the joint engineering recommendation.
case context: As the retained water treatment consulting engineer who identified the lead leaching risk, Engineer B faced the obligation to report the public health risk to the appropriate regulatory authority after the MWC voted to proceed over the joint recommendation.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstrated through: The obligation to report arising from the MWC's override of the recommendation to delay the water source change until corrosion control improvements were completed.
proficiency level: advanced
text references: Despite those recommendations, the MWC voted to proceed simultaneously with the accelerated evaluation and design of needed water treatment improvements and the change in water source.
text references: The improvements are needed prior to the change in water source to ensure that sufficient corrosion control is provided so that old service pipes in the MWC service area don't leach lead at levels in excess of drinking water standards.
discovered in case: 76
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: facts
first discovered at: 2026-06-05T11:25:14.530972+00:00
first discovered in case: 76
match confidence: 0.95
match reasoning: Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Public Safety Reporting Capability'
matched ontology class: PublicSafetyReportingCapability
matched ontology label: Public Safety Reporting Capability
matches existing: true
source text: Despite those recommendations, the MWC voted to proceed simultaneously with the accelerated evaluation and design of needed water treatment improvements and the change in water source.
synthesis literal: capabilityClass
synthesis literal: capabilityStatement
synthesis literal: caseContext
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: demonstratedThrough
synthesis literal: proficiencyLevel
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineer B possessed the capability to recognize that the professional obligation to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public required reporting the lead leaching risk to the appropriate regulatory authority after the MWC overrode the joint engineering recommendation.
generated at time: 2026-06-05T11:25:14.530972+00:00
was attributed to: Case 76 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

Engineer B Report Completeness
type: ReportCompletenessIntegrityCapability
type: NamedIndividual
possessed by: Engineer B
capability class: Report Completeness Integrity Capability
capability statement: Engineer B possessed the capability to ensure that the water treatment evaluation report provided to Engineer A included all relevant technical findings, the full scope of required improvements, and the complete timeline necessary for Engineer A and the MWC to make an informed decision about the water source change.
case context: Engineer B was obligated to provide Engineer A with a complete report including all relevant technical findings and the full scope of required improvements so that Engineer A could fulfill the obligation to advise the MWC accurately.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.86
demonstrated through: Delivery of a report recommending extensive capital investments and a three-year timeline, representing a complete technical assessment of the treatment needs.
proficiency level: advanced
text references: Engineer B, a consulting engineer retained by the MWC charged with evaluating water treatment needs for the change in water source, provided a report to Engineer A recommending extensive capital investments and a three-year timeline for further evaluation of water quality, design, and construction of improvements.
discovered in case: 76
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: facts
first discovered at: 2026-06-05T11:25:14.530972+00:00
first discovered in case: 76
match confidence: 0.95
match reasoning: Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Report Completeness Integrity Capability'
matched ontology class: ReportCompletenessIntegrityCapability
matched ontology label: Report Completeness Integrity Capability
matches existing: true
source text: Engineer B, a consulting engineer retained by the MWC charged with evaluating water treatment needs for the change in water source, provided a report to Engineer A recommending extensive capital investments and a three-year timeline for further evaluation of water quality, design, and construction of improvements.
synthesis literal: capabilityClass
synthesis literal: capabilityStatement
synthesis literal: caseContext
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: demonstratedThrough
synthesis literal: proficiencyLevel
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineer B possessed the capability to ensure that the water treatment evaluation report provided to Engineer A included all relevant technical findings, the full scope of required improvements, and the complete timeline necessary for Engineer A and the MWC to make an informed decision about the water source change.
generated at time: 2026-06-05T11:25:14.530972+00:00
was attributed to: Case 76 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

Engineer B Water Treatment Evaluation
type: WaterTreatmentEvaluationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
possessed by: Engineer B
capability class: Water Treatment Evaluation Capability
capability statement: Engineer B possessed the technical capability to evaluate the water treatment requirements for the MWC's proposed source change, including assessment of water quality, required treatment processes, capital investment needs, and a realistic implementation timeline.
case context: Engineer B was the consulting engineer retained specifically to evaluate water treatment needs for the MWC's proposed change from reservoir supply to local river supply.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.91
demonstrated through: Delivery of a report recommending extensive capital investments and a three-year timeline for evaluation, design, and construction of water treatment improvements.
proficiency level: expert
text references: Engineer B, a consulting engineer retained by the MWC charged with evaluating water treatment needs for the change in water source, provided a report to Engineer A recommending extensive capital investments and a three-year timeline for further evaluation of water quality, design, and construction of improvements.
discovered in case: 76
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: facts
first discovered at: 2026-06-05T11:25:14.530972+00:00
first discovered in case: 76
match confidence: 0.0
matches existing: false
source text: Engineer B, a consulting engineer retained by the MWC charged with evaluating water treatment needs for the change in water source, provided a report to Engineer A recommending extensive capital investments and a three-year timeline for further evaluation of water quality, design, and construction of improvements.
synthesis literal: capabilityClass
synthesis literal: capabilityStatement
synthesis literal: caseContext
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: demonstratedThrough
synthesis literal: proficiencyLevel
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineer B possessed the technical capability to evaluate the water treatment requirements for the MWC's proposed source change, including assessment of water quality, required treatment processes, capital investment needs, and a realistic implementation timeline.
generated at time: 2026-06-05T11:25:14.530972+00:00
was attributed to: Case 76 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

Metropolitan Water Commission Client
type: PublicWaterCommission
type: NamedIndividual
actor: Metropolitan Water Commission
case involvement: Governing body of the MWC that retained Engineer B for water treatment evaluation, received joint recommendations from Engineer A and Engineer B to delay the water source change, and voted to proceed simultaneously with the accelerated evaluation and the source change despite those recommendations, creating a public health risk from potential lead leaching.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.88
other attribute: decision: Voted to proceed with simultaneous source change and accelerated improvements despite engineer recommendations
role category: provider_client
role class: Public Water Commission
role nature: Public water utility commission
text references: Both Engineer A and Engineer B met with the MWC at a meeting sparsely attended by the public
text references: the MWC has been considering changing its water supply source
text references: the MWC voted to proceed simultaneously with the accelerated evaluation and design of needed water treatment improvements and the change in water source
discovered in case: 76
discovered in pass: 1
discovered in section: facts
first discovered at: 2026-06-05T11:17:25.675106+00:00
first discovered in case: 76
match confidence: 0.78
match reasoning: Via class 'Public Water Commission': The MWC is a municipal or quasi-governmental body commissioning engineering services and acting as the primary decision-maker, which aligns with Municipal Client. The commission structure with voting authority over technical recommendations is a specialization of that existing class.
matched ontology class: MunicipalClient
matched ontology label: Municipal Client
matches existing: true
source text: the MWC has been considering changing its water supply source
synthesis literal: caseInvolvement
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: roleCategory
synthesis literal: roleClass
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Governing body of the MWC that retained Engineer B for water treatment evaluation, received joint recommendations from Engineer A and Engineer B to delay the water source change, and voted to proceed simultaneously with the accelerated evaluation and the source change despite those recommendations, creating a public health risk from potential lead leaching.
generated at time: 2026-06-05T11:17:25.675106+00:00
was attributed to: Case 76 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

Metropolitan Water Commission Client Override
type: MunicipalClient
type: NamedIndividual
actor: Metropolitan Water Commission
case involvement: The MWC overruled the joint engineering recommendations of Engineers A and B regarding water treatment requirements, proceeding with plans that Engineers A and B believe endanger public health and safety.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.88
role category: provider_client
role class: Municipal Client
role nature: Public water utility governing body
text references: The engineering judgments of Engineer A and Engineer B were overruled by the MWC.
text references: in the event that these formal presentations fail to sway the MWC to change its plans
text references: the consent of the MWC is not required.
discovered in case: 76
discovered in pass: 1
discovered in section: discussion
first discovered at: 2026-06-05T11:18:16.149700+00:00
first discovered in case: 76
match confidence: 0.95
match reasoning: Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Municipal Client'
matched ontology class: MunicipalClient
matched ontology label: Municipal Client
matches existing: true
source text: The engineering judgments of Engineer A and Engineer B were overruled by the MWC.
synthesis literal: caseInvolvement
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: roleCategory
synthesis literal: roleClass
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: The MWC overruled the joint engineering recommendations of Engineers A and B regarding water treatment requirements, proceeding with plans that Engineers A and B believe endanger public health and safety.
generated at time: 2026-06-05T11:18:16.149700+00:00
was attributed to: Case 76 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

Public Affected Water Consumers
type: PublicRole
type: NamedIndividual
actor: Public
case involvement: Residents and water consumers in the MWC service area who are at risk of lead exposure from old service pipes if the water source change proceeds without adequate corrosion control improvements. Sparsely represented at the public meeting where the commission voted.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.85
other attribute: affected_interest: Drinking water safety and protection from lead leaching above regulatory standards
other attribute: representation: Sparsely attended public meeting
role category: public_responsibility
role class: Public Role
text references: a meeting sparsely attended by the public
text references: old service pipes in the MWC service area don't leach lead at levels in excess of drinking water standards
discovered in case: 76
discovered in pass: 1
discovered in section: facts
first discovered at: 2026-06-05T11:17:25.675106+00:00
first discovered in case: 76
match confidence: 0.95
match reasoning: Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Public Role'
matched ontology class: PublicRole
matched ontology label: Public Role
matches existing: true
source text: old service pipes in the MWC service area don't leach lead at levels in excess of drinking water standards
synthesis literal: caseInvolvement
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: roleCategory
synthesis literal: roleClass
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Residents and water consumers in the MWC service area who are at risk of lead exposure from old service pipes if the water source change proceeds without adequate corrosion control improvements. Sparsely represented at the public meeting where the commission voted.
generated at time: 2026-06-05T11:17:25.675106+00:00
was attributed to: Case 76 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

Public Endangered Water Consumers
type: PublicRole
type: NamedIndividual
actor: Public
case involvement: Residents and water consumers in the MWC service area who face risk of lead exposure and other public health harms if the water source change proceeds without adequate treatment, and whose safety Engineers A and B are obligated to hold paramount.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.92
other attribute: affected_interest: Public health and safety from water supply
role category: public_responsibility
role class: Public Role
text references: Engineers A and B are required to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public
text references: given the gravity of the danger to public health and safety
text references: the need to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public is well established
discovered in case: 76
discovered in pass: 1
discovered in section: discussion
first discovered at: 2026-06-05T11:18:16.149700+00:00
first discovered in case: 76
match confidence: 0.95
match reasoning: Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Public Role'
matched ontology class: PublicRole
matched ontology label: Public Role
matches existing: true
source text: the need to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public is well established
synthesis literal: caseInvolvement
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: roleCategory
synthesis literal: roleClass
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Residents and water consumers in the MWC service area who face risk of lead exposure and other public health harms if the water source change proceeds without adequate treatment, and whose safety Engineers A and B are obligated to hold paramount.
generated at time: 2026-06-05T11:18:16.149700+00:00
was attributed to: Case 76 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

State Regulatory Agency Authority
type: RegulatoryAuthorityRole
type: NamedIndividual
actor: State Regulatory Agency
case involvement: The state regulatory agency is identified as an appropriate authority to receive a formal presentation of facts, findings, and recommendations from Engineers A and B regarding the public health danger posed by the MWC's decision to override the engineering recommendations.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.88
has jurisdiction: State level
other attribute: domain: Water supply and public health
role category: public_responsibility
role class: Regulatory Authority Role
text references: It appears that the state regulatory agency has been contacted; however, there should be a formal presentation of the facts, findings, and recommendations.
text references: as with the state regulatory agency, this advisement should proceed in a formal manner.
discovered in case: 76
discovered in pass: 1
discovered in section: discussion
first discovered at: 2026-06-05T11:18:16.149700+00:00
first discovered in case: 76
match confidence: 0.95
match reasoning: Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Regulatory Authority Role'
matched ontology class: RegulatoryAuthorityRole
matched ontology label: Regulatory Authority Role
matches existing: true
source text: It appears that the state regulatory agency has been contacted; however, there should be a formal presentation of the facts, findings, and recommendations.
synthesis literal: caseInvolvement
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: roleCategory
synthesis literal: roleClass
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: The state regulatory agency is identified as an appropriate authority to receive a formal presentation of facts, findings, and recommendations from Engineers A and B regarding the public health danger posed by the MWC's decision to override the engineering recommendations.
generated at time: 2026-06-05T11:18:16.149700+00:00
was attributed to: Case 76 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

accelerated evaluation and design of water treatment improvements equals change in water source
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: equals
evidence: the MWC voted to proceed simultaneously with the accelerated evaluation and design of needed water treatment improvements and the change in water source
from entity: Water Source Consideration
from entity text: accelerated evaluation and design of water treatment improvements
owl time property: time:intervalEquals
to entity text: change in water source
synthesis literal: allenRelation
synthesis literal: description
synthesis literal: evidence
synthesis literal: fromEntity
synthesis literal: owlTimeURI
synthesis literal: toEntity
comment: Entity1 and Entity2 have the same start and end times
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

Engineer B's report and recommendations before MWC meeting and vote
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: Engineer B...provided a report to Engineer A recommending extensive capital investments and a three-year timeline...Both Engineer A and Engineer B met with the MWC at a meeting...Despite those recommendations, the MWC voted to proceed
from entity: Evaluation Report Submission
from entity text: Engineer B's report and recommendations
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: MWC meeting and vote
synthesis literal: allenRelation
synthesis literal: description
synthesis literal: evidence
synthesis literal: fromEntity
synthesis literal: owlTimeURI
synthesis literal: toEntity
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

formal presentation of facts, findings, and recommendations to state regulatory agency before further pursuit of the matter if MWC does not change course
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: The formal presentations satisfy Engineer A's and Engineer B's duty to report. However, in the event that these formal presentations fail to sway the MWC to change its plans...Engineers A and B have an obligation to further pursue the matter.
from entity: Formal Authority Notification
from entity text: formal presentation of facts, findings, and recommendations to state regulatory agency
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: further pursuit of the matter if MWC does not change course
synthesis literal: allenRelation
synthesis literal: description
synthesis literal: evidence
synthesis literal: fromEntity
synthesis literal: owlTimeURI
synthesis literal: toEntity
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

MWC vote overruling engineers before formal notification of state regulatory agency and other authorities
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: The engineering judgments of Engineer A and Engineer B were overruled by the MWC. If Engineers A and B believe life or property is endangered, Section II.1.a. provides that not only shall the employer or client be notified, but also all other appropriate authorities.
from entity text: MWC vote overruling engineers
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity: Formal Authority Notification
to entity text: formal notification of state regulatory agency and other authorities
synthesis literal: allenRelation
synthesis literal: description
synthesis literal: evidence
synthesis literal: fromEntity
synthesis literal: owlTimeURI
synthesis literal: toEntity
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: Formal Authority Notification
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

After the MWC vote
type: ProperInterval

Contingent future point, if formal presentations fail
type: ProperInterval

Before report submission
type: Instant

Prior to MWC meeting
type: Instant

Post-MWC vote, implied by Discussion
type: Instant

At the MWC meeting
type: Instant

At the time of the joint advisory presentation
type: Instant

Post-MWC vote, implied by Discussion
type: Instant

During report preparation, before submission
type: Instant

At the public MWC meeting, after the joint presentation
type: Instant

Prior to Engineer B's retention
type: ProperInterval

Engineers A B Client Consent Independence
type: ClientConsentIndependenceCapability
type: NamedIndividual
possessed by: Engineer A
possessed by: Engineer B
capability class: Client Consent Independence Capability
capability statement: Engineers A and B were required to recognize that their obligation to report the public health risk to the state regulatory authority did not require the MWC's consent, and to proceed with regulatory notification without seeking or waiting for client approval.
case context: Engineers A and B were obligated to proceed with regulatory notification and formal presentation to the state regulatory agency without seeking or waiting for the MWC's consent.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.86
demonstrated through: Recognition that the fundamental canon requiring engineers to hold paramount public safety overrides any requirement to obtain client consent before reporting to regulatory authorities.
possessed by: Engineers A and B
proficiency level: advanced
text references: as this duty is a fundamental canon of the NSPE Code of Ethics, the consent of the MWC is not required.
discovered in case: 76
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: discussion
first discovered at: 2026-06-05T11:29:39.466339+00:00
first discovered in case: 76
match confidence: 0.75
match reasoning: Via class 'Client Consent Independence Capability': Public Safety Paramount Judgment Capability covers recognizing that the obligation to hold paramount public safety takes precedence over duties of loyalty to a client. The present capability is a specific application of that broader judgment, focused on the procedural dimension that client consent is not a prerequisite for safety reporting. It is a variant of the existing class at medium confidence.
matched ontology class: PublicSafetyParamountJudgmentCapability
matched ontology label: Public Safety Paramount Judgment Capability
matches existing: true
source text: as this duty is a fundamental canon of the NSPE Code of Ethics, the consent of the MWC is not required.
synthesis literal: capabilityClass
synthesis literal: capabilityStatement
synthesis literal: caseContext
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: demonstratedThrough
synthesis literal: proficiencyLevel
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineers A and B were required to recognize that their obligation to report the public health risk to the state regulatory authority did not require the MWC's consent, and to proceed with regulatory notification without seeking or waiting for client approval.
generated at time: 2026-06-05T11:29:39.466339+00:00
was attributed to: Case 76 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

Engineers A B Concurrent Escalation Coordination
type: ConcurrentEscalationCoordinationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
possessed by: Engineer A
possessed by: Engineer B
capability class: Concurrent Escalation Coordination Capability
capability statement: Engineers A and B were required to coordinate their post-override escalation responses so that their actions were consistent and mutually reinforcing, even though their specific roles and actions need not be identical.
case context: Because Engineers A and B had jointly presented their recommendations, their escalation responses after the MWC override were required to be coordinated and consistent.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.83
demonstrated through: Obligation to act in concert in responding to the MWC override, including coordinating the form, content, and target of regulatory notifications.
possessed by: Engineers A and B
proficiency level: advanced
text references: their actions should be in concert, although not identical.
discovered in case: 76
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: discussion
first discovered at: 2026-06-05T11:29:39.466339+00:00
first discovered in case: 76
match confidence: 0.0
matches existing: false
source text: their actions should be in concert, although not identical.
synthesis literal: capabilityClass
synthesis literal: capabilityStatement
synthesis literal: caseContext
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: demonstratedThrough
synthesis literal: proficiencyLevel
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineers A and B were required to coordinate their post-override escalation responses so that their actions were consistent and mutually reinforcing, even though their specific roles and actions need not be identical.
generated at time: 2026-06-05T11:29:39.466339+00:00
was attributed to: Case 76 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

Engineers A B Confidentiality Limit Recognition
type: ConfidentialityLimitRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
possessed by: Engineer A
possessed by: Engineer B
capability class: Confidentiality Limit Recognition Capability
capability statement: Engineers A and B were required to recognize that any confidentiality obligations owed to the MWC did not extend to concealing the public health risk created by the MWC's override decision, and that the paramount obligation to public safety overrode any confidentiality constraint on regulatory reporting.
case context: The case analysis cited BER Case No. 89-7 to establish that confidentiality obligations do not prevent reporting safety violations to appropriate public authorities.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.85
demonstrated through: Recognition, supported by the BER Case No. 89-7 precedent, that confidentiality cannot shield a client's decision that endangers public safety from regulatory reporting.
possessed by: Engineers A and B
proficiency level: advanced
text references: as this duty is a fundamental canon of the NSPE Code of Ethics, the consent of the MWC is not required.
text references: the NSPE Board of Ethical Review determined that 'it was unethical for Engineer A not to report the safety violations to the appropriate public authorities'
discovered in case: 76
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: discussion
first discovered at: 2026-06-05T11:29:39.466339+00:00
first discovered in case: 76
match confidence: 0.95
match reasoning: Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Confidentiality Limit Recognition Capability'
matched ontology class: ConfidentialityLimitRecognitionCapability
matched ontology label: Confidentiality Limit Recognition Capability
matches existing: true
source text: the NSPE Board of Ethical Review determined that 'it was unethical for Engineer A not to report the safety violations to the appropriate public authorities'
synthesis literal: capabilityClass
synthesis literal: capabilityStatement
synthesis literal: caseContext
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: demonstratedThrough
synthesis literal: proficiencyLevel
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineers A and B were required to recognize that any confidentiality obligations owed to the MWC did not extend to concealing the public health risk created by the MWC's override decision, and that the paramount obligation to public safety overrode any confidentiality constraint on regulatory reporting.
generated at time: 2026-06-05T11:29:39.466339+00:00
was attributed to: Case 76 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

Engineers A B Consent Independent Reporting
type: Consent-IndependentSafetyReportingConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
constrained entity: Engineer A
constrained entity: Engineer B
case context: The MWC, as the client and governing body, had overruled the safety recommendations of Engineers A and B. The Board of Ethical Review found that the engineers were not required to obtain MWC consent before proceeding with regulatory notification, because the paramount public safety duty overrides the client relationship.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.92
constrained entity: Engineers A and B
constraint class: Consent-Independent Safety Reporting Constraint
constraint statement: Engineers A and B were constrained to proceed with regulatory notification and formal presentation to the state regulatory agency without seeking or waiting for the consent of the MWC, because the paramount duty to protect public health and safety cannot be conditioned on client approval.
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.1 and Section II.1.a
temporal scope: After the MWC voted to proceed with the water source change over the joint recommendation of Engineers A and B
text references: as Engineers A and B are required to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public, and as this duty is a fundamental canon of the NSPE Code of Ethics, the consent of the MWC is not required
discovered in case: 76
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: discussion
first discovered at: 2026-06-05T11:29:35.133297+00:00
first discovered in case: 76
match confidence: 0.75
match reasoning: Via class 'Consent-Independent Safety Reporting Constraint': The Public Safety Paramount Constraint establishes that the duty to hold public safety paramount takes precedence over obligations to clients and cannot be overridden by client instructions. The present constraint is a specific application of that principle to the consent question in regulatory reporting, making it a variant. The Client Consent Independence Obligation extracted earlier captures the obligation side; this constraint captures the boundary that client consent cannot gate safety reporting. Medium-confidence variant match to the parent is appropriate.
matched ontology class: PublicSafetyParamountConstraint
matched ontology label: Public Safety Paramount Constraint
matches existing: true
source text: as Engineers A and B are required to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public, and as this duty is a fundamental canon of the NSPE Code of Ethics, the consent of the MWC is not required
synthesis literal: caseContext
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: constraintClass
synthesis literal: constraintStatement
synthesis literal: severity
synthesis literal: source
synthesis literal: temporalScope
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineers A and B were constrained to proceed with regulatory notification and formal presentation to the state regulatory agency without seeking or waiting for the consent of the MWC, because the paramount duty to protect public health and safety cannot be conditioned on client approval.
generated at time: 2026-06-05T11:29:35.133297+00:00
was attributed to: Case 76 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

Engineers A B Coordinated Escalation
type: CoordinatedEscalationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
obligated party: Engineer A
obligated party: Engineer B
case context: Engineers A and B jointly identified the lead leaching risk and jointly presented recommendations that were overridden by the MWC. Their shared responsibility for the original recommendation created a corresponding shared responsibility to coordinate any regulatory escalation.
compliance status: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.78
obligated party: Engineers A and B
obligation class: Coordinated Escalation Obligation
obligation statement: Engineers A and B were obligated to coordinate their escalation response after the MWC override, agreeing on the form, content, and target of any regulatory report or presentation so that the escalation was consistent, complete, and effective in protecting public health.
temporal scope: Following the MWC vote to override the joint engineering recommendation
text references: Both Engineer A and Engineer B met with the MWC at a meeting sparsely attended by the public and recommended that the change in water source be substantially delayed until improvements could be completed.
text references: Despite those recommendations, the MWC voted to proceed simultaneously with the accelerated evaluation and design of needed water treatment improvements and the change in water source.
discovered in case: 76
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: facts
first discovered at: 2026-06-05T11:23:42.907966+00:00
first discovered in case: 76
match confidence: 0.0
matches existing: false
source text: Both Engineer A and Engineer B met with the MWC at a meeting sparsely attended by the public and recommended that the change in water source be substantially delayed until improvements could be completed.
synthesis literal: caseContext
synthesis literal: complianceStatus
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: obligationClass
synthesis literal: obligationStatement
synthesis literal: temporalScope
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineers A and B were obligated to coordinate their escalation response after the MWC override, agreeing on the form, content, and target of any regulatory report or presentation so that the escalation was consistent, complete, and effective in protecting public health.
generated at time: 2026-06-05T11:23:42.907966+00:00
was attributed to: Case 76 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

Engineers A B Drinking Water Safety
type: SafetyConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
constrained entity: Engineer A
constrained entity: Engineer B
case context: Old service pipes in the MWC service area posed a confirmed risk of leaching lead above drinking water standards if the water source was changed before corrosion control improvements were in place. This safety constraint established the technical and regulatory basis for the engineers' recommendation to delay the transition.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.95
constrained entity: Engineers A and B
constraint class: Safety Constraint
constraint statement: Engineers A and B were constrained by the safety requirement that any change to the MWC water supply not result in lead or other contaminants leaching from old service pipes at levels exceeding applicable drinking water standards, requiring that corrosion control improvements be completed before the water source change was implemented.
severity: critical
source: Federal and state drinking water standards; NSPE Code Section II.1
temporal scope: Throughout the water source change planning and implementation process
text references: The improvements are needed prior to the change in water source to ensure that sufficient corrosion control is provided so that old service pipes in the MWC service area don't leach lead at levels in excess of drinking water standards
discovered in case: 76
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: facts
first discovered at: 2026-06-05T11:25:13.430491+00:00
first discovered in case: 76
match confidence: 0.95
match reasoning: Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Safety Constraint'
matched ontology class: SafetyConstraint
matched ontology label: Safety Constraint
matches existing: true
source text: The improvements are needed prior to the change in water source to ensure that sufficient corrosion control is provided so that old service pipes in the MWC service area don't leach lead at levels in excess of drinking water standards
synthesis literal: caseContext
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: constraintClass
synthesis literal: constraintStatement
synthesis literal: severity
synthesis literal: source
synthesis literal: temporalScope
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineers A and B were constrained by the safety requirement that any change to the MWC water supply not result in lead or other contaminants leaching from old service pipes at levels exceeding applicable drinking water standards, requiring that corrosion control improvements be completed before the water source change was implemented.
generated at time: 2026-06-05T11:25:13.430491+00:00
was attributed to: Case 76 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

Engineers A B Formal Regulatory Presentation
type: FormalRegulatoryPresentationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
possessed by: Engineer A
possessed by: Engineer B
capability class: Formal Regulatory Presentation Capability
capability statement: Engineers A and B were required to prepare and deliver a formal presentation of their facts, findings, and recommendations to the state regulatory agency, going beyond informal contact to a structured formal submission.
case context: The case analysis determined that while the state regulatory agency had been contacted, a formal presentation of facts, findings, and recommendations was still required.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.87
demonstrated through: Recognition that informal contact with the state regulatory agency was insufficient and that a formal presentation of facts, findings, and recommendations was required.
possessed by: Engineers A and B
proficiency level: advanced
text references: The formal presentations satisfy Engineer A's and Engineer B's duty to report.
text references: there should be a formal presentation of the facts, findings, and recommendations.
discovered in case: 76
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: discussion
first discovered at: 2026-06-05T11:29:39.466339+00:00
first discovered in case: 76
match confidence: 0.72
match reasoning: Via class 'Formal Regulatory Presentation Capability': Safety Disclosure Escalation Capability covers recognizing when internal resolution has failed and escalating to regulatory authorities. The present capability is more specific in requiring the ability to prepare and deliver a formal structured presentation to a regulatory body, which is a distinct communicative and procedural competency beyond merely deciding to escalate. It is a variant warranting medium-confidence match.
matched ontology class: SafetyDisclosureEscalationCapability
matched ontology label: Safety Disclosure Escalation Capability
matches existing: true
source text: there should be a formal presentation of the facts, findings, and recommendations.
synthesis literal: capabilityClass
synthesis literal: capabilityStatement
synthesis literal: caseContext
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: demonstratedThrough
synthesis literal: proficiencyLevel
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineers A and B were required to prepare and deliver a formal presentation of their facts, findings, and recommendations to the state regulatory agency, going beyond informal contact to a structured formal submission.
generated at time: 2026-06-05T11:29:39.466339+00:00
was attributed to: Case 76 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

Engineers A B Formal Regulatory Presentation
type: FormalPresentationConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
constrained entity: Engineer A
constrained entity: Engineer B
case context: Engineers A and B jointly recommended that corrosion control improvements be completed before the MWC changed its water source. The MWC overruled this recommendation. The state regulatory agency had been contacted informally, but the Board of Ethical Review found that a formal presentation of facts, findings, and recommendations was required.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.9
constrained entity: Engineers A and B
constraint class: Formal Presentation Constraint
constraint statement: Engineers A and B were constrained to make a formal written presentation of facts, findings, and recommendations to the state regulatory agency, because prior informal contact with that agency did not satisfy the professional obligation to notify appropriate authorities after the MWC overruled their safety recommendations.
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.1.a
temporal scope: After the MWC voted to proceed with the water source change over the joint recommendation of Engineers A and B
text references: The formal presentations satisfy Engineer A's and Engineer B's duty to report
text references: it appears that the state regulatory agency has been contacted; however, there should be a formal presentation of the facts, findings, and recommendations
discovered in case: 76
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: discussion
first discovered at: 2026-06-05T11:29:35.133297+00:00
first discovered in case: 76
match confidence: 0.75
match reasoning: Via class 'Formal Presentation Constraint': The Verbal Only Report Constraint addresses the prohibition on treating verbal or informal communication as a substitute for a written report submitted to a public authority. The present constraint is a variant that applies specifically to regulatory escalation after a client override, requiring formal written presentation rather than informal contact. The core concept is the same but the context is escalation rather than initial reporting, so a medium-confidence variant match is appropriate.
matched ontology class: VerbalOnlyReportConstraint
matched ontology label: Verbal Only Report Constraint
matches existing: true
source text: it appears that the state regulatory agency has been contacted; however, there should be a formal presentation of the facts, findings, and recommendations
synthesis literal: caseContext
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: constraintClass
synthesis literal: constraintStatement
synthesis literal: severity
synthesis literal: source
synthesis literal: temporalScope
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineers A and B were constrained to make a formal written presentation of facts, findings, and recommendations to the state regulatory agency, because prior informal contact with that agency did not satisfy the professional obligation to notify appropriate authorities after the MWC overruled their safety recommendations.
generated at time: 2026-06-05T11:29:35.133297+00:00
was attributed to: Case 76 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

Engineers A B Joint Recommendation
type: JointRecommendationCoordinationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
possessed by: Engineer A
possessed by: Engineer B
capability class: Joint Recommendation Coordination Capability
capability statement: Engineers A and B demonstrated the capability to coordinate their independently reached convergent conclusions into a unified joint recommendation presented to the MWC, ensuring the shared technical basis was accurately represented.
case context: Engineers A and B presented their findings and recommendations jointly to the MWC, which then overruled those recommendations.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstrated through: Joint presentation of facts, findings, and recommendations to the MWC regarding water treatment and corrosion control requirements.
possessed by: Engineers A and B
proficiency level: advanced
text references: It is important to note that Engineers A and B have presented the findings and recommendations jointly and, as such, their actions should be in concert, although not identical.
discovered in case: 76
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: discussion
first discovered at: 2026-06-05T11:29:39.466339+00:00
first discovered in case: 76
match confidence: 0.0
matches existing: false
source text: It is important to note that Engineers A and B have presented the findings and recommendations jointly and, as such, their actions should be in concert, although not identical.
synthesis literal: capabilityClass
synthesis literal: capabilityStatement
synthesis literal: caseContext
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: demonstratedThrough
synthesis literal: proficiencyLevel
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineers A and B demonstrated the capability to coordinate their independently reached convergent conclusions into a unified joint recommendation presented to the MWC, ensuring the shared technical basis was accurately represented.
generated at time: 2026-06-05T11:29:39.466339+00:00
was attributed to: Case 76 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

Engineers A B Joint Recommendation Coordination
type: JointRecommendationCoordinationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
possessed by: Engineer A
possessed by: Engineer B
capability class: Joint Recommendation Coordination Capability
capability statement: Engineers A and B demonstrated the capability to coordinate their independent technical findings into a unified joint recommendation presented to the MWC, ensuring that the shared professional basis for the recommendation was clearly communicated.
case context: Engineer A as chief engineer and Engineer B as retained consultant coordinated their findings and jointly presented to the MWC before the governing body voted to override their recommendation.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.85
demonstrated through: Joint meeting with the MWC at which both engineers presented a coordinated recommendation to delay the water source change until improvements were completed.
possessed by: Engineers A and B jointly
proficiency level: advanced
text references: Both Engineer A and Engineer B met with the MWC at a meeting sparsely attended by the public and recommended that the change in water source be substantially delayed until improvements could be completed.
discovered in case: 76
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: facts
first discovered at: 2026-06-05T11:25:14.530972+00:00
first discovered in case: 76
match confidence: 0.0
matches existing: false
source text: Both Engineer A and Engineer B met with the MWC at a meeting sparsely attended by the public and recommended that the change in water source be substantially delayed until improvements could be completed.
synthesis literal: capabilityClass
synthesis literal: capabilityStatement
synthesis literal: caseContext
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: demonstratedThrough
synthesis literal: proficiencyLevel
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineers A and B demonstrated the capability to coordinate their independent technical findings into a unified joint recommendation presented to the MWC, ensuring that the shared professional basis for the recommendation was clearly communicated.
generated at time: 2026-06-05T11:25:14.530972+00:00
was attributed to: Case 76 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

Engineers A B Override Escalation
type: OverrideEscalationJudgmentCapability
type: NamedIndividual
possessed by: Engineer A
possessed by: Engineer B
capability class: Override Escalation Judgment Capability
capability statement: Engineers A and B were required to exercise the capability to recognize that the MWC override of their joint recommendation created an obligation to escalate the public health risk to the state regulatory authority, and to identify the correct form and content of that escalation.
case context: After the MWC voted to proceed with the water source change over the joint engineering recommendation, Engineers A and B were obligated to escalate to the state regulatory agency.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstrated through: Recognition that the MWC override triggered an obligation to contact the state regulatory agency and make a formal presentation of facts, findings, and recommendations.
possessed by: Engineers A and B
proficiency level: advanced
text references: If Engineers A and B believe life or property is endangered, Section II.1.a. provides that not only shall the employer or client be notified, but also all other appropriate authorities.
text references: It appears that the state regulatory agency has been contacted; however, there should be a formal presentation of the facts, findings, and recommendations.
discovered in case: 76
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: discussion
first discovered at: 2026-06-05T11:29:39.466339+00:00
first discovered in case: 76
match confidence: 0.0
matches existing: false
source text: If Engineers A and B believe life or property is endangered, Section II.1.a. provides that not only shall the employer or client be notified, but also all other appropriate authorities.
synthesis literal: capabilityClass
synthesis literal: capabilityStatement
synthesis literal: caseContext
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: demonstratedThrough
synthesis literal: proficiencyLevel
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineers A and B were required to exercise the capability to recognize that the MWC override of their joint recommendation created an obligation to escalate the public health risk to the state regulatory authority, and to identify the correct form and content of that escalation.
generated at time: 2026-06-05T11:29:39.466339+00:00
was attributed to: Case 76 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

Engineers A B Post-Presentation Persistence
type: Post-PresentationPersistenceCapability
type: NamedIndividual
possessed by: Engineer A
possessed by: Engineer B
capability class: Post-Presentation Persistence Capability
capability statement: Engineers A and B were required to recognize that completing formal presentations to the MWC and the state regulatory agency did not exhaust their professional obligation if those presentations failed to resolve the public health risk, and to identify and pursue additional available channels.
case context: The case analysis determined that Engineers A and B had an obligation to further pursue the matter through additional channels if formal presentations to the MWC and the state regulatory agency failed to resolve the situation.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.85
demonstrated through: Recognition that the gravity of the danger to public health and safety required further pursuit of the matter beyond initial formal presentations if those presentations failed to change the MWC's plans.
possessed by: Engineers A and B
proficiency level: advanced
text references: in the event that these formal presentations fail to sway the MWC to change its plans, given the gravity of the danger to public health and safety, Engineers A and B have an obligation to further pursue the matter.
discovered in case: 76
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: discussion
first discovered at: 2026-06-05T11:29:39.466339+00:00
first discovered in case: 76
match confidence: 0.0
matches existing: false
source text: in the event that these formal presentations fail to sway the MWC to change its plans, given the gravity of the danger to public health and safety, Engineers A and B have an obligation to further pursue the matter.
synthesis literal: capabilityClass
synthesis literal: capabilityStatement
synthesis literal: caseContext
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: demonstratedThrough
synthesis literal: proficiencyLevel
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineers A and B were required to recognize that completing formal presentations to the MWC and the state regulatory agency did not exhaust their professional obligation if those presentations failed to resolve the public health risk, and to identify and pursue additional available channels.
generated at time: 2026-06-05T11:29:39.466339+00:00
was attributed to: Case 76 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

Engineers A B Post-Presentation Persistence
type: Post-OverridePersistenceConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
constrained entity: Engineer A
constrained entity: Engineer B
case context: The Board of Ethical Review found that formal presentations to the client and regulatory authority satisfy the initial duty to report, but that the gravity of the public health danger creates a continuing obligation to pursue the matter further if those presentations are ineffective.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.88
constrained entity: Engineers A and B
constraint class: Post-Override Persistence Constraint
constraint statement: Engineers A and B were constrained to continue pursuing resolution through additional available channels if their formal presentations to the MWC and the state regulatory agency failed to change the MWC's plans, given the gravity of the danger to public health and safety.
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.1
temporal scope: After formal presentations to the MWC and the state regulatory agency, if those presentations fail to produce a change in the MWC's plans
text references: in the event that these formal presentations fail to sway the MWC to change its plans, given the gravity of the danger to public health and safety, Engineers A and B have an obligation to further pursue the matter
discovered in case: 76
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: discussion
first discovered at: 2026-06-05T11:29:35.133297+00:00
first discovered in case: 76
match confidence: 0.75
match reasoning: Via class 'Post-Override Persistence Constraint': The Regulatory Escalation Constraint requires an engineer whose client has overridden a safety recommendation to report the risk to appropriate regulatory authorities. The present constraint extends that concept to require continued pursuit beyond the initial formal presentation if that presentation fails to produce a change in the client's plans. It is a variant that adds the persistence dimension to the escalation obligation. Medium-confidence variant match is appropriate.
matched ontology class: RegulatoryEscalationConstraint
matched ontology label: Regulatory Escalation Constraint
matches existing: true
source text: in the event that these formal presentations fail to sway the MWC to change its plans, given the gravity of the danger to public health and safety, Engineers A and B have an obligation to further pursue the matter
synthesis literal: caseContext
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: constraintClass
synthesis literal: constraintStatement
synthesis literal: severity
synthesis literal: source
synthesis literal: temporalScope
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineers A and B were constrained to continue pursuing resolution through additional available channels if their formal presentations to the MWC and the state regulatory agency failed to change the MWC's plans, given the gravity of the danger to public health and safety.
generated at time: 2026-06-05T11:29:35.133297+00:00
was attributed to: Case 76 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

Engineers A B Precedent Application
type: PrecedentApplicationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
possessed by: Engineer A
possessed by: Engineer B
capability class: Precedent Application Capability
capability statement: Engineers A and B were required to identify and apply prior NSPE Board of Ethical Review rulings addressing the duty to report public safety risks and the obligation to hold paramount public health, and to reason from those precedents to determine appropriate conduct after the MWC override.
case context: The NSPE Board of Ethical Review applied multiple prior cases as precedents to establish the obligations of Engineers A and B after the MWC override.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstrated through: The case analysis explicitly applied BER Case No. 00-5, BER Case No. 19-10, and BER Case No. 89-7 as precedents establishing the duty to report and the paramount obligation to public safety.
possessed by: Engineers A and B
proficiency level: advanced
text references: In BER Case No. 89-7, Engineer A was retained to investigate the structural components of an apartment building.
text references: In a case that has been cited many times, BER Case No. 00-5 centered on the reopening of a dangerous, closed bridge by a nonengineer public works director.
text references: More recently, in BER Case No. 19-10 Engineer A was hired by Client B to provide a building investigation after a fire.
discovered in case: 76
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: discussion
first discovered at: 2026-06-05T11:29:39.466339+00:00
first discovered in case: 76
match confidence: 0.95
match reasoning: Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Precedent Application Capability'
matched ontology class: PrecedentApplicationCapability
matched ontology label: Precedent Application Capability
matches existing: true
source text: In a case that has been cited many times, BER Case No. 00-5 centered on the reopening of a dangerous, closed bridge by a nonengineer public works director.
synthesis literal: capabilityClass
synthesis literal: capabilityStatement
synthesis literal: caseContext
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: demonstratedThrough
synthesis literal: proficiencyLevel
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineers A and B were required to identify and apply prior NSPE Board of Ethical Review rulings addressing the duty to report public safety risks and the obligation to hold paramount public health, and to reason from those precedents to determine appropriate conduct after the MWC override.
generated at time: 2026-06-05T11:29:39.466339+00:00
was attributed to: Case 76 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

Engineers A B Preliminary Risk Disclosure
type: PreliminaryRiskDisclosureConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
constrained entity: Engineer A
constrained entity: Engineer B
case context: Engineer B's report identified the lead leaching risk and the need for prior corrosion control improvements. Both engineers presented this risk to the MWC before the vote. The preliminary risk disclosure constraint required that this disclosure be made clearly and completely so the MWC could make an informed decision, which the joint presentation at the MWC meeting satisfied.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.88
constrained entity: Engineers A and B
constraint class: Preliminary Risk Disclosure Constraint
constraint statement: Engineers A and B were constrained to disclose to the MWC the specific, quantified risk that proceeding with the water source change before completing corrosion control improvements would cause lead to leach from old service pipes at levels exceeding drinking water standards, even before a full remediation plan was in place.
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code Section II.1; NSPE Code Section II.1.a
temporal scope: Prior to and at the MWC meeting at which the source change decision was made
text references: Both Engineer A and Engineer B met with the MWC at a meeting sparsely attended by the public and recommended that the change in water source be substantially delayed until improvements could be completed
text references: The improvements are needed prior to the change in water source to ensure that sufficient corrosion control is provided so that old service pipes in the MWC service area don't leach lead at levels in excess of drinking water standards
discovered in case: 76
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: facts
first discovered at: 2026-06-05T11:25:13.430491+00:00
first discovered in case: 76
match confidence: 0.95
match reasoning: Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Preliminary Risk Disclosure Constraint'
matched ontology class: PreliminaryRiskDisclosureConstraint
matched ontology label: Preliminary Risk Disclosure Constraint
matches existing: true
source text: Both Engineer A and Engineer B met with the MWC at a meeting sparsely attended by the public and recommended that the change in water source be substantially delayed until improvements could be completed
synthesis literal: caseContext
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: constraintClass
synthesis literal: constraintStatement
synthesis literal: severity
synthesis literal: source
synthesis literal: temporalScope
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineers A and B were constrained to disclose to the MWC the specific, quantified risk that proceeding with the water source change before completing corrosion control improvements would cause lead to leach from old service pipes at levels exceeding drinking water standards, even before a full remediation plan was in place.
generated at time: 2026-06-05T11:25:13.430491+00:00
was attributed to: Case 76 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

Engineers A B Project Failure Notification
type: ProjectSuccessNotificationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
possessed by: Engineer A
possessed by: Engineer B
capability class: Project Success Notification Capability
capability statement: Engineers A and B were required to formally advise the MWC in writing that the project would not be successful, defined as the public not being endangered, without prior completion of corrosion control and water treatment improvements.
case context: Engineers A and B were obligated to formally notify the MWC that the project would not be successful if defined as ensuring the public would not be endangered.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstrated through: Obligation to advise the MWC formally that the water source change would not achieve safe outcomes without the recommended safeguards.
possessed by: Engineers A and B
proficiency level: advanced
text references: if project success is defined as 'the public will not be endangered at all,' then Engineers A and B should advise their client that they believe the project will not be successful.
text references: this advisement should proceed in a formal manner.
discovered in case: 76
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: discussion
first discovered at: 2026-06-05T11:29:39.466339+00:00
first discovered in case: 76
match confidence: 0.95
match reasoning: Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Project Success Notification Capability'
matched ontology class: ProjectSuccessNotificationCapability
matched ontology label: Project Success Notification Capability
matches existing: true
source text: if project success is defined as 'the public will not be endangered at all,' then Engineers A and B should advise their client that they believe the project will not be successful.
synthesis literal: capabilityClass
synthesis literal: capabilityStatement
synthesis literal: caseContext
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: demonstratedThrough
synthesis literal: proficiencyLevel
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineers A and B were required to formally advise the MWC in writing that the project would not be successful, defined as the public not being endangered, without prior completion of corrosion control and water treatment improvements.
generated at time: 2026-06-05T11:29:39.466339+00:00
was attributed to: Case 76 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

Engineers A B Project Success Advisory
type: UnsuccessfulProjectAdvisoryConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
constrained entity: Engineer A
constrained entity: Engineer B
case context: The Board of Ethical Review found that if project success is defined as the public not being endangered, Engineers A and B were required to advise the MWC formally that the project would not be successful under that definition, and that this advisement should proceed in a formal manner.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.9
constrained entity: Engineers A and B
constraint class: Unsuccessful Project Advisory Constraint
constraint statement: Engineers A and B were constrained to formally advise the MWC in writing that the project would not be successful, defined as the public not being endangered, if the water source change proceeded without prior completion of corrosion control improvements.
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics, professional ethics principles requiring engineers to advise clients of project failure risks
temporal scope: Before or concurrent with the escalation to the state regulatory agency
text references: if project success is defined as 'the public will not be endangered at all,' then Engineers A and B should advise their client that they believe the project will not be successful
text references: this advisement should proceed in a formal manner
discovered in case: 76
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: discussion
first discovered at: 2026-06-05T11:29:35.133297+00:00
first discovered in case: 76
match confidence: 0.95
match reasoning: Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Unsuccessful Project Advisory Constraint'
matched ontology class: UnsuccessfulProjectAdvisoryConstraint
matched ontology label: Unsuccessful Project Advisory Constraint
matches existing: true
source text: if project success is defined as 'the public will not be endangered at all,' then Engineers A and B should advise their client that they believe the project will not be successful
synthesis literal: caseContext
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: constraintClass
synthesis literal: constraintStatement
synthesis literal: severity
synthesis literal: source
synthesis literal: temporalScope
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineers A and B were constrained to formally advise the MWC in writing that the project would not be successful, defined as the public not being endangered, if the water source change proceeded without prior completion of corrosion control improvements.
generated at time: 2026-06-05T11:29:35.133297+00:00
was attributed to: Case 76 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

Engineers A B Project Success Notification
type: UnsuccessfulProjectAdvisoryConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
constrained entity: Engineer A
constrained entity: Engineer B
case context: The joint recommendation to substantially delay the water source change until improvements were completed constituted the required advisory notification that the project as proposed by the MWC would not succeed in protecting public health. The constraint required this advisory to be given before the MWC voted, which the joint presentation satisfied.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.87
constrained entity: Engineers A and B
constraint class: Unsuccessful Project Advisory Constraint
constraint statement: Engineers A and B were constrained to advise the MWC that the water source change would not achieve safe outcomes without prior completion of corrosion control improvements, and that proceeding simultaneously with the transition and the improvements would result in project failure in the safety dimension.
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code Section II.1; professional ethics provisions on advising clients of project success prospects
temporal scope: Prior to and at the MWC meeting at which the source change decision was made
text references: Both Engineer A and Engineer B met with the MWC at a meeting sparsely attended by the public and recommended that the change in water source be substantially delayed until improvements could be completed
discovered in case: 76
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: facts
first discovered at: 2026-06-05T11:25:13.430491+00:00
first discovered in case: 76
match confidence: 0.95
match reasoning: Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Unsuccessful Project Advisory Constraint'
matched ontology class: UnsuccessfulProjectAdvisoryConstraint
matched ontology label: Unsuccessful Project Advisory Constraint
matches existing: true
source text: Both Engineer A and Engineer B met with the MWC at a meeting sparsely attended by the public and recommended that the change in water source be substantially delayed until improvements could be completed
synthesis literal: caseContext
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: constraintClass
synthesis literal: constraintStatement
synthesis literal: severity
synthesis literal: source
synthesis literal: temporalScope
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineers A and B were constrained to advise the MWC that the water source change would not achieve safe outcomes without prior completion of corrosion control improvements, and that proceeding simultaneously with the transition and the improvements would result in project failure in the safety dimension.
generated at time: 2026-06-05T11:25:13.430491+00:00
was attributed to: Case 76 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

Engineers A B Public Safety Reporting
type: PublicSafetyReportingCapability
type: NamedIndividual
possessed by: Engineer A
possessed by: Engineer B
capability class: Public Safety Reporting Capability
capability statement: Engineers A and B were required to recognize that the professional obligation to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public took precedence over duties of loyalty to the MWC, and to act on that recognition by taking affirmative steps including regulatory reporting even though doing so was adverse to the MWC's interests.
case context: After the MWC overruled their joint recommendations, Engineers A and B were obligated to report the public health risk to the state regulatory authority regardless of the MWC's preferences.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.92
demonstrated through: Obligation to report the public health risk to the state regulatory authority after the MWC overruled their joint engineering recommendations.
possessed by: Engineers A and B
proficiency level: advanced
text references: The formal presentations satisfy Engineer A's and Engineer B's duty to report.
text references: not only shall the employer or client be notified, but also all other appropriate authorities.
discovered in case: 76
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: discussion
first discovered at: 2026-06-05T11:29:39.466339+00:00
first discovered in case: 76
match confidence: 0.95
match reasoning: Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Public Safety Reporting Capability'
matched ontology class: PublicSafetyReportingCapability
matched ontology label: Public Safety Reporting Capability
matches existing: true
source text: not only shall the employer or client be notified, but also all other appropriate authorities.
synthesis literal: capabilityClass
synthesis literal: capabilityStatement
synthesis literal: caseContext
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: demonstratedThrough
synthesis literal: proficiencyLevel
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineers A and B were required to recognize that the professional obligation to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public took precedence over duties of loyalty to the MWC, and to act on that recognition by taking affirmative steps including regulatory reporting even though doing so was adverse to the MWC's interests.
generated at time: 2026-06-05T11:29:39.466339+00:00
was attributed to: Case 76 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

Engineers A B Regulatory Escalation
type: RegulatoryEscalationConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
constrained entity: Engineer A
constrained entity: Engineer B
case context: The MWC voted to proceed with the water source change before corrosion control improvements were in place, creating a confirmed risk of lead leaching above drinking water standards. Engineers A and B had identified this risk and had their recommendation overruled, triggering the obligation to escalate to the state regulatory agency. The constraint prohibited them from remaining silent after the override.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.93
constrained entity: Engineers A and B
constraint class: Regulatory Escalation Constraint
constraint statement: After the MWC overrode the joint safety recommendation, Engineers A and B were constrained by the safety and ethical obligation to report the confirmed public health risk to the appropriate regulatory authority, and were prohibited from treating the MWC's override as a final resolution that extinguished further professional duty.
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code Section II.1.a; NSPE Code Section II.1.c
temporal scope: From the MWC override vote forward, until formal notification to the appropriate regulatory authority was completed
text references: Despite those recommendations, the MWC voted to proceed simultaneously with the accelerated evaluation and design of needed water treatment improvements and the change in water source
text references: The improvements are needed prior to the change in water source to ensure that sufficient corrosion control is provided so that old service pipes in the MWC service area don't leach lead at levels in excess of drinking water standards
discovered in case: 76
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: facts
first discovered at: 2026-06-05T11:25:13.430491+00:00
first discovered in case: 76
match confidence: 0.95
match reasoning: Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Regulatory Escalation Constraint'
matched ontology class: RegulatoryEscalationConstraint
matched ontology label: Regulatory Escalation Constraint
matches existing: true
source text: Despite those recommendations, the MWC voted to proceed simultaneously with the accelerated evaluation and design of needed water treatment improvements and the change in water source
synthesis literal: caseContext
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: constraintClass
synthesis literal: constraintStatement
synthesis literal: severity
synthesis literal: source
synthesis literal: temporalScope
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: After the MWC overrode the joint safety recommendation, Engineers A and B were constrained by the safety and ethical obligation to report the confirmed public health risk to the appropriate regulatory authority, and were prohibited from treating the MWC's override as a final resolution that extinguished further professional duty.
generated at time: 2026-06-05T11:25:13.430491+00:00
was attributed to: Case 76 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

Engineers A B Regulatory Escalation After Override
type: RegulatoryEscalationConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
constrained entity: Engineer A
constrained entity: Engineer B
case context: The MWC rejected the recommendation that corrosion control improvements be completed before the water source change, creating a confirmed risk of lead leaching above drinking water standards. NSPE Code Section II.1.a requires notification of all appropriate authorities when professional judgment is overruled and life or property is endangered.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.93
constrained entity: Engineers A and B
constraint class: Regulatory Escalation Constraint
constraint statement: Engineers A and B were constrained to report the confirmed public health risk to the state regulatory authority after the MWC overruled their joint safety recommendations, because the client override created a condition endangering public welfare that could not be resolved within the professional relationship.
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.1.a
temporal scope: After the MWC voted to proceed with the water source change over the joint recommendation of Engineers A and B
text references: If Engineers A and B believe life or property is endangered, Section II.1.a. provides that not only shall the employer or client be notified, but also all other appropriate authorities
discovered in case: 76
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: discussion
first discovered at: 2026-06-05T11:29:35.133297+00:00
first discovered in case: 76
match confidence: 0.95
match reasoning: Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Regulatory Escalation Constraint'
matched ontology class: RegulatoryEscalationConstraint
matched ontology label: Regulatory Escalation Constraint
matches existing: true
source text: If Engineers A and B believe life or property is endangered, Section II.1.a. provides that not only shall the employer or client be notified, but also all other appropriate authorities
synthesis literal: caseContext
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: constraintClass
synthesis literal: constraintStatement
synthesis literal: severity
synthesis literal: source
synthesis literal: temporalScope
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineers A and B were constrained to report the confirmed public health risk to the state regulatory authority after the MWC overruled their joint safety recommendations, because the client override created a condition endangering public welfare that could not be resolved within the professional relationship.
generated at time: 2026-06-05T11:29:35.133297+00:00
was attributed to: Case 76 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

MWC Simultaneous Transition Safety
type: SimultaneousTransitionSafetyConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
constrained entity: Engineer A
constrained entity: Engineer B
case context: Engineer B's evaluation recommended extensive capital investments and a three-year timeline for corrosion control improvements before the water source change. The MWC voted to proceed with the change before those improvements were completed, creating a confirmed risk of lead leaching above drinking water standards.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.92
constrained entity: Engineers A and B
constraint class: Simultaneous Transition Safety Constraint
constraint statement: Engineers A and B were constrained to refuse to endorse or facilitate the MWC's plan to proceed with the water source change simultaneously with or before the completion of required corrosion control improvements, because the professional engineering assessment established that the safety improvements must be completed before the transition to protect public health.
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.1
temporal scope: From the time Engineer B's water treatment evaluation established the need for prior corrosion control improvements
text references: If Engineers A and B believe life or property is endangered, Section II.1.a. provides that not only shall the employer or client be notified, but also all other appropriate authorities
discovered in case: 76
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: discussion
first discovered at: 2026-06-05T11:29:35.133297+00:00
first discovered in case: 76
match confidence: 0.0
matches existing: false
source text: If Engineers A and B believe life or property is endangered, Section II.1.a. provides that not only shall the employer or client be notified, but also all other appropriate authorities
synthesis literal: caseContext
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: constraintClass
synthesis literal: constraintStatement
synthesis literal: severity
synthesis literal: source
synthesis literal: temporalScope
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineers A and B were constrained to refuse to endorse or facilitate the MWC's plan to proceed with the water source change simultaneously with or before the completion of required corrosion control improvements, because the professional engineering assessment established that the safety improvements must be completed before the transition to protect public health.
generated at time: 2026-06-05T11:29:35.133297+00:00
was attributed to: Case 76 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

MWC Water Treatment Evaluation Report
type: WaterTreatmentEngineeringReportResource
type: NamedIndividual
available to: Engineer A
available to: Engineer B
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.87
created by: Engineer B
document title: Water Treatment Needs Evaluation Report for Metropolitan Water Commission Source Change
resource class: Water Treatment Engineering Report Resource
text references: Engineer B, a consulting engineer retained by the MWC charged with evaluating water treatment needs for the change in water source, provided a report to Engineer A recommending extensive capital investments and a three-year timeline for further evaluation of water quality, design, and construction of improvements
used by: Engineer A and Engineer B
used in context: Engineer B's report recommended extensive capital investments and a three-year timeline for evaluation, design, and construction of corrosion control improvements before changing the water supply source from remote reservoirs to the local river.
discovered in case: 76
discovered in pass: 1
discovered in section: facts
first discovered at: 2026-06-05T11:17:15.547667+00:00
first discovered in case: 76
match confidence: 0.0
matches existing: false
source text: Engineer B, a consulting engineer retained by the MWC charged with evaluating water treatment needs for the change in water source, provided a report to Engineer A recommending extensive capital investments and a three-year timeline for further evaluation of water quality, design, and construction of improvements
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: createdBy
synthesis literal: documentTitle
synthesis literal: resourceClass
synthesis literal: textReferences
synthesis literal: usedInContext
comment: Engineer B's report recommended extensive capital investments and a three-year timeline for evaluation, design, and construction of corrosion control improvements before changing the water supply source from remote reservoirs to the local river.
generated at time: 2026-06-05T11:17:15.547667+00:00
was attributed to: Case 76 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

NSPE Code Section II.1
type: NSPECodeProvision
type: NamedIndividual
available to: Engineer A
available to: Engineer B
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.97
created by: National Society of Professional Engineers
document title: NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers, Section II.1
resource class: NSPE Code Provision
text references: The remaining referenced Code sections provide a step-by-step path forward in this case for Engineer A and Engineer B with Section II.1. in mind.
used by: Engineer A and Engineer B
used in context: Cited as the foundational rule of practice requiring engineers to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public, framing the step-by-step path forward for Engineers A and B.
version: Current
discovered in case: 76
discovered in pass: 1
discovered in section: discussion
first discovered at: 2026-06-05T11:18:10.541094+00:00
first discovered in case: 76
match confidence: 0.95
match reasoning: Individual typed as existing ontology class 'NSPE Code Provision'
matched ontology class: NSPECodeProvision
matched ontology label: NSPE Code Provision
matches existing: true
source text: The remaining referenced Code sections provide a step-by-step path forward in this case for Engineer A and Engineer B with Section II.1. in mind.
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: createdBy
synthesis literal: documentTitle
synthesis literal: resourceClass
synthesis literal: textReferences
synthesis literal: usedInContext
synthesis literal: version
comment: Cited as the foundational rule of practice requiring engineers to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public, framing the step-by-step path forward for Engineers A and B.
generated at time: 2026-06-05T11:18:10.541094+00:00
was attributed to: Case 76 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

NSPE Code Section II.1.a
type: NSPECodeProvision
type: NamedIndividual
available to: Engineer A
available to: Engineer B
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.97
created by: National Society of Professional Engineers
document title: NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers, Section II.1.a
resource class: NSPE Code Provision
text references: Section II.1.a. provides that not only shall the employer or client be notified, but also all other appropriate authorities.
used by: Engineer A and Engineer B
used in context: Cited as the specific provision requiring engineers whose judgment is overruled to notify not only the employer or client but also all other appropriate authorities when life or property is endangered.
version: Current
discovered in case: 76
discovered in pass: 1
discovered in section: discussion
first discovered at: 2026-06-05T11:18:10.541094+00:00
first discovered in case: 76
match confidence: 0.95
match reasoning: Individual typed as existing ontology class 'NSPE Code Provision'
matched ontology class: NSPECodeProvision
matched ontology label: NSPE Code Provision
matches existing: true
source text: Section II.1.a. provides that not only shall the employer or client be notified, but also all other appropriate authorities.
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: createdBy
synthesis literal: documentTitle
synthesis literal: resourceClass
synthesis literal: textReferences
synthesis literal: usedInContext
synthesis literal: version
comment: Cited as the specific provision requiring engineers whose judgment is overruled to notify not only the employer or client but also all other appropriate authorities when life or property is endangered.
generated at time: 2026-06-05T11:18:10.541094+00:00
was attributed to: Case 76 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

NSPE Code Section II.1.c
type: NSPECodeProvision
type: NamedIndividual
available to: Engineer A
available to: Engineer B
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.95
created by: National Society of Professional Engineers
document title: NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers, Section II.1.c
resource class: NSPE Code Provision
text references: This action may also address Section II.1.c.
used by: Engineer A and Engineer B
used in context: Referenced as an additional provision potentially addressed by the formal presentation of facts, findings, and recommendations to appropriate authorities.
version: Current
discovered in case: 76
discovered in pass: 1
discovered in section: discussion
first discovered at: 2026-06-05T11:18:10.541094+00:00
first discovered in case: 76
match confidence: 0.95
match reasoning: Individual typed as existing ontology class 'NSPE Code Provision'
matched ontology class: NSPECodeProvision
matched ontology label: NSPE Code Provision
matches existing: true
source text: This action may also address Section II.1.c.
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: createdBy
synthesis literal: documentTitle
synthesis literal: resourceClass
synthesis literal: textReferences
synthesis literal: usedInContext
synthesis literal: version
comment: Referenced as an additional provision potentially addressed by the formal presentation of facts, findings, and recommendations to appropriate authorities.
generated at time: 2026-06-05T11:18:10.541094+00:00
was attributed to: Case 76 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

Water Source Consideration → Engineer Retention
type: CausalChain
type: NamedIndividual
causal language: Engineer B, a consulting engineer retained by the MWC charged with evaluating water treatment needs for the change in water source, provided a report to Engineer A
causal step1: Water Source Consideration -- MWC begins considering switching from remote reservoirs to the local river to cut costs
causal step2: Engineer Retention -- Engineer B is retained to evaluate water treatment needs for the proposed change
cause: Water Source Consideration
cause text: Water Source Consideration
counterfactual: Without the MWC considering a change in water source, there would have been no need to retain Engineer B to evaluate treatment requirements
effect: Engineer Retention
effect text: Engineer Retention
necessary factors: Lack of in-house capacity to fully assess water treatment needs
necessary factors: MWC's decision to consider changing the water supply source
necessary factors: Need to evaluate treatment requirements before any change
responsibility type: direct
responsible agent: Metropolitan Water Commission
responsible agent text: Metropolitan Water Commission (MWC)
sufficient factors: MWC considering a water source change combined with the need for specialized water treatment evaluation
within agent control: true
discovered in section: facts
synthesis literal: causalLanguage
synthesis literal: causalSequence
synthesis literal: counterfactual
synthesis literal: necessaryFactors
synthesis literal: responsibilityType
synthesis literal: sufficientFactors
synthesis literal: withinAgentControl
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

Engineer Retention → Evaluation Report Submission
type: CausalChain
type: NamedIndividual
causal language: Engineer B, a consulting engineer retained by the MWC charged with evaluating water treatment needs for the change in water source, provided a report to Engineer A recommending extensive capital investments and a three-year timeline
causal step1: Engineer Retention -- Engineer B retained to evaluate treatment needs
causal step2: Evaluation Report Submission -- Engineer B submits formal report recommending capital investments and three-year timeline
cause: Engineer Retention
cause text: Engineer Retention
counterfactual: Without being retained to evaluate treatment needs, Engineer B would not have produced the report
effect: Evaluation Report Submission
effect text: Evaluation Report Submission
necessary factors: Engineer B being retained to perform the evaluation
necessary factors: Engineer B's technical analysis of water treatment requirements
necessary factors: Existence of old service pipes susceptible to lead leaching
responsibility type: direct
responsible agent: Engineer B
responsible agent text: Engineer B
sufficient factors: Engineer B retained and conducting evaluation produces a formal report with recommendations
within agent control: true
discovered in section: facts
synthesis literal: causalLanguage
synthesis literal: causalSequence
synthesis literal: counterfactual
synthesis literal: necessaryFactors
synthesis literal: responsibilityType
synthesis literal: sufficientFactors
synthesis literal: withinAgentControl
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

Low Public Attendance → Recommendation Override
type: CausalChain
type: NamedIndividual
causal language: Both Engineer A and Engineer B met with the MWC at a meeting sparsely attended by the public and recommended that the change in water source be substantially delayed
causal step1: Low Public Attendance -- MWC meeting sparsely attended by the public
causal step2: Recommendation Override -- MWC votes to proceed despite engineers' recommendations
cause: Low Public Attendance
cause text: Low Public Attendance
counterfactual: With robust public attendance and scrutiny, the MWC may have been less willing to override the safety recommendation
effect: Recommendation Override
effect text: Recommendation Override
necessary factors: Limited public presence at the decision-making meeting
necessary factors: Reduced public scrutiny or pressure on the MWC
responsibility type: indirect
responsible agent: Metropolitan Water Commission
responsible agent text: Metropolitan Water Commission (MWC)
sufficient factors: Low public attendance combined with MWC's cost-cutting priorities enabled the override without public opposition
within agent control: false
discovered in section: facts
synthesis literal: causalLanguage
synthesis literal: causalSequence
synthesis literal: counterfactual
synthesis literal: necessaryFactors
synthesis literal: responsibilityType
synthesis literal: sufficientFactors
synthesis literal: withinAgentControl
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

Joint Advisory Recommendation → Recommendation Override
type: CausalChain
type: NamedIndividual
causal language: Despite those recommendations, the MWC voted to proceed simultaneously with the accelerated evaluation and design of needed water treatment improvements and the change in water source
causal step1: Joint Advisory Recommendation -- Engineers recommend delaying source change until improvements complete
causal step2: Recommendation Override -- MWC votes to proceed simultaneously, overruling the engineers' judgment
cause: Joint Advisory Recommendation
cause text: Joint Advisory Recommendation
counterfactual: Without a recommendation to delay, there would have been nothing for the MWC to override
effect: Recommendation Override
effect text: Recommendation Override
necessary factors: Existence of the engineers' recommendation to delay
necessary factors: MWC's authority to vote on the matter
necessary factors: MWC's prioritization of cost reduction over delay
responsibility type: direct
responsible agent: Metropolitan Water Commission
responsible agent text: Metropolitan Water Commission (MWC)
sufficient factors: The recommendation presented combined with the MWC's contrary cost-driven decision produces an override
within agent control: true
discovered in section: facts
synthesis literal: causalLanguage
synthesis literal: causalSequence
synthesis literal: counterfactual
synthesis literal: necessaryFactors
synthesis literal: responsibilityType
synthesis literal: sufficientFactors
synthesis literal: withinAgentControl
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

Recommendation Override → Accelerated Project Initiation
type: CausalChain
type: NamedIndividual
causal language: the MWC voted to proceed simultaneously with the accelerated evaluation and design of needed water treatment improvements and the change in water source
causal step1: Recommendation Override -- MWC votes to proceed simultaneously against engineers' advice
causal step2: Accelerated Project Initiation -- Source change and design work begin proceeding simultaneously
cause: Recommendation Override
cause text: Recommendation Override
counterfactual: Without the vote to proceed, the accelerated simultaneous work would not have begun
effect: Accelerated Project Initiation
effect text: Accelerated Project Initiation
necessary factors: Authority to direct project work to begin
necessary factors: MWC vote to proceed simultaneously
responsibility type: direct
responsible agent: Metropolitan Water Commission
responsible agent text: Metropolitan Water Commission (MWC)
sufficient factors: The MWC vote to proceed directly initiates simultaneous source change and design work
within agent control: true
discovered in section: facts
synthesis literal: causalLanguage
synthesis literal: causalSequence
synthesis literal: counterfactual
synthesis literal: necessaryFactors
synthesis literal: responsibilityType
synthesis literal: sufficientFactors
synthesis literal: withinAgentControl
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

Engineers A B Client Consent Independence
type: ClientConsentIndependenceObligation
type: NamedIndividual
defeasible under: MWC Source Change Override
obligated party: Engineer A
obligated party: Engineer B
case context: The MWC, as the client and governing body, overruled the joint engineering recommendations. Engineers A and B were required to report to the state regulatory agency regardless of whether the MWC consented to or approved of that reporting.
compliance status: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.87
obligated party: Engineers A and B jointly
obligation class: Client Consent Independence Obligation
obligation statement: Engineers A and B were obligated to proceed with regulatory notification and formal presentation to the state regulatory agency without seeking or waiting for the MWC's consent, because the paramount duty to public welfare does not require client authorization.
temporal scope: At the point of escalation to the state regulatory agency following the MWC's override.
text references: As Engineers A and B are required to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public, and as this duty is a fundamental canon of the NSPE Code of Ethics, the consent of the MWC is not required.
discovered in case: 76
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: discussion
first discovered at: 2026-06-05T11:28:12.343728+00:00
first discovered in case: 76
match confidence: 0.0
matches existing: false
source text: As Engineers A and B are required to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public, and as this duty is a fundamental canon of the NSPE Code of Ethics, the consent of the MWC is not required.
synthesis literal: caseContext
synthesis literal: complianceStatus
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: obligationClass
synthesis literal: obligationStatement
synthesis literal: temporalScope
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineers A and B were obligated to proceed with regulatory notification and formal presentation to the state regulatory agency without seeking or waiting for the MWC's consent, because the paramount duty to public welfare does not require client authorization.
generated at time: 2026-06-05T11:28:12.343728+00:00
was attributed to: Case 76 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

Engineers A B Concurrent Action Coordination
type: ConcurrentEngineeringActionObligation
type: NamedIndividual
obligated party: Engineer A
obligated party: Engineer B
case context: Engineers A and B jointly presented findings and recommendations to the MWC regarding the water source change and the need for corrosion control improvements. When the MWC overruled those recommendations, their subsequent escalation actions were required to be coordinated.
compliance status: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.85
derived from principle: Engineers A B Concurrent Safety Reporting
obligated party: Engineers A and B jointly
obligation class: Concurrent Engineering Action Obligation
obligation statement: Engineers A and B were obligated to coordinate their escalation actions so that their responses to the MWC override were consistent and mutually reinforcing, even if not identical in form, because they had jointly presented their findings and recommendations.
temporal scope: Throughout the escalation process following the MWC's override of the joint recommendations.
text references: It is important to note that Engineers A and B have presented the findings and recommendations jointly and, as such, their actions should be in concert, although not identical.
discovered in case: 76
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: discussion
first discovered at: 2026-06-05T11:28:12.343728+00:00
first discovered in case: 76
match confidence: 0.82
match reasoning: Via class 'Concurrent Engineering Action Obligation': The Coordinated Escalation Obligation extracted from prior sections captures the duty of jointly presenting engineers to coordinate their escalation response. This class generalizes that concept for reuse across cases where multiple engineers must act in concert after a joint presentation is overruled.
matched ontology class: CoordinatedEscalationObligation
matched ontology label: Coordinated Escalation Obligation
matches existing: true
source text: It is important to note that Engineers A and B have presented the findings and recommendations jointly and, as such, their actions should be in concert, although not identical.
synthesis literal: caseContext
synthesis literal: complianceStatus
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: obligationClass
synthesis literal: obligationStatement
synthesis literal: temporalScope
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineers A and B were obligated to coordinate their escalation actions so that their responses to the MWC override were consistent and mutually reinforcing, even if not identical in form, because they had jointly presented their findings and recommendations.
generated at time: 2026-06-05T11:28:12.343728+00:00
was attributed to: Case 76 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

Engineers A B Drinking Water Safety
type: DrinkingWaterSafetyObligation
type: NamedIndividual
obligated party: Engineer A
obligated party: Engineer B
case context: The MWC planned to change its water supply source from remote reservoirs to the local river. Engineers A and B identified that this change without corrosion control improvements would cause lead leaching from old service pipes at levels exceeding drinking water standards.
compliance status: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.87
derived from principle: Engineers A B Public Welfare Paramountcy
obligated party: Engineers A and B jointly
obligation class: Drinking Water Safety Obligation
obligation statement: Engineers A and B were obligated to ensure that the MWC did not implement the water source change in a manner that would result in drinking water failing to meet health-based standards for lead, and to oppose the change until adequate corrosion control measures were in place.
temporal scope: Throughout the evaluation, recommendation, and escalation process.
text references: Engineers A and B identified that proceeding with the water source change without adequate treatment would endanger public health through lead exposure.
discovered in case: 76
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: discussion
first discovered at: 2026-06-05T11:28:12.343728+00:00
first discovered in case: 76
match confidence: 0.0
matches existing: false
source text: Engineers A and B identified that proceeding with the water source change without adequate treatment would endanger public health through lead exposure.
synthesis literal: caseContext
synthesis literal: complianceStatus
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: obligationClass
synthesis literal: obligationStatement
synthesis literal: temporalScope
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineers A and B were obligated to ensure that the MWC did not implement the water source change in a manner that would result in drinking water failing to meet health-based standards for lead, and to oppose the change until adequate corrosion control measures were in place.
generated at time: 2026-06-05T11:28:12.343728+00:00
was attributed to: Case 76 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

Low Public Attendance
type: Event
type: NamedIndividual
caused by action: Joint Advisory Recommendation
causes state change: Public awareness of the safety risk and engineering recommendations remained limited, reducing the likelihood of public pressure influencing the MWC's decision.
concept category: Event
event type: exogenous
initiates text: Limited Public Awareness State
severity: high
temporal extent: instant
temporal marker: At the time of the joint advisory presentation
temporal sequence: 5
synthesis literal: causesStateChange
synthesis literal: description
synthesis literal: eventType
synthesis literal: severity
synthesis literal: temporalExtent
synthesis literal: temporalMarker
synthesis literal: temporalSequence
comment: The public MWC meeting at which Engineers A and B jointly presented their recommendations was sparsely attended, limiting public awareness of and input on the proposed source change and its risks.
has time: At the time of the joint advisory presentation
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

Formal Authority Notification → Continued Pursuit of Matter
type: CausalChain
type: NamedIndividual
causal language: in the event that these formal presentations fail to sway the MWC to change its plans, given the gravity of the danger to public health and safety, Engineers A and B have an obligation to further pursue the matter
causal step1: Formal Authority Notification -- Engineers formally present facts to authorities and client
causal step2: Project Failure Advisement -- Engineers advise the MWC the project will not be successful
causal step3: Continued Pursuit of Matter -- If presentations fail, engineers further pursue resolution given gravity of danger
cause: Formal Authority Notification
cause text: Formal Authority Notification
counterfactual: Had the formal presentations succeeded in changing MWC's plans, no further pursuit would be obligated
effect: Continued Pursuit of Matter
effect text: Continued Pursuit of Matter
necessary factors: Failure of those presentations to change MWC's plans
necessary factors: Formal presentations having been made
necessary factors: Gravity of the danger to public health and safety
responsibility type: shared
responsible agent: Engineer A
responsible agent: Engineer B
responsible agent text: Engineers A and B
sufficient factors: Failed formal presentations combined with continuing grave danger triggers the obligation to further pursue the matter
within agent control: true
discovered in section: discussion
synthesis literal: causalLanguage
synthesis literal: causalSequence
synthesis literal: counterfactual
synthesis literal: necessaryFactors
synthesis literal: responsibilityType
synthesis literal: sufficientFactors
synthesis literal: withinAgentControl
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

Public Health Risk Identified → Joint Advisory Recommendation
type: CausalChain
type: NamedIndividual
causal language: Both Engineer A and Engineer B met with the MWC at a meeting sparsely attended by the public and recommended that the change in water source be substantially delayed until improvements could be completed
causal step1: Public Health Risk Identified -- Lead leaching risk recognized from premature source change
causal step2: Joint Advisory Recommendation -- Engineers A and B jointly recommend substantial delay until improvements completed
cause: Public Health Risk Identified
cause text: Public Health Risk Identified
counterfactual: Without identifying the health risk, the engineers would have had no basis to recommend delaying the change
effect: Joint Advisory Recommendation
effect text: Joint Advisory Recommendation
necessary factors: Engineers' professional obligation to hold public safety paramount
necessary factors: Identification of the lead leaching public health risk
necessary factors: Opportunity to present at the MWC meeting
responsibility type: shared
responsible agent: Engineer A
responsible agent: Engineer B
responsible agent text: Engineers A and B
sufficient factors: Identified public health risk combined with engineers' duty to protect public produces a joint recommendation to delay
within agent control: true
discovered in section: facts
synthesis literal: causalLanguage
synthesis literal: causalSequence
synthesis literal: counterfactual
synthesis literal: necessaryFactors
synthesis literal: responsibilityType
synthesis literal: sufficientFactors
synthesis literal: withinAgentControl
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

Recommendation Override → Formal Authority Notification
type: CausalChain
type: NamedIndividual
causal language: The engineering judgments of Engineer A and Engineer B were overruled by the MWC. If Engineers A and B believe life or property is endangered, Section II.1.a. provides that not only shall the employer or client be notified, but also all other appropriate authorities
causal step1: Recommendation Override -- MWC overrules the engineers' professional judgment
causal step2: Formal Authority Notification -- Engineers obligated to formally present facts, findings, and recommendations to authorities
cause: Recommendation Override
cause text: Recommendation Override
counterfactual: Had the MWC adopted the recommendation, the obligation to escalate to authorities would not have been triggered
effect: Formal Authority Notification
effect text: Formal Authority Notification
necessary factors: Continued belief that life or property is endangered
necessary factors: MWC overruling the engineers' professional judgment
necessary factors: NSPE Code obligation to notify appropriate authorities
responsibility type: shared
responsible agent: Engineer A
responsible agent: Engineer B
responsible agent text: Engineers A and B
sufficient factors: Override of judgment under endangerment conditions triggers the duty to formally notify all appropriate authorities
within agent control: true
discovered in section: discussion
synthesis literal: causalLanguage
synthesis literal: causalSequence
synthesis literal: counterfactual
synthesis literal: necessaryFactors
synthesis literal: responsibilityType
synthesis literal: sufficientFactors
synthesis literal: withinAgentControl
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

Recommendation Override → Project Failure Advisement
type: CausalChain
type: NamedIndividual
causal language: if project success is defined as "the public will not be endangered at all," then Engineers A and B should advise their client that they believe the project will not be successful
causal step1: Recommendation Override -- MWC proceeds despite recommendation
causal step2: Project Failure Advisement -- Engineers formally advise the MWC the project will not be successful as structured
cause: Recommendation Override
cause text: Recommendation Override
counterfactual: Without the override to proceed without improvements, there would be no basis to advise the project will fail
effect: Project Failure Advisement
effect text: Project Failure Advisement
necessary factors: Definition of project success as not endangering the public
necessary factors: Engineers' assessment that public will be endangered
necessary factors: MWC's decision to proceed simultaneously
responsibility type: shared
responsible agent: Engineer A
responsible agent: Engineer B
responsible agent text: Engineers A and B
sufficient factors: Override combined with the success criterion of public safety triggers the duty to advise of likely failure
within agent control: true
discovered in section: discussion
synthesis literal: causalLanguage
synthesis literal: causalSequence
synthesis literal: counterfactual
synthesis literal: necessaryFactors
synthesis literal: responsibilityType
synthesis literal: sufficientFactors
synthesis literal: withinAgentControl
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

Engineer A Client Economic Pressure Refusal
type: ClientEconomicPressureRefusalObligation
type: NamedIndividual
obligated party: Engineer A
case context: The MWC's motivation for changing the water source was to reduce municipal expenditures and lower water rates. The MWC voted to proceed over the joint engineering recommendation, prioritizing cost savings over the safety-based timeline for completing corrosion control improvements.
compliance status: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.83
derived from principle: Engineers A B Client Override Response
obligation class: Client Economic Pressure Refusal Obligation
obligation statement: Engineer A was obligated to refuse to endorse or facilitate the MWC's decision to proceed with the water source change when that decision was motivated by cost reduction goals and overrode the safety-based recommendation to delay, and to refrain from subordinating the paramount duty to public welfare to the MWC's economic interests.
temporal scope: Following the MWC vote to override the joint engineering recommendation
text references: Despite those recommendations, the MWC voted to proceed simultaneously with the accelerated evaluation and design of needed water treatment improvements and the change in water source.
text references: In order to reduce municipal expenditures and lower water rates, the MWC has been considering changing its water supply source.
discovered in case: 76
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: facts
first discovered at: 2026-06-05T11:23:42.907966+00:00
first discovered in case: 76
match confidence: 0.95
match reasoning: Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Client Economic Pressure Refusal Obligation'
matched ontology class: ClientEconomicPressureRefusalObligation
matched ontology label: Client Economic Pressure Refusal Obligation
matches existing: true
source text: In order to reduce municipal expenditures and lower water rates, the MWC has been considering changing its water supply source.
synthesis literal: caseContext
synthesis literal: complianceStatus
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: obligationClass
synthesis literal: obligationStatement
synthesis literal: temporalScope
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineer A was obligated to refuse to endorse or facilitate the MWC's decision to proceed with the water source change when that decision was motivated by cost reduction goals and overrode the safety-based recommendation to delay, and to refrain from subordinating the paramount duty to public welfare to the MWC's economic interests.
generated at time: 2026-06-05T11:23:42.907966+00:00
was attributed to: Case 76 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

Engineer A Risk Disclosure to MWC
type: PreliminaryRiskDisclosureObligation
type: NamedIndividual
obligated party: Engineer A
case context: Engineer A served as superintendent and chief engineer for the MWC, received Engineer B's report, and jointly presented findings and recommendations to the MWC before the vote on proceeding with the water source change.
compliance status: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.92
derived from principle: Engineers A B Proactive Risk Disclosure
obligation class: Preliminary Risk Disclosure Obligation
obligation statement: Engineer A was obligated to disclose to the MWC the risk that proceeding with the water source change without completing corrosion control improvements would result in lead leaching from old service pipes at levels exceeding drinking water standards, and to recommend delay until improvements were complete.
temporal scope: Before the MWC vote on whether to proceed with the water source change
text references: Both Engineer A and Engineer B met with the MWC at a meeting sparsely attended by the public and recommended that the change in water source be substantially delayed until improvements could be completed.
discovered in case: 76
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: facts
first discovered at: 2026-06-05T11:23:42.907966+00:00
first discovered in case: 76
match confidence: 0.95
match reasoning: Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Preliminary Risk Disclosure Obligation'
matched ontology class: PreliminaryRiskDisclosureObligation
matched ontology label: Preliminary Risk Disclosure Obligation
matches existing: true
source text: Both Engineer A and Engineer B met with the MWC at a meeting sparsely attended by the public and recommended that the change in water source be substantially delayed until improvements could be completed.
synthesis literal: caseContext
synthesis literal: complianceStatus
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: obligationClass
synthesis literal: obligationStatement
synthesis literal: temporalScope
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineer A was obligated to disclose to the MWC the risk that proceeding with the water source change without completing corrosion control improvements would result in lead leaching from old service pipes at levels exceeding drinking water standards, and to recommend delay until improvements were complete.
generated at time: 2026-06-05T11:23:42.907966+00:00
was attributed to: Case 76 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

Engineer B Complete Report to Engineer A
type: CompleteTechnicalReportingObligation
type: NamedIndividual
obligated party: Engineer B
case context: Engineer B was retained to evaluate water treatment needs and reported findings to Engineer A before the joint presentation to the MWC. The completeness of that report was essential to enable Engineer A to fulfill his own obligations as chief engineer.
compliance status: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.88
derived from principle: Engineer B Complete Report to MWC
obligation class: Complete Technical Reporting Obligation
obligation statement: Engineer B was obligated to provide Engineer A with a complete report including all relevant technical findings, the full scope of required improvements, the three-year timeline, and the specific risk of lead leaching from old service pipes if the water source change proceeded without prior corrosion control improvements.
temporal scope: Before the joint presentation to the MWC
text references: Engineer B, a consulting engineer retained by the MWC charged with evaluating water treatment needs for the change in water source, provided a report to Engineer A recommending extensive capital investments and a three-year timeline for further evaluation of water quality, design, and construction of improvements.
discovered in case: 76
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: facts
first discovered at: 2026-06-05T11:23:42.907966+00:00
first discovered in case: 76
match confidence: 0.95
match reasoning: Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Complete Technical Reporting Obligation'
matched ontology class: CompleteTechnicalReportingObligation
matched ontology label: Complete Technical Reporting Obligation
matches existing: true
source text: Engineer B, a consulting engineer retained by the MWC charged with evaluating water treatment needs for the change in water source, provided a report to Engineer A recommending extensive capital investments and a three-year timeline for further evaluation of water quality, design, and construction of improvements.
synthesis literal: caseContext
synthesis literal: complianceStatus
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: obligationClass
synthesis literal: obligationStatement
synthesis literal: temporalScope
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineer B was obligated to provide Engineer A with a complete report including all relevant technical findings, the full scope of required improvements, the three-year timeline, and the specific risk of lead leaching from old service pipes if the water source change proceeded without prior corrosion control improvements.
generated at time: 2026-06-05T11:23:42.907966+00:00
was attributed to: Case 76 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

Engineer B Drinking Water Safety
type: SafetyObligation
type: NamedIndividual
obligated party: Engineer B
case context: Engineer B was retained to evaluate water treatment needs for the proposed water source change. The evaluation identified a specific public health risk from lead leaching that would result if the change proceeded without prior corrosion control improvements.
compliance status: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.9
derived from principle: Engineer B Public Welfare Water Safety
obligation class: Safety Obligation
obligation statement: Engineer B was obligated to ensure that the water treatment evaluation and recommendations were sufficient to protect public health by preventing lead leaching from old service pipes at levels exceeding drinking water standards, and to communicate clearly that the water source change could not safely proceed without prior completion of corrosion control improvements.
temporal scope: Throughout the evaluation engagement and at the time of the MWC presentation
text references: The improvements are needed prior to the change in water source to ensure that sufficient corrosion control is provided so that old service pipes in the MWC service area don't leach lead at levels in excess of drinking water standards.
discovered in case: 76
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: facts
first discovered at: 2026-06-05T11:23:42.907966+00:00
first discovered in case: 76
match confidence: 0.95
match reasoning: Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Safety Obligation'
matched ontology class: SafetyObligation
matched ontology label: Safety Obligation
matches existing: true
source text: The improvements are needed prior to the change in water source to ensure that sufficient corrosion control is provided so that old service pipes in the MWC service area don't leach lead at levels in excess of drinking water standards.
synthesis literal: caseContext
synthesis literal: complianceStatus
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: obligationClass
synthesis literal: obligationStatement
synthesis literal: temporalScope
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineer B was obligated to ensure that the water treatment evaluation and recommendations were sufficient to protect public health by preventing lead leaching from old service pipes at levels exceeding drinking water standards, and to communicate clearly that the water source change could not safely proceed without prior completion of corrosion control improvements.
generated at time: 2026-06-05T11:23:42.907966+00:00
was attributed to: Case 76 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

Engineer B Risk Disclosure to MWC
type: PreliminaryRiskDisclosureObligation
type: NamedIndividual
obligated party: Engineer B
case context: Engineer B was retained by the MWC to evaluate water treatment needs for a proposed change from remote reservoir supply to local river supply. Engineer B's evaluation identified that corrosion control improvements were required before the change to prevent lead leaching from old service pipes.
compliance status: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.92
derived from principle: Engineers A B Proactive Risk Disclosure
obligation class: Preliminary Risk Disclosure Obligation
obligation statement: Engineer B was obligated to disclose to the MWC the specific risk that changing the water source without prior corrosion control improvements would cause old service pipes to leach lead at levels exceeding drinking water standards, including the technical basis and the three-year improvement timeline required to address the risk.
temporal scope: Before the MWC vote on whether to proceed with the water source change
text references: Engineer B, a consulting engineer retained by the MWC charged with evaluating water treatment needs for the change in water source, provided a report to Engineer A recommending extensive capital investments and a three-year timeline for further evaluation of water quality, design, and construction of improvements.
text references: The improvements are needed prior to the change in water source to ensure that sufficient corrosion control is provided so that old service pipes in the MWC service area don't leach lead at levels in excess of drinking water standards.
discovered in case: 76
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: facts
first discovered at: 2026-06-05T11:23:42.907966+00:00
first discovered in case: 76
match confidence: 0.95
match reasoning: Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Preliminary Risk Disclosure Obligation'
matched ontology class: PreliminaryRiskDisclosureObligation
matched ontology label: Preliminary Risk Disclosure Obligation
matches existing: true
source text: Engineer B, a consulting engineer retained by the MWC charged with evaluating water treatment needs for the change in water source, provided a report to Engineer A recommending extensive capital investments and a three-year timeline for further evaluation of water quality, design, and construction of improvements.
synthesis literal: caseContext
synthesis literal: complianceStatus
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: obligationClass
synthesis literal: obligationStatement
synthesis literal: temporalScope
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineer B was obligated to disclose to the MWC the specific risk that changing the water source without prior corrosion control improvements would cause old service pipes to leach lead at levels exceeding drinking water standards, including the technical basis and the three-year improvement timeline required to address the risk.
generated at time: 2026-06-05T11:23:42.907966+00:00
was attributed to: Case 76 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

Engineers A B Client Override Response
type: ClientOverrideRefusalPrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
invoked by: Engineer A
invoked by: Engineer B
applied to: MWC vote to proceed with simultaneous water source change and improvement design
balancing with: Faithful Agent Duty Principle
balancing with: Loyalty
concept category: Principle
concrete expression: The MWC voted to proceed with the water source change simultaneously with evaluation and design of improvements, directly overriding the joint recommendation of Engineers A and B to delay until improvements were completed, requiring Engineers A and B to determine whether to refuse continued participation and escalate.
confidence: 0.95
interpretation: The client override refusal principle requires Engineers A and B to refuse to acquiesce silently to the MWC's decision and to escalate to the state regulatory agency, given that the override creates an unmitigated risk of lead contamination in the public water supply.
invoked by: Engineer A Safety Reporting
invoked by: Engineer B Safety Reporting
principle class: Client Override Refusal Principle
tension resolution: The client override refusal principle requires active response rather than passive compliance; the engineers must escalate to the state regulatory agency and may need to withdraw from the project if the risk cannot be mitigated.
text references: Both Engineer A and Engineer B met with the MWC at a meeting sparsely attended by the public and recommended that the change in water source be substantially delayed until improvements could be completed.
text references: Despite those recommendations, the MWC voted to proceed simultaneously with the accelerated evaluation and design of needed water treatment improvements and the change in water source.
discovered in case: 76
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: facts
first discovered at: 2026-06-05T11:22:15.977522+00:00
first discovered in case: 76
match confidence: 0.95
match reasoning: Via class 'Client Override Refusal Principle': The existing ontology contains 'Client Override Refusal Principle' defined as the professional principle establishing that when a client instructs an engineer to proceed without implementing safety or environmental protective measures that the engineer has identified as necessary, the engineer must refuse to continue work in a manner that would create or perpetuate the identified risk. This is a direct match.
matched ontology class: ClientOverrideRefusalPrinciple
matched ontology label: Client Override Refusal Principle
matches existing: true
source text: Despite those recommendations, the MWC voted to proceed simultaneously with the accelerated evaluation and design of needed water treatment improvements and the change in water source.
synthesis literal: appliedTo
synthesis literal: balancingWith
synthesis literal: concreteExpression
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: interpretation
synthesis literal: principleClass
synthesis literal: tensionResolution
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: The MWC voted to proceed with the water source change simultaneously with evaluation and design of improvements, directly overriding the joint recommendation of Engineers A and B to delay until improvements were completed, requiring Engineers A and B to determine whether to refuse continued participation and escalate.
generated at time: 2026-06-05T11:22:15.977522+00:00
was attributed to: Case 76 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

Engineers A B Graduated Escalation Response
type: GraduatedResponseProportionalityPrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
invoked by: Engineer A
invoked by: Engineer B
applied to: Lead leaching risk from old service pipes
applied to: MWC override of joint safety recommendations
balancing with: Faithful Agent Duty Principle
balancing with: Loyalty
concept category: Principle
concrete expression: Engineers A and B completed the first escalation step by jointly recommending delay to the MWC. Following the override, the graduated response principle requires them to proceed to the next proportionate step of formal written notification to the MWC and presentation of findings to the state regulatory agency.
confidence: 0.91
interpretation: The severity and certainty of the lead leaching risk, combined with the MWC's override of explicit safety recommendations, justifies escalation to the state regulatory agency as the next proportionate step in the graduated response framework.
invoked by: Engineer A Safety Reporting
invoked by: Engineer B Safety Reporting
principle class: Graduated Response Proportionality Principle
tension resolution: The graduated response principle supports escalation to the state regulatory agency as a proportionate and necessary next step, given that the client-level step has been exhausted without resolution.
text references: Both Engineer A and Engineer B met with the MWC at a meeting sparsely attended by the public and recommended that the change in water source be substantially delayed until improvements could be completed.
text references: Despite those recommendations, the MWC voted to proceed simultaneously with the accelerated evaluation and design of needed water treatment improvements and the change in water source.
discovered in case: 76
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: facts
first discovered at: 2026-06-05T11:22:15.977522+00:00
first discovered in case: 76
match confidence: 0.91
match reasoning: Via class 'Graduated Response Proportionality Principle': The existing ontology contains 'Graduated Response Proportionality Principle' defined as requiring engineers to calibrate the urgency and directness of their response to a discovered violation or risk in proportion to the certainty, severity, and legal clarity of the threat, proceeding through escalating steps. This is a direct match to the post-override situation faced by Engineers A and B.
matched ontology class: GraduatedResponseProportionalityPrinciple
matched ontology label: Graduated Response Proportionality Principle
matches existing: true
source text: Despite those recommendations, the MWC voted to proceed simultaneously with the accelerated evaluation and design of needed water treatment improvements and the change in water source.
synthesis literal: appliedTo
synthesis literal: balancingWith
synthesis literal: concreteExpression
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: interpretation
synthesis literal: principleClass
synthesis literal: tensionResolution
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineers A and B completed the first escalation step by jointly recommending delay to the MWC. Following the override, the graduated response principle requires them to proceed to the next proportionate step of formal written notification to the MWC and presentation of findings to the state regulatory agency.
generated at time: 2026-06-05T11:22:15.977522+00:00
was attributed to: Case 76 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

Engineers A B Graduated Response
type: GraduatedResponseProportionalityPrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
invoked by: Engineer A
invoked by: Engineer B
applied to: Metropolitan Water Commission Client
applied to: State Regulatory Agency Authority
balancing with: Faithful Agent Duty Principle
balancing with: Public Welfare Paramountcy Principle
concept category: Principle
concrete expression: Engineers A and B were directed to proceed through escalating steps: first notifying the client, then making formal presentations to the state regulatory agency, and then pursuing further escalation if those formal presentations failed to produce remediation.
confidence: 0.88
interpretation: The graduated response framework requires formal client advisement and formal regulatory presentation before further escalation, but the gravity of the public health risk means the obligation to persist does not end with formal presentations.
invoked by: Engineer A Safety Reporting
invoked by: Engineer B Safety Reporting
principle class: Graduated Response Proportionality Principle
tension resolution: The graduated response is calibrated to the severity of the risk; because the danger to public health is grave, the obligation to persist beyond formal presentations is triggered.
text references: The formal presentations satisfy Engineer A's and Engineer B's duty to report. However, in the event that these formal presentations fail to sway the MWC to change its plans, given the gravity of the danger to public health and safety, Engineers A and B have an obligation to further pursue the matter.
text references: The remaining referenced Code sections provide a step-by-step path forward in this case for Engineer A and Engineer B with Section II.1. in mind.
discovered in case: 76
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: discussion
first discovered at: 2026-06-05T11:26:55.962095+00:00
first discovered in case: 76
match confidence: 0.95
match reasoning: Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Graduated Response Proportionality Principle'
matched ontology class: GraduatedResponseProportionalityPrinciple
matched ontology label: Graduated Response Proportionality Principle
matches existing: true
source text: The remaining referenced Code sections provide a step-by-step path forward in this case for Engineer A and Engineer B with Section II.1. in mind.
synthesis literal: appliedTo
synthesis literal: balancingWith
synthesis literal: concreteExpression
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: interpretation
synthesis literal: principleClass
synthesis literal: tensionResolution
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineers A and B were directed to proceed through escalating steps: first notifying the client, then making formal presentations to the state regulatory agency, and then pursuing further escalation if those formal presentations failed to produce remediation.
generated at time: 2026-06-05T11:26:55.962095+00:00
was attributed to: Case 76 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

MWC Public Funds Stewardship
type: PublicFundsStewardshipPrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
invoked by: Engineer A
invoked by: Engineer B
applied to: MWC infrastructure decision to change water source
applied to: Public funds used for water utility operations
balancing with: Faithful Agent Duty Principle
concept category: Principle
concrete expression: The MWC is a public water utility making infrastructure decisions with public funds. Engineers A and B bear a heightened obligation to ensure the MWC and the public understand the full cost and liability implications of proceeding without adequate water treatment improvements, including regulatory penalties and public health costs.
confidence: 0.87
interpretation: The public funds stewardship principle heightens the engineers' obligation to provide complete and honest advice to the MWC, and to ensure that the public is not misled about the cost-safety tradeoff being made with their funds.
invoked by: Engineer A Water Commission Chief Engineer
invoked by: Engineer B Water Treatment Consultant
principle class: Public Funds Stewardship Principle
tension resolution: The public funds stewardship principle reinforces rather than conflicts with the faithful agent duty in this context; honest and complete advice serves both the MWC's legitimate interests and the public's interest in responsible use of public funds.
text references: Both Engineer A and Engineer B met with the MWC at a meeting sparsely attended by the public and recommended that the change in water source be substantially delayed until improvements could be completed.
text references: In order to reduce municipal expenditures and lower water rates, the MWC has been considering changing its water supply source.
discovered in case: 76
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: facts
first discovered at: 2026-06-05T11:22:15.977522+00:00
first discovered in case: 76
match confidence: 0.87
match reasoning: Via class 'Public Funds Stewardship Principle': The existing ontology contains 'Public Funds Stewardship Principle' defined as establishing that engineers engaged on publicly funded projects bear a heightened responsibility to avoid conduct resulting in unjustified expenditure of public funds and must be honest and complete beyond minimum duties owed to a private client. This matches the MWC context as a public water utility making infrastructure decisions with public funds.
matched ontology class: PublicFundsStewardshipPrinciple
matched ontology label: Public Funds Stewardship Principle
matches existing: true
source text: In order to reduce municipal expenditures and lower water rates, the MWC has been considering changing its water supply source from purchasing water from remote reservoirs from another regional authority to using the local river as the MWC's source.
synthesis literal: appliedTo
synthesis literal: balancingWith
synthesis literal: concreteExpression
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: interpretation
synthesis literal: principleClass
synthesis literal: tensionResolution
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: The MWC is a public water utility making infrastructure decisions with public funds. Engineers A and B bear a heightened obligation to ensure the MWC and the public understand the full cost and liability implications of proceeding without adequate water treatment improvements, including regulatory penalties and public health costs.
generated at time: 2026-06-05T11:22:15.977522+00:00
was attributed to: Case 76 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

Engineer A Dual Role
type: DualRoleConflictState
type: NamedIndividual
activates constraint: Engineers A B Confidentiality Safety Override
activates obligation: Engineers A B Formal Regulatory Presentation
affects: Engineer A
affects: Metropolitan Water Commission
affects: Public
active period: Throughout Engineer A's tenure as superintendent and chief engineer, acutely active from the MWC override vote onward
affected parties: Engineer A
affected parties: MWC
affected parties: Public water consumers
concept category: State
confidence: 0.83
principle transformation: Transforms the general conflict of interest principle into a concrete obligation to manage the structural tension between organizational loyalty and independent professional judgment, with public safety as the paramount consideration.
state class: Dual Role Conflict State
subject: Engineer A's simultaneous role as superintendent and chief engineer for MWC
terminated by: Role separation, resignation, organizational reversal of decision, or completion of required safeguards
text references: Both Engineer A and Engineer B met with the MWC at a meeting sparsely attended by the public and recommended that the change in water source be substantially delayed
text references: Engineer A is a professional engineer who serves as the superintendent and chief engineer for the Metropolitan Water Commission (MWC).
triggering event: MWC vote to proceed contrary to Engineer A's recommendation, placing Engineer A in the position of overseeing implementation of a decision they recommended against
urgency level: high
discovered in case: 76
discovered in pass: 1
discovered in section: facts
first discovered at: 2026-06-05T11:17:42.957900+00:00
first discovered in case: 76
match confidence: 0.0
matches existing: false
source text: Engineer A is a professional engineer who serves as the superintendent and chief engineer for the Metropolitan Water Commission (MWC).
synthesis literal: activePeriod
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: stateClass
synthesis literal: subject
synthesis literal: terminatedBy
synthesis literal: textReferences
synthesis literal: triggeringEvent
synthesis literal: urgencyLevel
comment: Engineer A's simultaneous role as superintendent and chief engineer for MWC
generated at time: 2026-06-05T11:17:42.957900+00:00
was attributed to: Case 76 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

Engineer B Complete Report to MWC
type: CompleteReportingPrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
invoked by: Engineer B
applied to: Joint recommendation to the MWC
applied to: Water treatment needs evaluation report
balancing with: Faithful Agent Duty Principle
concept category: Principle
concrete expression: Engineer B's report to Engineer A and the joint presentation to the MWC included the full scope of required improvements, the three-year timeline, and the lead leaching risk, satisfying the complete reporting obligation by not omitting adverse findings that would affect the MWC's decision.
confidence: 0.88
interpretation: The complete reporting principle required Engineer B to include all material findings about the lead leaching risk and the inadequacy of proceeding without corrosion control improvements, regardless of whether those findings were inconvenient to the MWC's cost-reduction objectives.
invoked by: Engineer B Water Treatment Consultant
principle class: Complete Reporting Principle
tension resolution: Complete reporting serves the client's genuine interests by enabling informed decision-making, even when the findings are adverse to the client's preferred course of action.
text references: Engineer B, a consulting engineer retained by the MWC charged with evaluating water treatment needs for the change in water source, provided a report to Engineer A recommending extensive capital investments and a three-year timeline for further evaluation of water quality, design, and construction of improvements.
text references: The improvements are needed prior to the change in water source to ensure that sufficient corrosion control is provided so that old service pipes in the MWC service area don't leach lead at levels in excess of drinking water standards.
discovered in case: 76
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: facts
first discovered at: 2026-06-05T11:22:15.977522+00:00
first discovered in case: 76
match confidence: 0.88
match reasoning: Via class 'Complete Reporting Principle': The existing ontology contains 'Complete Reporting Principle' defined as requiring engineers to include all relevant and pertinent information in reports, analyses, and professional communications, prohibiting selective omission of data that would materially alter conclusions. This matches the reporting obligations of Engineer B and the joint presentation to the MWC.
matched ontology class: CompleteReportingPrinciple
matched ontology label: Complete Reporting Principle
matches existing: true
source text: Engineer B, a consulting engineer retained by the MWC charged with evaluating water treatment needs for the change in water source, provided a report to Engineer A recommending extensive capital investments and a three-year timeline for further evaluation of water quality, design, and construction of improvements.
synthesis literal: appliedTo
synthesis literal: balancingWith
synthesis literal: concreteExpression
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: interpretation
synthesis literal: principleClass
synthesis literal: tensionResolution
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineer B's report to Engineer A and the joint presentation to the MWC included the full scope of required improvements, the three-year timeline, and the lead leaching risk, satisfying the complete reporting obligation by not omitting adverse findings that would affect the MWC's decision.
generated at time: 2026-06-05T11:22:15.977522+00:00
was attributed to: Case 76 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

Engineer B Safety Reporting
type: SafetyReportingEngineer
type: NamedIndividual
has obligation: Engineer B Faithful Agent Boundary
has obligation: Engineer B Post-Override Regulatory Reporting
has obligation: Engineer B Risk Disclosure to MWC
has obligation: Engineer B Safety Reporting Escalation
actor: Engineer B
case involvement: As the retained water treatment consulting engineer, Engineer B jointly presented findings and recommendations with Engineer A, had those recommendations overruled by the MWC, and bears an obligation to formally report the public health danger to the state regulatory agency and other appropriate authorities.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.9
has license: Professional Engineer
has specialty: Water treatment consulting
role category: public_responsibility
role class: Safety Reporting Engineer
text references: Engineers A and B have an obligation to further pursue the matter.
text references: Engineers A and B have presented the findings and recommendations jointly
text references: The engineering judgments of Engineer A and Engineer B were overruled by the MWC.
discovered in case: 76
discovered in pass: 1
discovered in section: discussion
first discovered at: 2026-06-05T11:18:16.149700+00:00
first discovered in case: 76
match confidence: 0.0
matches existing: false
source text: Engineers A and B have presented the findings and recommendations jointly
synthesis literal: caseInvolvement
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: roleCategory
synthesis literal: roleClass
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: As the retained water treatment consulting engineer, Engineer B jointly presented findings and recommendations with Engineer A, had those recommendations overruled by the MWC, and bears an obligation to formally report the public health danger to the state regulatory agency and other appropriate authorities.
generated at time: 2026-06-05T11:18:16.149700+00:00
was attributed to: Case 76 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

Engineer B Water Treatment Consultant
type: WaterTreatmentConsultingEngineer
type: NamedIndividual
adheres to principle: Engineer B Complete Report to MWC
adheres to principle: Engineer B Public Welfare Water Safety
has obligation: Engineer B Complete Report to Engineer A
has obligation: Engineer B Drinking Water Safety
actor: Engineer B
case involvement: Retained by the MWC to evaluate water treatment needs associated with changing the water supply source from remote reservoirs to the local river. Produced a report recommending extensive capital investments and a three-year evaluation and construction timeline to ensure corrosion control and prevent lead leaching above drinking water standards. Jointly recommended delay of the source change with Engineer A.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.9
has license: Professional Engineer
has specialty: Water treatment evaluation and public health engineering
other attribute: engagement_type: Consulting engineer retained by MWC
role category: provider_client
role class: Water Treatment Consulting Engineer
text references: Both Engineer A and Engineer B met with the MWC at a meeting sparsely attended by the public and recommended that the change in water source be substantially delayed until improvements could be completed
text references: Engineer B, a consulting engineer retained by the MWC charged with evaluating water treatment needs for the change in water source, provided a report to Engineer A recommending extensive capital investments and a three-year timeline for further evaluation of water quality, design, and construction of improvements
discovered in case: 76
discovered in pass: 1
discovered in section: facts
first discovered at: 2026-06-05T11:17:25.675106+00:00
first discovered in case: 76
match confidence: 0.72
match reasoning: Via class 'Water Treatment Consulting Engineer': Engineer B is a consulting engineer, which is a specialization of Consultant Role. However, the role is specifically an engineering consulting role focused on water treatment evaluation, making it more precisely a specialization of Engineer Role or Consultant Role. Matched as a specialization of Consultant Role at medium confidence because the engineering specialty and public health protection obligations distinguish it from the generic consultant archetype.
matched ontology class: ConsultantRole
matched ontology label: Consultant Role
matches existing: true
source text: Engineer B, a consulting engineer retained by the MWC charged with evaluating water treatment needs for the change in water source, provided a report to Engineer A recommending extensive capital investments and a three-year timeline for further evaluation of water quality, design, and construction of improvements
synthesis literal: caseInvolvement
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: roleCategory
synthesis literal: roleClass
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Retained by the MWC to evaluate water treatment needs associated with changing the water supply source from remote reservoirs to the local river. Produced a report recommending extensive capital investments and a three-year evaluation and construction timeline to ensure corrosion control and prevent lead leaching above drinking water standards. Jointly recommended delay of the source change with Engineer A.
generated at time: 2026-06-05T11:17:25.675106+00:00
was attributed to: Case 76 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

State Regulatory Agency
type: Agent
type: NamedIndividual
has role: State Regulatory Agency Authority

Engineer A Client Relationship MWC
type: ClientRelationshipEstablished
type: NamedIndividual
activates constraint: Engineers A B Coordinated Escalation Actions
activates obligation: Engineers A B Formal Regulatory Presentation
affects: Engineer A
terminated by event: Engineer Retention
active period: Throughout Engineer A's tenure as superintendent and chief engineer
affected parties: Engineer A
affected parties: MWC
concept category: State
confidence: 0.88
principle transformation: Transforms individual professional duties into a coordinated shared obligation structure, requiring that professionals who have jointly committed to findings act in concert on follow-up even though their specific actions may differ.
state class: Client Relationship Established
subject: Engineer A's employment relationship with MWC as superintendent and chief engineer
terminated by: Resignation, termination, or end of appointment
text references: Engineer A is a professional engineer who serves as the superintendent and chief engineer for the Metropolitan Water Commission (MWC).
triggering event: Engineer A's appointment as superintendent and chief engineer for MWC
urgency level: medium
discovered in case: 76
discovered in pass: 1
discovered in section: facts
first discovered at: 2026-06-05T11:17:42.957900+00:00
first discovered in case: 76
match confidence: 0.95
match reasoning: Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Client Relationship Established'
matched ontology class: ClientRelationship
matched ontology label: Client Relationship Established
matches existing: true
source text: Engineer A is a professional engineer who serves as the superintendent and chief engineer for the Metropolitan Water Commission (MWC).
synthesis literal: activePeriod
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: stateClass
synthesis literal: subject
synthesis literal: terminatedBy
synthesis literal: textReferences
synthesis literal: triggeringEvent
synthesis literal: urgencyLevel
comment: Engineer A's employment relationship with MWC as superintendent and chief engineer
generated at time: 2026-06-05T11:17:42.957900+00:00
was attributed to: Case 76 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

Engineer A Water Commission Chief Engineer
type: WaterCommissionChiefEngineer
type: NamedIndividual
adheres to principle: Engineer A Public Welfare Water Safety
adheres to principle: Engineers A B Faithful Agent Duty
adheres to principle: Engineers A B Public Funds Stewardship
adheres to principle: MWC Public Funds Stewardship
has obligation: Engineer A Faithful Agent Boundary
actor: Engineer A
case involvement: Serves as superintendent and chief engineer for the MWC, received Engineer B's report on water treatment needs, and jointly recommended to the MWC that the water source change be substantially delayed until improvements were completed. The MWC voted to proceed despite this recommendation.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.9
has employer: Metropolitan Water Commission
has license: Professional Engineer
role category: employer_relationship
role class: Water Commission Chief Engineer
role in organization: Superintendent and Chief Engineer
text references: Both Engineer A and Engineer B met with the MWC at a meeting sparsely attended by the public and recommended that the change in water source be substantially delayed until improvements could be completed
text references: Engineer A is a professional engineer who serves as the superintendent and chief engineer for the Metropolitan Water Commission (MWC)
discovered in case: 76
discovered in pass: 1
discovered in section: facts
first discovered at: 2026-06-05T11:17:25.675106+00:00
first discovered in case: 76
match confidence: 0.0
matches existing: false
source text: Engineer A is a professional engineer who serves as the superintendent and chief engineer for the Metropolitan Water Commission (MWC)
synthesis literal: caseInvolvement
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: roleCategory
synthesis literal: roleClass
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Serves as superintendent and chief engineer for the MWC, received Engineer B's report on water treatment needs, and jointly recommended to the MWC that the water source change be substantially delayed until improvements were completed. The MWC voted to proceed despite this recommendation.
generated at time: 2026-06-05T11:17:25.675106+00:00
was attributed to: Case 76 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

Engineer B Safety Reporting Escalation
type: ClientOverrideEscalationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
obligated party: Engineer B
case context: Engineer B evaluated water treatment needs, identified the lead leaching risk, and jointly recommended with Engineer A that the MWC delay the water source change. The MWC overruled this recommendation. Engineer B was required to escalate to the state regulatory agency.
compliance status: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.88
derived from principle: Engineers A B Client Override Refusal
obligation class: Client Override Escalation Obligation
obligation statement: Engineer B, as the retained water treatment consulting engineer, was obligated to escalate the public health risk to the state regulatory authority after the MWC overruled the joint recommendation to delay the water source change.
temporal scope: After the MWC voted to proceed with the water source change over the joint engineering objection.
text references: If Engineers A and B believe life or property is endangered, Section II.1.a. provides that not only shall the employer or client be notified, but also all other appropriate authorities.
text references: The engineering judgments of Engineer A and Engineer B were overruled by the MWC.
discovered in case: 76
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: discussion
first discovered at: 2026-06-05T11:28:12.343728+00:00
first discovered in case: 76
match confidence: 0.0
matches existing: false
source text: The engineering judgments of Engineer A and Engineer B were overruled by the MWC.
synthesis literal: caseContext
synthesis literal: complianceStatus
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: obligationClass
synthesis literal: obligationStatement
synthesis literal: temporalScope
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineer B, as the retained water treatment consulting engineer, was obligated to escalate the public health risk to the state regulatory authority after the MWC overruled the joint recommendation to delay the water source change.
generated at time: 2026-06-05T11:28:12.343728+00:00
was attributed to: Case 76 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

Engineers A B Complete Reporting
type: CompleteReportingPrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
invoked by: Engineer A
invoked by: Engineer B
applied to: Metropolitan Water Commission Client
applied to: State Regulatory Agency Authority
balancing with: Faithful Agent Duty Principle
concept category: Principle
concrete expression: Engineers A and B were required to include all relevant technical findings regarding the lead exposure risk in their formal presentations to the MWC and the state regulatory agency, without selective omission of facts that could alter the regulatory response.
confidence: 0.88
interpretation: Complete reporting requires that the formal presentations contain all facts, findings, and recommendations necessary for the regulatory authority to assess the risk and take appropriate action.
invoked by: Engineer A Safety Reporting
invoked by: Engineer B Safety Reporting
principle class: Complete Reporting Principle
tension resolution: The complete reporting obligation is not limited by client preferences; the engineers must present all relevant information to regulatory authorities regardless of whether the MWC would prefer selective disclosure.
text references: there should be a formal presentation of the facts, findings, and recommendations
discovered in case: 76
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: discussion
first discovered at: 2026-06-05T11:26:55.962095+00:00
first discovered in case: 76
match confidence: 0.95
match reasoning: Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Complete Reporting Principle'
matched ontology class: CompleteReportingPrinciple
matched ontology label: Complete Reporting Principle
matches existing: true
source text: there should be a formal presentation of the facts, findings, and recommendations
synthesis literal: appliedTo
synthesis literal: balancingWith
synthesis literal: concreteExpression
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: interpretation
synthesis literal: principleClass
synthesis literal: tensionResolution
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineers A and B were required to include all relevant technical findings regarding the lead exposure risk in their formal presentations to the MWC and the state regulatory agency, without selective omission of facts that could alter the regulatory response.
generated at time: 2026-06-05T11:26:55.962095+00:00
was attributed to: Case 76 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

Engineers A B Coordinated Escalation Actions
type: CoordinatedJointActionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
constrained entity: Engineer A
constrained entity: Engineer B
case context: Engineers A and B jointly presented findings and recommendations to the MWC. The Board of Ethical Review noted that because the presentation was joint, their subsequent actions should be in concert, though not necessarily identical, to maintain a coherent and credible professional record before regulatory authorities.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.85
constrained entity: Engineers A and B
constraint class: Coordinated Joint Action Constraint
constraint statement: Engineers A and B were constrained to coordinate their escalation and reporting actions so that those actions were consistent and mutually reinforcing, because they had jointly presented their findings and recommendations to the MWC and their subsequent professional conduct needed to reflect that joint posture, though their individual actions need not be identical.
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics, professional ethics principles governing joint professional conduct
temporal scope: Throughout the escalation and reporting process following the MWC override
text references: it is important to note that Engineers A and B have presented the findings and recommendations jointly and, as such, their actions should be in concert, although not identical
discovered in case: 76
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: discussion
first discovered at: 2026-06-05T11:29:35.133297+00:00
first discovered in case: 76
match confidence: 0.0
matches existing: false
source text: it is important to note that Engineers A and B have presented the findings and recommendations jointly and, as such, their actions should be in concert, although not identical
synthesis literal: caseContext
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: constraintClass
synthesis literal: constraintStatement
synthesis literal: severity
synthesis literal: source
synthesis literal: temporalScope
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineers A and B were constrained to coordinate their escalation and reporting actions so that those actions were consistent and mutually reinforcing, because they had jointly presented their findings and recommendations to the MWC and their subsequent professional conduct needed to reflect that joint posture, though their individual actions need not be identical.
generated at time: 2026-06-05T11:29:35.133297+00:00
was attributed to: Case 76 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

Engineers A B Formal Escalation Obligation
type: FormalEscalationObligationPrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
invoked by: Engineer A
invoked by: Engineer B
applied to: Metropolitan Water Commission Client
applied to: State Regulatory Agency Authority
balancing with: Graduated Response Proportionality Principle
concept category: Principle
concrete expression: Although the state regulatory agency had already been contacted informally, Engineers A and B were required to make a formal presentation of facts, findings, and recommendations to that agency, and to formally advise the MWC of the predicted project failure, because informal contact was insufficient to satisfy their reporting obligation.
confidence: 0.83
interpretation: The formality requirement ensures that the regulatory authority receives information in a structured form that enables action and creates a record, and that the client receives a clear professional advisement rather than an informal expression of concern.
invoked by: Engineer A Safety Reporting
invoked by: Engineer B Safety Reporting
principle class: Formal Escalation Obligation Principle
tension resolution: The formal escalation obligation is consistent with the graduated response framework; it specifies the required quality of the escalation step rather than altering its sequence.
text references: Again, as with the state regulatory agency, this advisement should proceed in a formal manner.
text references: It appears that the state regulatory agency has been contacted; however, there should be a formal presentation of the facts, findings, and recommendations.
text references: The formal presentations satisfy Engineer A's and Engineer B's duty to report.
discovered in case: 76
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: discussion
first discovered at: 2026-06-05T11:26:55.962095+00:00
first discovered in case: 76
match confidence: 0.0
matches existing: false
source text: It appears that the state regulatory agency has been contacted; however, there should be a formal presentation of the facts, findings, and recommendations.
synthesis literal: appliedTo
synthesis literal: balancingWith
synthesis literal: concreteExpression
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: interpretation
synthesis literal: principleClass
synthesis literal: tensionResolution
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Although the state regulatory agency had already been contacted informally, Engineers A and B were required to make a formal presentation of facts, findings, and recommendations to that agency, and to formally advise the MWC of the predicted project failure, because informal contact was insufficient to satisfy their reporting obligation.
generated at time: 2026-06-05T11:26:55.962095+00:00
was attributed to: Case 76 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

Engineers A B Project Success Notification
type: ProjectSuccessNotificationPrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
invoked by: Engineer A
invoked by: Engineer B
applied to: Lead leaching risk from old service pipes
applied to: MWC water source change project
balancing with: Faithful Agent Duty Principle
concept category: Principle
concrete expression: Engineers A and B advised the MWC that the water source change would not achieve safe outcomes without prior completion of corrosion control improvements, satisfying the project success notification obligation by clearly communicating the conditions under which the project would fail to protect public health.
confidence: 0.89
interpretation: The project success notification principle required Engineers A and B to advise the MWC that proceeding without improvements would result in unsafe water quality, and following the override, requires formal written documentation of that notification.
invoked by: Engineer A Safety Reporting
invoked by: Engineer B Safety Reporting
principle class: Project Success Notification Principle
tension resolution: The project success notification principle is consistent with the faithful agent duty; advising the client of foreseeable failure modes serves the client's genuine interests even when the client rejects the advice.
text references: Both Engineer A and Engineer B met with the MWC at a meeting sparsely attended by the public and recommended that the change in water source be substantially delayed until improvements could be completed.
text references: The improvements are needed prior to the change in water source to ensure that sufficient corrosion control is provided so that old service pipes in the MWC service area don't leach lead at levels in excess of drinking water standards.
discovered in case: 76
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: facts
first discovered at: 2026-06-05T11:22:15.977522+00:00
first discovered in case: 76
match confidence: 0.89
match reasoning: Via class 'Project Success Notification Principle': The existing ontology contains 'Project Success Notification Principle' defined as requiring engineers to advise clients when a project will not be successful, including safety outcomes, when the engineer has identified conditions that will result in unsafe outcomes if unaddressed. This matches the obligation of Engineers A and B to advise the MWC that proceeding without improvements will result in unsafe water quality.
matched ontology class: ProjectSuccessNotificationPrinciple
matched ontology label: Project Success Notification Principle
matches existing: true
source text: Both Engineer A and Engineer B met with the MWC at a meeting sparsely attended by the public and recommended that the change in water source be substantially delayed until improvements could be completed.
synthesis literal: appliedTo
synthesis literal: balancingWith
synthesis literal: concreteExpression
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: interpretation
synthesis literal: principleClass
synthesis literal: tensionResolution
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineers A and B advised the MWC that the water source change would not achieve safe outcomes without prior completion of corrosion control improvements, satisfying the project success notification obligation by clearly communicating the conditions under which the project would fail to protect public health.
generated at time: 2026-06-05T11:22:15.977522+00:00
was attributed to: Case 76 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

Engineers A B Public Funds Stewardship
type: PublicFundsStewardshipPrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
invoked by: Engineer A
invoked by: Engineer B
applied to: Metropolitan Water Commission Client
applied to: Public Affected Water Consumers
balancing with: Faithful Agent Duty Principle
concept category: Principle
concrete expression: As engineers engaged on a public water utility project funded by public resources, Engineers A and B bore a heightened responsibility to ensure that their formal presentations were complete and honest, and that the MWC was not permitted to proceed with a plan that would result in unjustified expenditure of public funds on a project that would fail to protect public health.
confidence: 0.78
interpretation: The public utility context heightens the engineers' obligations beyond those owed to a private client; the use of public funds and the service of a public population impose an affirmative obligation of completeness and honesty in all professional communications.
invoked by: Engineer A Water Commission Chief Engineer
invoked by: Engineer B Water Treatment Consultant
principle class: Public Funds Stewardship Principle
tension resolution: The public funds stewardship obligation reinforces rather than conflicts with the faithful agent duty in this context, because honest and complete reporting serves the genuine interests of the public utility and its ratepayers.
text references: The role of the professional engineer in protecting the public health, safety, and welfare is fundamental to the practice of engineering and is the overriding charge in the NSPE Code of Ethics.
discovered in case: 76
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: discussion
first discovered at: 2026-06-05T11:26:55.962095+00:00
first discovered in case: 76
match confidence: 0.95
match reasoning: Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Public Funds Stewardship Principle'
matched ontology class: PublicFundsStewardshipPrinciple
matched ontology label: Public Funds Stewardship Principle
matches existing: true
source text: The role of the professional engineer in protecting the public health, safety, and welfare is fundamental to the practice of engineering and is the overriding charge in the NSPE Code of Ethics.
synthesis literal: appliedTo
synthesis literal: balancingWith
synthesis literal: concreteExpression
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: interpretation
synthesis literal: principleClass
synthesis literal: tensionResolution
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: As engineers engaged on a public water utility project funded by public resources, Engineers A and B bore a heightened responsibility to ensure that their formal presentations were complete and honest, and that the MWC was not permitted to proceed with a plan that would result in unjustified expenditure of public funds on a project that would fail to protect public health.
generated at time: 2026-06-05T11:26:55.962095+00:00
was attributed to: Case 76 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

Engineers A B Public Safety Paramount
type: PublicSafetyParamountConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
constrained entity: Engineer A
constrained entity: Engineer B
case context: The MWC overruled the joint safety recommendations of Engineers A and B regarding corrosion control improvements needed before a water source change. The Board of Ethical Review grounded its entire analysis in the paramount public safety duty established by NSPE Code Section II.1, citing prior BER cases including BER Case No. 00-5 and BER Case No. 19-10.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.97
constrained entity: Engineers A and B
constraint class: Public Safety Paramount Constraint
constraint statement: Engineers A and B were constrained by the inviolable duty to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public, which took precedence over their obligations to the MWC as client and employer and could not be overridden by the MWC's vote to proceed with the water source change.
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.1
temporal scope: Throughout the professional engagement with the MWC
text references: The role of the professional engineer in protecting the public health, safety, and welfare is fundamental to the practice of engineering and is the overriding charge in the NSPE Code of Ethics
text references: as Engineers A and B are required to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public, and as this duty is a fundamental canon of the NSPE Code of Ethics
discovered in case: 76
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: discussion
first discovered at: 2026-06-05T11:29:35.133297+00:00
first discovered in case: 76
match confidence: 0.95
match reasoning: Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Public Safety Paramount Constraint'
matched ontology class: PublicSafetyParamountConstraint
matched ontology label: Public Safety Paramount Constraint
matches existing: true
source text: The role of the professional engineer in protecting the public health, safety, and welfare is fundamental to the practice of engineering and is the overriding charge in the NSPE Code of Ethics
synthesis literal: caseContext
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: constraintClass
synthesis literal: constraintStatement
synthesis literal: severity
synthesis literal: source
synthesis literal: temporalScope
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineers A and B were constrained by the inviolable duty to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public, which took precedence over their obligations to the MWC as client and employer and could not be overridden by the MWC's vote to proceed with the water source change.
generated at time: 2026-06-05T11:29:35.133297+00:00
was attributed to: Case 76 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

Engineers A B Post-Override Regulatory Escalation
type: ClientOverridePublicSafetyReportingObligation
type: NamedIndividual
obligated party: Engineer A
obligated party: Engineer B
case context: The MWC voted to proceed simultaneously with the water source change and the evaluation and design of improvements, directly overriding the joint recommendation of Engineers A and B to delay until corrosion control improvements were complete. The override created a risk of lead exposure to water consumers.
compliance status: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.9
derived from principle: Engineers A B Graduated Escalation Response
obligated party: Engineers A and B
obligation class: Client Override Public Safety Reporting Obligation
obligation statement: After the MWC voted to proceed with the water source change over their joint recommendation, Engineers A and B were obligated to report the situation to the appropriate state regulatory authority, presenting the facts, findings, and recommendations so that the authority could exercise its oversight function and protect public health.
temporal scope: Following the MWC vote to override the joint engineering recommendation
text references: Despite those recommendations, the MWC voted to proceed simultaneously with the accelerated evaluation and design of needed water treatment improvements and the change in water source.
discovered in case: 76
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: facts
first discovered at: 2026-06-05T11:23:42.907966+00:00
first discovered in case: 76
match confidence: 0.95
match reasoning: Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Client Override Public Safety Reporting Obligation'
matched ontology class: ClientOverridePublicSafetyReportingObligation
matched ontology label: Client Override Public Safety Reporting Obligation
matches existing: true
source text: Despite those recommendations, the MWC voted to proceed simultaneously with the accelerated evaluation and design of needed water treatment improvements and the change in water source.
synthesis literal: caseContext
synthesis literal: complianceStatus
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: obligationClass
synthesis literal: obligationStatement
synthesis literal: temporalScope
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: After the MWC voted to proceed with the water source change over their joint recommendation, Engineers A and B were obligated to report the situation to the appropriate state regulatory authority, presenting the facts, findings, and recommendations so that the authority could exercise its oversight function and protect public health.
generated at time: 2026-06-05T11:23:42.907966+00:00
was attributed to: Case 76 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

Engineers A B Project Success Notification
type: ProjectSuccessNotificationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
obligated party: Engineer A
obligated party: Engineer B
case context: Engineers A and B identified that proceeding with the water source change without completing required improvements would result in drinking water that failed to meet lead standards. They were obligated to communicate this clearly to the MWC before the vote.
compliance status: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.88
derived from principle: Engineers A B Project Success Notification
obligated party: Engineers A and B
obligation class: Project Success Notification Obligation
obligation statement: Engineers A and B were obligated to advise the MWC that the water source change would not achieve safe outcomes without prior completion of corrosion control improvements, so that the MWC had the opportunity to reconsider before the engineers were placed in a position of ethical conflict.
temporal scope: Before the MWC vote on whether to proceed with the water source change
text references: Both Engineer A and Engineer B met with the MWC at a meeting sparsely attended by the public and recommended that the change in water source be substantially delayed until improvements could be completed.
discovered in case: 76
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: facts
first discovered at: 2026-06-05T11:23:42.907966+00:00
first discovered in case: 76
match confidence: 0.95
match reasoning: Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Project Success Notification Obligation'
matched ontology class: ProjectSuccessNotificationObligation
matched ontology label: Project Success Notification Obligation
matches existing: true
source text: Both Engineer A and Engineer B met with the MWC at a meeting sparsely attended by the public and recommended that the change in water source be substantially delayed until improvements could be completed.
synthesis literal: caseContext
synthesis literal: complianceStatus
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: obligationClass
synthesis literal: obligationStatement
synthesis literal: temporalScope
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineers A and B were obligated to advise the MWC that the water source change would not achieve safe outcomes without prior completion of corrosion control improvements, so that the MWC had the opportunity to reconsider before the engineers were placed in a position of ethical conflict.
generated at time: 2026-06-05T11:23:42.907966+00:00
was attributed to: Case 76 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

Engineer A Safety Reporting Escalation
type: ClientOverrideEscalationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
obligated party: Engineer A
case context: Engineer A jointly recommended with Engineer B that the MWC delay the water source change pending corrosion control improvements. The MWC overruled this recommendation. Engineer A was required to escalate to the state regulatory agency.
compliance status: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.88
derived from principle: Engineers A B Client Override Refusal
obligation class: Client Override Escalation Obligation
obligation statement: Engineer A, as chief engineer and superintendent of the MWC, was obligated to escalate the public health risk to the state regulatory authority after the MWC overruled the joint recommendation to delay the water source change.
temporal scope: After the MWC voted to proceed with the water source change over the joint engineering objection.
text references: If Engineers A and B believe life or property is endangered, Section II.1.a. provides that not only shall the employer or client be notified, but also all other appropriate authorities.
text references: The engineering judgments of Engineer A and Engineer B were overruled by the MWC.
discovered in case: 76
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: discussion
first discovered at: 2026-06-05T11:28:12.343728+00:00
first discovered in case: 76
match confidence: 0.0
matches existing: false
source text: The engineering judgments of Engineer A and Engineer B were overruled by the MWC.
synthesis literal: caseContext
synthesis literal: complianceStatus
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: obligationClass
synthesis literal: obligationStatement
synthesis literal: temporalScope
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineer A, as chief engineer and superintendent of the MWC, was obligated to escalate the public health risk to the state regulatory authority after the MWC overruled the joint recommendation to delay the water source change.
generated at time: 2026-06-05T11:28:12.343728+00:00
was attributed to: Case 76 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

Engineer B Client Relationship MWC
type: ClientRelationshipEstablished
type: NamedIndividual
activated by event: Accelerated Project Initiation
activated by event: Engineer Retention
activates constraint: Engineers A B Simultaneous Transition Safety
activates obligation: Engineer A Post-Override Regulatory Reporting
activates obligation: Engineers A B Public Health Risk Disclosure
affects: Engineer B
active period: From retention by MWC through completion of consulting engagement
affected parties: Engineer B
affected parties: MWC
concept category: State
confidence: 0.88
principle transformation: Transforms the general duty to protect public health and safety into a concrete obligation to object, document, and report when a utility proceeds with a supply change that creates foreseeable lead leaching risk in the distribution system.
state class: Client Relationship Established
subject: Engineer B's consulting engagement with MWC to evaluate water treatment needs
terminated by: Completion of consulting engagement or termination of contract
text references: Engineer B, a consulting engineer retained by the MWC charged with evaluating water treatment needs for the change in water source
triggering event: MWC's retention of Engineer B as consulting engineer
urgency level: medium
discovered in case: 76
discovered in pass: 1
discovered in section: facts
first discovered at: 2026-06-05T11:17:42.957900+00:00
first discovered in case: 76
match confidence: 0.95
match reasoning: Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Client Relationship Established'
matched ontology class: ClientRelationship
matched ontology label: Client Relationship Established
matches existing: true
source text: Engineer B, a consulting engineer retained by the MWC charged with evaluating water treatment needs for the change in water source
synthesis literal: activePeriod
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: stateClass
synthesis literal: subject
synthesis literal: terminatedBy
synthesis literal: textReferences
synthesis literal: triggeringEvent
synthesis literal: urgencyLevel
comment: Engineer B's consulting engagement with MWC to evaluate water treatment needs
generated at time: 2026-06-05T11:17:42.957900+00:00
was attributed to: Case 76 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

Engineers A B Client Override Refusal
type: ClientOverrideRefusalPrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
invoked by: Engineer A
invoked by: Engineer B
applied to: Metropolitan Water Commission Client Override
balancing with: Faithful Agent Duty Principle
concept category: Principle
concrete expression: When the MWC overruled the joint engineering recommendations regarding water treatment requirements, Engineers A and B were required to refuse to allow the project to proceed without escalating to appropriate authorities.
confidence: 0.95
interpretation: The MWC's decision to proceed without the recommended water treatment measures constitutes a client override of safety-necessary engineering judgment, triggering the obligation to escalate rather than acquiesce.
invoked by: Engineer A Safety Reporting
invoked by: Engineer B Safety Reporting
principle class: Client Override Refusal Principle
tension resolution: The client override refusal obligation is triggered by the identification of public health risk; loyalty to the MWC does not extend to acquiescing in a decision that endangers public water consumers.
text references: The engineering judgments of Engineer A and Engineer B were overruled by the MWC. If Engineers A and B believe life or property is endangered, Section II.1.a. provides that not only shall the employer or client be notified, but also all other appropriate authorities.
discovered in case: 76
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: discussion
first discovered at: 2026-06-05T11:26:55.962095+00:00
first discovered in case: 76
match confidence: 0.95
match reasoning: Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Client Override Refusal Principle'
matched ontology class: ClientOverrideRefusalPrinciple
matched ontology label: Client Override Refusal Principle
matches existing: true
source text: The engineering judgments of Engineer A and Engineer B were overruled by the MWC.
synthesis literal: appliedTo
synthesis literal: balancingWith
synthesis literal: concreteExpression
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: interpretation
synthesis literal: principleClass
synthesis literal: tensionResolution
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: When the MWC overruled the joint engineering recommendations regarding water treatment requirements, Engineers A and B were required to refuse to allow the project to proceed without escalating to appropriate authorities.
generated at time: 2026-06-05T11:26:55.962095+00:00
was attributed to: Case 76 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

Engineers A B Confidentiality Safety Override
type: ConfidentialitySafetyOverrideConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
constrained entity: Engineer A
constrained entity: Engineer B
case context: BER Case No. 89-7 was cited by the Board of Ethical Review as establishing that confidentiality obligations do not prevent an engineer from reporting safety violations to appropriate public authorities. The same principle applies to Engineers A and B's obligations to the MWC.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.88
constrained entity: Engineers A and B
constraint class: Confidentiality Safety Override Constraint
constraint statement: Any confidentiality obligations Engineers A and B owed to the MWC did not extend to concealing the confirmed public health risk created by the MWC's decision to proceed with the water source change before completing corrosion control improvements, because the safety disclosure obligation overrides confidentiality restrictions when public health is at risk.
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.1 and Section II.1.a; BER Case No. 89-7
temporal scope: After the MWC override and throughout the escalation process
text references: it was unethical for Engineer A not to report the safety violations to the appropriate public authorities
text references: we believe Engineer A could have taken other steps to address the situation, not the least of which was his paramount professional obligation to notify the appropriate authority if his professional judgment is overruled under circumstances where the safety of the public is endangered
discovered in case: 76
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: discussion
first discovered at: 2026-06-05T11:29:35.133297+00:00
first discovered in case: 76
match confidence: 0.95
match reasoning: Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Confidentiality Safety Override Constraint'
matched ontology class: ConfidentialitySafetyOverrideConstraint
matched ontology label: Confidentiality Safety Override Constraint
matches existing: true
source text: it was unethical for Engineer A not to report the safety violations to the appropriate public authorities
synthesis literal: caseContext
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: constraintClass
synthesis literal: constraintStatement
synthesis literal: severity
synthesis literal: source
synthesis literal: temporalScope
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Any confidentiality obligations Engineers A and B owed to the MWC did not extend to concealing the confirmed public health risk created by the MWC's decision to proceed with the water source change before completing corrosion control improvements, because the safety disclosure obligation overrides confidentiality restrictions when public health is at risk.
generated at time: 2026-06-05T11:29:35.133297+00:00
was attributed to: Case 76 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

Engineers A B Post-Formal Persistence
type: Post-Formal-PresentationPersistencePrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
invoked by: Engineer A
invoked by: Engineer B
applied to: Metropolitan Water Commission Client Override
applied to: Public Endangered Water Consumers
balancing with: Faithful Agent Duty Principle
balancing with: Whistleblower Conscience Principle
concept category: Principle
concrete expression: If the formal presentations to the MWC and the state regulatory agency failed to produce a change in the MWC's plans, Engineers A and B had an obligation to further pursue the matter through additional available channels, given the gravity of the danger to public health and safety.
confidence: 0.85
interpretation: Completion of formal presentations is a necessary but not sufficient discharge of professional responsibility when the identified risk is grave; the obligation to protect the public persists until the risk is actually remediated or the engineers have exhausted available channels.
invoked by: Engineer A Safety Reporting
invoked by: Engineer B Safety Reporting
principle class: Post-Formal-Presentation Persistence Principle
tension resolution: Because the danger is to public health through a municipal water supply, the obligation to persist is affirmative rather than merely a matter of conscience; the gravity of the risk elevates what might otherwise be a discretionary choice into a professional duty.
text references: However, in the event that these formal presentations fail to sway the MWC to change its plans, given the gravity of the danger to public health and safety, Engineers A and B have an obligation to further pursue the matter.
discovered in case: 76
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: discussion
first discovered at: 2026-06-05T11:26:55.962095+00:00
first discovered in case: 76
match confidence: 0.0
matches existing: false
source text: However, in the event that these formal presentations fail to sway the MWC to change its plans, given the gravity of the danger to public health and safety, Engineers A and B have an obligation to further pursue the matter.
synthesis literal: appliedTo
synthesis literal: balancingWith
synthesis literal: concreteExpression
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: interpretation
synthesis literal: principleClass
synthesis literal: tensionResolution
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: If the formal presentations to the MWC and the state regulatory agency failed to produce a change in the MWC's plans, Engineers A and B had an obligation to further pursue the matter through additional available channels, given the gravity of the danger to public health and safety.
generated at time: 2026-06-05T11:26:55.962095+00:00
was attributed to: Case 76 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

Engineers A and B Competing Duties
type: CompetingDutiesState
type: NamedIndividual
activated by event: Public Health Risk Identified
activates obligation: Engineer A Post-Override Regulatory Reporting
affects: Engineer A
affects: Engineer B
affects: Metropolitan Water Commission
affects: Public
terminated by event: Engineer Retention
terminated by event: Public Health Risk Identified
active period: From the MWC's overruling of the engineers' recommendations through resolution of the safety concern
affected parties: Engineer A
affected parties: Engineer B
affected parties: Municipal Water Commission
affected parties: Public
concept category: State
confidence: 0.88
principle transformation: Transforms the general duty to hold public safety paramount into a continuing and escalating obligation that survives initial formal reporting, requiring the professional to pursue additional remedies when those reports fail to produce corrective action.
state class: Competing Duties State
subject: Tension between Engineers A and B's duty as faithful agents to the MWC and their paramount duty to protect public health, safety, and welfare
terminated by: Resolution of the safety concern or engineer withdrawal from the engagement
text references: as Engineers A and B are required to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public, and as this duty is a fundamental canon of the NSPE Code of Ethics, the consent of the MWC is not required
text references: the need to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public is well established
triggering event: MWC overruled engineers' safety recommendations, placing client loyalty in direct conflict with public safety duty
urgency level: high
discovered in case: 76
discovered in pass: 1
discovered in section: discussion
first discovered at: 2026-06-05T11:18:53.656605+00:00
first discovered in case: 76
match confidence: 0.95
match reasoning: Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Competing Duties State'
matched ontology class: CompetingDuties
matched ontology label: Competing Duties State
matches existing: true
source text: as Engineers A and B are required to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public, and as this duty is a fundamental canon of the NSPE Code of Ethics, the consent of the MWC is not required
synthesis literal: activePeriod
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: stateClass
synthesis literal: subject
synthesis literal: terminatedBy
synthesis literal: textReferences
synthesis literal: triggeringEvent
synthesis literal: urgencyLevel
comment: Tension between Engineers A and B's duty as faithful agents to the MWC and their paramount duty to protect public health, safety, and welfare
generated at time: 2026-06-05T11:18:53.656605+00:00
was attributed to: Case 76 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

Engineers A and B Joint Obligation
type: JointProfessionalObligationState
type: NamedIndividual
activates constraint: Engineers A B Coordinated Escalation Actions
activates obligation: Engineers A B Formal Regulatory Presentation
affects: Engineer A
affects: Engineer B
affects: Metropolitan Water Commission
affects: Public
affects: State Regulatory Agency
terminated by event: Engineer Retention
active period: From the joint presentation of findings through satisfaction of all individual and shared reporting and notification obligations
affected parties: Engineer A
affected parties: Engineer B
affected parties: Municipal Water Commission
affected parties: Public
affected parties: State regulatory agency
concept category: State
confidence: 0.85
principle transformation: Transforms individual professional duties into a coordinated shared obligation structure, requiring that professionals who have jointly committed to findings act in concert on follow-up even though their specific actions may differ.
state class: Joint Professional Obligation State
subject: Shared ethical obligation structure created by Engineers A and B's joint presentation of findings and recommendations to the MWC
terminated by: Both engineers individually satisfy their reporting obligations and the underlying safety concern is resolved
text references: Engineers A and B have presented the findings and recommendations jointly and, as such, their actions should be in concert, although not identical.
text references: It is important to note that Engineers A and B have presented the findings and recommendations jointly
triggering event: Engineers A and B jointly presented findings and recommendations to the MWC
urgency level: high
discovered in case: 76
discovered in pass: 1
discovered in section: discussion
first discovered at: 2026-06-05T11:18:53.656605+00:00
first discovered in case: 76
match confidence: 0.0
matches existing: false
source text: Engineers A and B have presented the findings and recommendations jointly and, as such, their actions should be in concert, although not identical.
synthesis literal: activePeriod
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: stateClass
synthesis literal: subject
synthesis literal: terminatedBy
synthesis literal: textReferences
synthesis literal: triggeringEvent
synthesis literal: urgencyLevel
comment: Shared ethical obligation structure created by Engineers A and B's joint presentation of findings and recommendations to the MWC
generated at time: 2026-06-05T11:18:53.656605+00:00
was attributed to: Case 76 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

Engineers A and B Premature Source Transition
type: PrematureSourceTransitionState
type: NamedIndividual
activated by event: Accelerated Project Initiation
activates constraint: Engineers A B Simultaneous Transition Safety
activates obligation: Engineer A Post-Override Regulatory Reporting
activates obligation: Engineers A B Public Health Risk Disclosure
affects: Engineer A
affects: Engineer B
affects: Metropolitan Water Commission
affects: Public
active period: From the MWC's decision to proceed without implementing the engineers' recommendations through implementation of adequate safeguards or regulatory intervention
affected parties: Engineer A
affected parties: Engineer B
affected parties: Municipal Water Commission
affected parties: Public served by the water system
concept category: State
confidence: 0.82
principle transformation: Transforms the general duty to protect public health and safety into a concrete obligation to object, document, and report when a utility proceeds with a supply change that creates foreseeable lead leaching risk in the distribution system.
state class: Premature Source Transition State
subject: The MWC's decision to proceed with a water source or infrastructure change before adequate safety measures identified by Engineers A and B are in place
terminated by: Implementation of required safety measures or regulatory enforcement action
text references: The engineering judgments of Engineer A and Engineer B were overruled by the MWC.
text references: if project success is defined as the public will not be endangered at all, then Engineers A and B should advise their client that they believe the project will not be successful
triggering event: MWC voted to proceed with plans despite engineers' safety findings
urgency level: critical
discovered in case: 76
discovered in pass: 1
discovered in section: discussion
first discovered at: 2026-06-05T11:18:53.656605+00:00
first discovered in case: 76
match confidence: 0.0
matches existing: false
source text: The engineering judgments of Engineer A and Engineer B were overruled by the MWC.
synthesis literal: activePeriod
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: stateClass
synthesis literal: subject
synthesis literal: terminatedBy
synthesis literal: textReferences
synthesis literal: triggeringEvent
synthesis literal: urgencyLevel
comment: The MWC's decision to proceed with a water source or infrastructure change before adequate safety measures identified by Engineers A and B are in place
generated at time: 2026-06-05T11:18:53.656605+00:00
was attributed to: Case 76 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

Water Source Consideration
type: Event
type: NamedIndividual
causes state change: MWC entered a deliberative state regarding a potential infrastructure change with public health implications.
concept category: Event
event type: exogenous
initiates text: Engineering Evaluation Required
initiates text: Source Change Under Consideration
severity: high
temporal extent: interval
temporal marker: Prior to Engineer B's retention
temporal sequence: 1
synthesis literal: causesStateChange
synthesis literal: description
synthesis literal: eventType
synthesis literal: severity
synthesis literal: temporalExtent
synthesis literal: temporalMarker
synthesis literal: temporalSequence
comment: The MWC began considering switching its water supply from remote reservoirs to the local river as a cost-reduction measure, initiating the chain of events in this case.
has time: Prior to Engineer B's retention
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

Engineer A Faithful Agent Conflict
type: FaithfulAgentDutyConflictState
type: NamedIndividual
activated by event: Public Health Risk Identified
activates obligation: Engineer A Post-Override Regulatory Reporting
affects: Engineer A
affects: Metropolitan Water Commission
affects: Public
terminated by event: Engineer Retention
terminated by event: Public Health Risk Identified
active period: From the MWC override vote onward
affected parties: Engineer A
affected parties: MWC
affected parties: Public water consumers
concept category: State
confidence: 0.87
principle transformation: Transforms the general duty to hold public safety paramount into a continuing and escalating obligation that survives initial formal reporting, requiring the professional to pursue additional remedies when those reports fail to produce corrective action.
state class: Faithful Agent Duty Conflict State
subject: Engineer A's tension between duty to carry out MWC decisions and paramount duty to protect public health
terminated by: Resolution through objection, reporting, withdrawal, or completion of required safeguards
text references: Both Engineer A and Engineer B met with the MWC at a meeting sparsely attended by the public and recommended that the change in water source be substantially delayed until improvements could be completed.
text references: Despite those recommendations, the MWC voted to proceed simultaneously with the accelerated evaluation and design of needed water treatment improvements and the change in water source.
triggering event: MWC vote to proceed contrary to Engineer A's safety recommendation, requiring Engineer A to choose between organizational loyalty and public safety obligations
urgency level: high
discovered in case: 76
discovered in pass: 1
discovered in section: facts
first discovered at: 2026-06-05T11:17:42.957900+00:00
first discovered in case: 76
match confidence: 0.95
match reasoning: Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Faithful Agent Duty Conflict State'
matched ontology class: FaithfulAgentDutyConflictState
matched ontology label: Faithful Agent Duty Conflict State
matches existing: true
source text: Both Engineer A and Engineer B met with the MWC at a meeting sparsely attended by the public and recommended that the change in water source be substantially delayed until improvements could be completed.
synthesis literal: activePeriod
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: stateClass
synthesis literal: subject
synthesis literal: terminatedBy
synthesis literal: textReferences
synthesis literal: triggeringEvent
synthesis literal: urgencyLevel
comment: Engineer A's tension between duty to carry out MWC decisions and paramount duty to protect public health
generated at time: 2026-06-05T11:17:42.957900+00:00
was attributed to: Case 76 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

Engineer B Post-Override Regulatory Reporting
type: ClientOverridePublicSafetyReportingObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer B Faithful Agent Boundary
obligated party: Engineer B
prevails over: Engineer B Faithful Agent Boundary
case context: Engineer B was retained by the MWC as a consulting engineer. After the MWC voted to override the joint recommendation to delay the water source change, Engineer B's duty to public welfare required escalation to the state regulatory authority.
compliance status: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.9
obligation class: Client Override Public Safety Reporting Obligation
obligation statement: As the retained consulting engineer who identified the lead leaching risk, Engineer B was obligated after the MWC override to report the public health risk to the appropriate state regulatory authority, placing the paramount duty to public welfare above the faithful agent duty to the MWC as client.
temporal scope: Following the MWC vote to override the joint engineering recommendation
text references: Despite those recommendations, the MWC voted to proceed simultaneously with the accelerated evaluation and design of needed water treatment improvements and the change in water source.
text references: Engineer B, a consulting engineer retained by the MWC charged with evaluating water treatment needs for the change in water source, provided a report to Engineer A recommending extensive capital investments and a three-year timeline.
discovered in case: 76
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: facts
first discovered at: 2026-06-05T11:23:42.907966+00:00
first discovered in case: 76
match confidence: 0.95
match reasoning: Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Client Override Public Safety Reporting Obligation'
matched ontology class: ClientOverridePublicSafetyReportingObligation
matched ontology label: Client Override Public Safety Reporting Obligation
matches existing: true
source text: Engineer B, a consulting engineer retained by the MWC charged with evaluating water treatment needs for the change in water source, provided a report to Engineer A recommending extensive capital investments and a three-year timeline.
synthesis literal: caseContext
synthesis literal: complianceStatus
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: obligationClass
synthesis literal: obligationStatement
synthesis literal: temporalScope
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: As the retained consulting engineer who identified the lead leaching risk, Engineer B was obligated after the MWC override to report the public health risk to the appropriate state regulatory authority, placing the paramount duty to public welfare above the faithful agent duty to the MWC as client.
generated at time: 2026-06-05T11:23:42.907966+00:00
was attributed to: Case 76 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

Engineers A B Formal Project Failure Notice
type: FormalProjectFailureNotificationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
obligated party: Engineer A
obligated party: Engineer B
case context: The MWC overruled the joint recommendation to delay the water source change. Engineers A and B identified that proceeding without the required improvements would result in lead exposure to the public. They were required to formally advise the MWC that the project would not achieve safe outcomes.
compliance status: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.86
derived from principle: Engineers A B Project Success Notification
obligated party: Engineers A and B jointly
obligation class: Formal Project Failure Notification Obligation
obligation statement: Engineers A and B were obligated to formally advise the MWC in writing that the project would not be successful, defined as the public not being endangered, if the water source change proceeded without prior completion of the required corrosion control improvements.
temporal scope: After the MWC overruled the joint recommendations and before or concurrent with the formal regulatory presentation.
text references: Again, as with the state regulatory agency, this advisement should proceed in a formal manner.
text references: If project success is defined as 'the public will not be endangered at all,' then Engineers A and B should advise their client that they believe the project will not be successful.
discovered in case: 76
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: discussion
first discovered at: 2026-06-05T11:28:12.343728+00:00
first discovered in case: 76
match confidence: 0.78
match reasoning: Via class 'Formal Project Failure Notification Obligation': The existing Project Success Notification Obligation captures the general duty to advise a client when a project will not be successful. This class adds the specific requirement that the notification be formal and documented, which is a meaningful variant warranting a distinct class label while still being closely related to the existing concept.
matched ontology class: ProjectSuccessNotificationObligation
matched ontology label: Project Success Notification Obligation
matches existing: true
source text: If project success is defined as 'the public will not be endangered at all,' then Engineers A and B should advise their client that they believe the project will not be successful.
synthesis literal: caseContext
synthesis literal: complianceStatus
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: obligationClass
synthesis literal: obligationStatement
synthesis literal: temporalScope
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineers A and B were obligated to formally advise the MWC in writing that the project would not be successful, defined as the public not being endangered, if the water source change proceeded without prior completion of the required corrosion control improvements.
generated at time: 2026-06-05T11:28:12.343728+00:00
was attributed to: Case 76 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

Engineers A B Post-Presentation Persistence
type: Post-PresentationPersistenceObligation
type: NamedIndividual
obligated party: Engineer A
obligated party: Engineer B
case context: Engineers A and B identified that changing the water source without adequate corrosion control would cause old service pipes to leach lead at levels exceeding drinking water standards. After the MWC overruled their recommendations, they were directed to make formal presentations. If those presentations failed to produce a change, a further obligation to persist arose.
compliance status: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.87
derived from principle: Engineers A B Post-Formal Persistence
obligated party: Engineers A and B jointly
obligation class: Post-Presentation Persistence Obligation
obligation statement: Engineers A and B were obligated to further pursue the matter through additional available channels if their formal presentations to the MWC and the state regulatory agency failed to change the MWC's plans, given the gravity of the danger to public health and safety.
temporal scope: In the event that formal presentations to the MWC and the state regulatory agency failed to produce a change in the MWC's plans.
text references: However, in the event that these formal presentations fail to sway the MWC to change its plans, given the gravity of the danger to public health and safety, Engineers A and B have an obligation to further pursue the matter.
discovered in case: 76
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: discussion
first discovered at: 2026-06-05T11:28:12.343728+00:00
first discovered in case: 76
match confidence: 0.0
matches existing: false
source text: However, in the event that these formal presentations fail to sway the MWC to change its plans, given the gravity of the danger to public health and safety, Engineers A and B have an obligation to further pursue the matter.
synthesis literal: caseContext
synthesis literal: complianceStatus
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: obligationClass
synthesis literal: obligationStatement
synthesis literal: temporalScope
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineers A and B were obligated to further pursue the matter through additional available channels if their formal presentations to the MWC and the state regulatory agency failed to change the MWC's plans, given the gravity of the danger to public health and safety.
generated at time: 2026-06-05T11:28:12.343728+00:00
was attributed to: Case 76 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

Engineers A and B Formal Notification Gap
type: FormalAuthorityNotificationRequiredState
type: NamedIndividual
activated by event: Public Health Risk Identified
activates obligation: Engineers A B Formal Project Failure Notice
activates obligation: Engineers A B Formal Regulatory Presentation
activates obligation: Engineers A B Post-Presentation Persistence
affects: Engineer A
affects: Engineer B
affects: Metropolitan Water Commission
affects: Public
affects: State Regulatory Agency
terminated by event: Engineer Retention
active period: From the point of informal agency contact through completion of formal written presentations to all appropriate authorities
affected parties: Engineer A
affected parties: Engineer B
affected parties: Municipal Water Commission
affected parties: Public
affected parties: State regulatory agency
concept category: State
confidence: 0.88
principle transformation: Transforms the general duty to report safety concerns into a specific procedural obligation requiring formal written communication to authorities, distinguishing mere contact from a complete formal presentation of professional findings.
state class: Formal Authority Notification Required State
subject: State in which Engineers A and B had made informal contact with the state regulatory agency but had not yet made a formal written presentation of facts, findings, and recommendations
terminated by: Formal written presentation of facts, findings, and recommendations to the state regulatory agency and other appropriate authorities
text references: It appears that the state regulatory agency has been contacted; however, there should be a formal presentation of the facts, findings, and recommendations.
text references: The formal presentations satisfy Engineer A's and Engineer B's duty to report.
text references: this advisement should proceed in a formal manner
triggering event: Informal contact with state regulatory agency without formal presentation of findings
urgency level: high
discovered in case: 76
discovered in pass: 1
discovered in section: discussion
first discovered at: 2026-06-05T11:18:53.656605+00:00
first discovered in case: 76
match confidence: 0.0
matches existing: false
source text: It appears that the state regulatory agency has been contacted; however, there should be a formal presentation of the facts, findings, and recommendations.
synthesis literal: activePeriod
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: stateClass
synthesis literal: subject
synthesis literal: terminatedBy
synthesis literal: textReferences
synthesis literal: triggeringEvent
synthesis literal: urgencyLevel
comment: State in which Engineers A and B had made informal contact with the state regulatory agency but had not yet made a formal written presentation of facts, findings, and recommendations
generated at time: 2026-06-05T11:18:53.656605+00:00
was attributed to: Case 76 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

Engineer A Public Welfare Water Safety
type: PublicWelfareParamountcyPrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
invoked by: Engineer A
applied to: Lead leaching risk from old service pipes
applied to: Water source change decision by the MWC
balancing with: Faithful Agent Duty Principle
balancing with: Loyalty
concept category: Principle
concrete expression: Engineer A, as chief engineer and superintendent of the MWC, jointly recommended delay of the water source change to protect public health, and following the MWC override, bears an obligation to escalate the identified risk to appropriate authorities.
confidence: 0.96
interpretation: Engineer A's dual role as MWC employee and licensed professional engineer creates a heightened obligation to ensure that the public welfare paramountcy principle is honored even when the client-employer overrides safety recommendations.
invoked by: Engineer A Water Commission Chief Engineer
principle class: Public Welfare Paramountcy Principle
tension resolution: The public welfare paramountcy principle requires Engineer A to escalate to the state regulatory agency, notwithstanding the employment relationship with the MWC.
text references: Both Engineer A and Engineer B met with the MWC at a meeting sparsely attended by the public and recommended that the change in water source be substantially delayed until improvements could be completed.
text references: Despite those recommendations, the MWC voted to proceed simultaneously with the accelerated evaluation and design of needed water treatment improvements and the change in water source.
discovered in case: 76
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: facts
first discovered at: 2026-06-05T11:22:15.977522+00:00
first discovered in case: 76
match confidence: 0.97
match reasoning: Via class 'Public Welfare Paramountcy Principle': The existing ontology contains 'Public Welfare Paramountcy Principle' which is defined as the fundamental principle requiring engineers to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public above all competing professional obligations. This is a direct match to the core ethical issue in this case.
matched ontology class: PublicWelfareParamountcyPrinciple
matched ontology label: Public Welfare Paramountcy Principle
matches existing: true
source text: Both Engineer A and Engineer B met with the MWC at a meeting sparsely attended by the public and recommended that the change in water source be substantially delayed until improvements could be completed.
synthesis literal: appliedTo
synthesis literal: balancingWith
synthesis literal: concreteExpression
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: interpretation
synthesis literal: principleClass
synthesis literal: tensionResolution
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineer A, as chief engineer and superintendent of the MWC, jointly recommended delay of the water source change to protect public health, and following the MWC override, bears an obligation to escalate the identified risk to appropriate authorities.
generated at time: 2026-06-05T11:22:15.977522+00:00
was attributed to: Case 76 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

Engineers A and B Post-Presentation Escalation
type: PersistentSafetyPursuitObligationState
type: NamedIndividual
activated by event: Public Health Risk Identified
activates obligation: Engineer A Post-Override Regulatory Reporting
affects: Engineer A
affects: Engineer B
affects: Metropolitan Water Commission
affects: Public
affects: State Regulatory Agency
terminated by event: Engineer Retention
terminated by event: Public Health Risk Identified
active period: From the point at which formal presentations to the MWC and state regulatory agency fail to produce corrective action, continuing until the safety risk is resolved
affected parties: Engineer A
affected parties: Engineer B
affected parties: Municipal Water Commission
affected parties: Public
affected parties: State regulatory agency
concept category: State
confidence: 0.87
principle transformation: Transforms the general duty to hold public safety paramount into a continuing and escalating obligation that survives initial formal reporting, requiring the professional to pursue additional remedies when those reports fail to produce corrective action.
state class: Persistent Safety Pursuit Obligation State
subject: Continuing obligation of Engineers A and B to pursue resolution after formal presentations fail to change MWC plans
terminated by: MWC adopts corrective measures, regulatory authority intervenes, or engineers exhaust available escalation options
text references: Engineers A and B have an obligation to further pursue the matter.
text references: in the event that these formal presentations fail to sway the MWC to change its plans, given the gravity of the danger to public health and safety, Engineers A and B have an obligation to further pursue the matter
triggering event: Formal presentations to MWC and state regulatory agency fail to sway the MWC to change its plans
urgency level: critical
discovered in case: 76
discovered in pass: 1
discovered in section: discussion
first discovered at: 2026-06-05T11:18:53.656605+00:00
first discovered in case: 76
match confidence: 0.0
matches existing: false
source text: Engineers A and B have an obligation to further pursue the matter.
synthesis literal: activePeriod
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: stateClass
synthesis literal: subject
synthesis literal: terminatedBy
synthesis literal: textReferences
synthesis literal: triggeringEvent
synthesis literal: urgencyLevel
comment: Continuing obligation of Engineers A and B to pursue resolution after formal presentations fail to change MWC plans
generated at time: 2026-06-05T11:18:53.656605+00:00
was attributed to: Case 76 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

Engineer B Faithful Agent Boundary
type: FaithfulAgentBoundaryObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer B Post-Override Regulatory Reporting
defeasible under: MWC Override of Engineers A and B
obligated party: Engineer B
case context: Engineer B was retained by the MWC as a consulting engineer. After the MWC voted to override the joint recommendation, Engineer B's faithful agent duty to the client was defeasible in the face of the identified public health risk.
compliance status: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.85
derived from principle: Engineers A B Faithful Agent Duty
obligation class: Faithful Agent Boundary Obligation
obligation statement: Engineer B was obligated to serve the MWC's legitimate interests as a retained consulting engineer while refusing to allow the faithful agent duty to override the paramount duty to public welfare when the MWC's decision created a risk of lead exposure to water consumers.
temporal scope: Throughout the engagement and following the MWC override vote
text references: Both Engineer A and Engineer B met with the MWC at a meeting sparsely attended by the public and recommended that the change in water source be substantially delayed until improvements could be completed.
text references: Engineer B, a consulting engineer retained by the MWC charged with evaluating water treatment needs for the change in water source, provided a report to Engineer A recommending extensive capital investments and a three-year timeline.
discovered in case: 76
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: facts
first discovered at: 2026-06-05T11:23:42.907966+00:00
first discovered in case: 76
match confidence: 0.95
match reasoning: Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Faithful Agent Boundary Obligation'
matched ontology class: FaithfulAgentBoundaryObligation
matched ontology label: Faithful Agent Boundary Obligation
matches existing: true
source text: Engineer B, a consulting engineer retained by the MWC charged with evaluating water treatment needs for the change in water source, provided a report to Engineer A recommending extensive capital investments and a three-year timeline.
synthesis literal: caseContext
synthesis literal: complianceStatus
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: obligationClass
synthesis literal: obligationStatement
synthesis literal: temporalScope
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineer B was obligated to serve the MWC's legitimate interests as a retained consulting engineer while refusing to allow the faithful agent duty to override the paramount duty to public welfare when the MWC's decision created a risk of lead exposure to water consumers.
generated at time: 2026-06-05T11:23:42.907966+00:00
was attributed to: Case 76 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

Engineers A B Faithful Agent Duty
type: FaithfulAgentDutyPrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
invoked by: Engineer A
invoked by: Engineer B
applied to: Joint recommendation to delay the water source change
applied to: MWC water source change evaluation
balancing with: Proactive Risk Disclosure Principle
balancing with: Public Welfare Paramountcy Principle
concept category: Principle
concrete expression: Engineers A and B served as faithful agents to the MWC by conducting thorough evaluations, providing complete and honest recommendations, and presenting those recommendations to the MWC before the vote. This duty was fulfilled through honest advice, not through acquiescence to the override.
confidence: 0.91
interpretation: The faithful agent duty required Engineers A and B to advance the MWC's legitimate interests in cost reduction and water source change, but those interests do not include proceeding with a plan that creates an unmitigated public health risk. The duty was discharged through honest and complete advice.
invoked by: Engineer A Water Commission Chief Engineer
invoked by: Engineer B Water Treatment Consultant
principle class: Faithful Agent Duty Principle
tension resolution: The faithful agent duty is subordinate to the public welfare paramountcy principle; Engineers A and B discharged their loyalty obligation through honest advice and are not required to remain silent following the override.
text references: Both Engineer A and Engineer B met with the MWC at a meeting sparsely attended by the public and recommended that the change in water source be substantially delayed until improvements could be completed.
text references: Engineer B, a consulting engineer retained by the MWC charged with evaluating water treatment needs for the change in water source, provided a report to Engineer A recommending extensive capital investments and a three-year timeline.
discovered in case: 76
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: facts
first discovered at: 2026-06-05T11:22:15.977522+00:00
first discovered in case: 76
match confidence: 0.92
match reasoning: Via class 'Faithful Agent Duty Principle': The existing ontology contains 'Faithful Agent Duty Principle' defined as the relational principle establishing that an engineer owes a duty of loyalty to each client or employer, acting as a faithful agent or trustee, but subordinate to the paramount duty to public welfare. This is a direct match.
matched ontology class: FaithfulAgentDutyPrinciple
matched ontology label: Faithful Agent Duty Principle
matches existing: true
source text: Engineer B, a consulting engineer retained by the MWC charged with evaluating water treatment needs for the change in water source, provided a report to Engineer A recommending extensive capital investments and a three-year timeline for further evaluation of water quality, design, and construction of improvements.
synthesis literal: appliedTo
synthesis literal: balancingWith
synthesis literal: concreteExpression
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: interpretation
synthesis literal: principleClass
synthesis literal: tensionResolution
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineers A and B served as faithful agents to the MWC by conducting thorough evaluations, providing complete and honest recommendations, and presenting those recommendations to the MWC before the vote. This duty was fulfilled through honest advice, not through acquiescence to the override.
generated at time: 2026-06-05T11:22:15.977522+00:00
was attributed to: Case 76 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

Engineers A B Simultaneous Transition Safety
type: ClientBudgetOverrideSafetyContinuationConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
constrained entity: Engineer A
constrained entity: Engineer B
case context: The MWC voted to proceed simultaneously rather than sequentially, directly contrary to the engineers' safety recommendation. The economic motivation for the simultaneous approach, reducing municipal expenditures and lowering water rates, meant that the MWC's override was budget-driven. The constraint prohibited the engineers from continuing to facilitate this approach.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.88
constrained entity: Engineers A and B
constraint class: Client Budget Override Safety Continuation Constraint
constraint statement: Engineers A and B were prohibited from endorsing or facilitating the MWC's decision to proceed simultaneously with the water source change and the evaluation and design of corrosion control improvements, because that simultaneous approach was the specific course the engineers had identified as creating a confirmed public health risk, and the MWC's preference for it was grounded in the economic objective of reducing expenditures.
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code Section II.1
temporal scope: From the MWC override vote forward
text references: Despite those recommendations, the MWC voted to proceed simultaneously with the accelerated evaluation and design of needed water treatment improvements and the change in water source
text references: In order to reduce municipal expenditures and lower water rates, the MWC has been considering changing its water supply source
discovered in case: 76
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: facts
first discovered at: 2026-06-05T11:25:13.430491+00:00
first discovered in case: 76
match confidence: 0.95
match reasoning: Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Client Budget Override Safety Continuation Constraint'
matched ontology class: ClientBudgetOverrideSafetyContinuationConstraint
matched ontology label: Client Budget Override Safety Continuation Constraint
matches existing: true
source text: In order to reduce municipal expenditures and lower water rates, the MWC has been considering changing its water supply source
synthesis literal: caseContext
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: constraintClass
synthesis literal: constraintStatement
synthesis literal: severity
synthesis literal: source
synthesis literal: temporalScope
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineers A and B were prohibited from endorsing or facilitating the MWC's decision to proceed simultaneously with the water source change and the evaluation and design of corrosion control improvements, because that simultaneous approach was the specific course the engineers had identified as creating a confirmed public health risk, and the MWC's preference for it was grounded in the economic objective of reducing expenditures.
generated at time: 2026-06-05T11:25:13.430491+00:00
was attributed to: Case 76 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

Evaluation Report Submission
type: Action
type: NamedIndividual
fulfills obligation: Engineer A Faithful Agent Boundary
fulfills obligation: Engineer B Faithful Agent Boundary
initiates: MWC Confirmed Risk Without Safeguards
initiates: MWC Lead Leaching Risk
initiates: MWC Public Safety Risk
concept category: Action
event role context: consulting engineer retained by MWC
foreseen unintended effects: Recommendation may delay cost savings sought by MWC
foreseen unintended effects: Report findings may be politically inconvenient for MWC decision-makers
fulfills obligation text: Act as Faithful Agent within Bounds of Public Safety
fulfills obligation text: Provide Objective and Truthful Professional Opinion
guided by principle text: Competence and Truthfulness in Professional Reports
guided by principle text: Public Safety Paramountcy
has agent: Engineer B
has mental state: deliberate
initiates text: Formal Safety Recommendation on Record
initiates text: MWC Informed of Lead Leaching Risk
initiates text: Three-Year Timeline Requirement Documented
intended outcome: Inform the MWC of the technical requirements and safety preconditions necessary before switching the water source
raises obligation text: Hold Paramount Public Safety Health and Welfare
requires capability text: Corrosion control analysis
requires capability text: Regulatory standards knowledge for drinking water
requires capability text: Water treatment engineering evaluation
temporal extent: instant
temporal marker: Prior to MWC meeting
temporal sequence: 4
within competence: true
synthesis literal: description
synthesis literal: eventRoleContext
synthesis literal: foreseenUnintendedEffects
synthesis literal: hasAgent
synthesis literal: hasMentalState
synthesis literal: intendedOutcome
synthesis literal: temporalExtent
synthesis literal: temporalMarker
synthesis literal: temporalSequence
synthesis literal: withinCompetence
comment: Engineer B completed and submitted a formal report to Engineer A recommending extensive capital investments and a three-year evaluation, design, and construction timeline before any water source change, to ensure corrosion control and prevent lead leaching from old service pipes.
has time: Prior to MWC meeting
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

Continued Pursuit of Matter
type: Action
type: NamedIndividual
fulfills obligation: Engineers A B Post-Override Regulatory Escalation
fulfills obligation: Engineers A B Post-Presentation Persistence
fulfills obligation: Engineers A B Public Health Risk Disclosure
initiates: Engineers A and B Post-Presentation Escalation
agent relation: and
concept category: Action
foreseen unintended effects: Could escalate conflict with the MWC beyond repair
foreseen unintended effects: May result in significant professional and employment consequences for Engineer A given the employer-employee relationship with the MWC
fulfills obligation text: Duty to Report Safety Violations to Appropriate Public Authorities
fulfills obligation text: Hold Paramount Public Safety Health and Welfare
fulfills obligation text: Notify All Appropriate Authorities When Life or Property Is Endangered
guided by principle: Engineer A Public Welfare Water Safety
guided by principle: Engineer B Public Welfare Water Safety
guided by principle: Engineers A B Concurrent Safety Reporting
guided by principle: Engineers A B Post-Formal Persistence
guided by principle: Engineers A B Proactive Risk Disclosure
guided by principle: Engineers A B Public Welfare Paramountcy
guided by principle text: Professional Obligation to Act Without Client Consent When Public Is Endangered
guided by principle text: Public Safety Paramountcy
has agent: Engineer A (superintendent and chief engineer, MWC) and Engineer B (consulting engineer retained by MWC)
has mental state: deliberate
initiates text: Escalated Safety Pursuit Active
initiates text: Further Regulatory or Public Engagement Initiated
intended outcome: Prevent public harm from lead contamination by exhausting all available professional and reporting avenues when initial formal notifications have not produced a change in the MWC's course
requires capability text: Escalation judgment
requires capability text: Knowledge of additional reporting channels and authorities
requires capability text: Professional persistence under institutional pressure
temporal extent: interval
temporal marker: Contingent future point, if formal presentations fail
temporal sequence: 11
terminates text: Duty Fulfilled by Initial Formal Reporting Only
within competence: true
synthesis literal: agentRelation
synthesis literal: agents
synthesis literal: description
synthesis literal: foreseenUnintendedEffects
synthesis literal: hasAgent
synthesis literal: hasMentalState
synthesis literal: intendedOutcome
synthesis literal: temporalExtent
synthesis literal: temporalMarker
synthesis literal: temporalSequence
synthesis literal: withinCompetence
comment: If formal presentations to the MWC and regulatory authorities fail to change the MWC's plans, Engineers A and B are obligated to further pursue the matter beyond initial formal reporting, given the gravity of the danger to public health from lead exposure in drinking water.
has time: Contingent future point, if formal presentations fail
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

Engineer B Public Welfare Water Safety
type: PublicWelfareParamountcyPrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
invoked by: Engineer B
applied to: Lead leaching risk from old service pipes
applied to: Water source change decision by the MWC
balancing with: Faithful Agent Duty Principle
concept category: Principle
concrete expression: Engineer B identified that changing the water source without adequate corrosion control would cause old service pipes to leach lead at levels exceeding drinking water standards, posing a direct public health risk to water consumers in the MWC service area.
confidence: 0.97
interpretation: The public welfare paramountcy principle requires Engineer B to ensure that the identified lead leaching risk is communicated to the MWC, and following the override, to escalate to the state regulatory agency to protect water consumers who cannot protect themselves from this risk.
invoked by: Engineer B Water Treatment Consultant
principle class: Public Welfare Paramountcy Principle
tension resolution: Public welfare paramountcy overrides the faithful agent duty when the client's override decision creates an unmitigated public health risk; Engineer B must escalate beyond the client relationship.
text references: Despite those recommendations, the MWC voted to proceed simultaneously with the accelerated evaluation and design of needed water treatment improvements and the change in water source.
text references: The improvements are needed prior to the change in water source to ensure that sufficient corrosion control is provided so that old service pipes in the MWC service area don't leach lead at levels in excess of drinking water standards.
discovered in case: 76
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: facts
first discovered at: 2026-06-05T11:22:15.977522+00:00
first discovered in case: 76
match confidence: 0.97
match reasoning: Via class 'Public Welfare Paramountcy Principle': The existing ontology contains 'Public Welfare Paramountcy Principle' which is defined as the fundamental principle requiring engineers to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public above all competing professional obligations. This is a direct match to the core ethical issue in this case.
matched ontology class: PublicWelfareParamountcyPrinciple
matched ontology label: Public Welfare Paramountcy Principle
matches existing: true
source text: The improvements are needed prior to the change in water source to ensure that sufficient corrosion control is provided so that old service pipes in the MWC service area don't leach lead at levels in excess of drinking water standards.
synthesis literal: appliedTo
synthesis literal: balancingWith
synthesis literal: concreteExpression
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: interpretation
synthesis literal: principleClass
synthesis literal: tensionResolution
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineer B identified that changing the water source without adequate corrosion control would cause old service pipes to leach lead at levels exceeding drinking water standards, posing a direct public health risk to water consumers in the MWC service area.
generated at time: 2026-06-05T11:22:15.977522+00:00
was attributed to: Case 76 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

Engineers A B Formal Regulatory Presentation
type: FormalRegulatoryPresentationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
obligated party: Engineer A
obligated party: Engineer B
case context: Engineers A and B jointly recommended that the MWC delay the water source change pending completion of corrosion control improvements. The MWC overruled the recommendation. The state regulatory agency had been contacted informally, but no formal presentation of the technical findings had been made.
compliance status: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.88
derived from principle: Engineers A B Formal Escalation Obligation
obligated party: Engineers A and B jointly
obligation class: Formal Regulatory Presentation Obligation
obligation statement: Engineers A and B were obligated to make a formal presentation of their facts, findings, and recommendations to the state regulatory agency, rather than relying on the informal prior contact that had already occurred.
temporal scope: After the MWC overruled the joint engineering recommendations and it became clear that informal contact with the state regulatory agency was insufficient.
text references: It appears that the state regulatory agency has been contacted; however, there should be a formal presentation of the facts, findings, and recommendations.
text references: The formal presentations satisfy Engineer A's and Engineer B's duty to report.
discovered in case: 76
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: discussion
first discovered at: 2026-06-05T11:28:12.343728+00:00
first discovered in case: 76
match confidence: 0.75
match reasoning: Via class 'Formal Regulatory Presentation Obligation': The existing class captures the duty to report to regulatory authorities when a client overrides safety recommendations, but this obligation adds the specific requirement that the report take the form of a formal presentation rather than informal contact, making it a meaningful variant rather than an exact match.
matched ontology class: ClientOverridePublicSafetyReportingObligation
matched ontology label: Client Override Public Safety Reporting Obligation
matches existing: true
source text: It appears that the state regulatory agency has been contacted; however, there should be a formal presentation of the facts, findings, and recommendations.
synthesis literal: caseContext
synthesis literal: complianceStatus
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: obligationClass
synthesis literal: obligationStatement
synthesis literal: temporalScope
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineers A and B were obligated to make a formal presentation of their facts, findings, and recommendations to the state regulatory agency, rather than relying on the informal prior contact that had already occurred.
generated at time: 2026-06-05T11:28:12.343728+00:00
was attributed to: Case 76 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

MWC Lead Leaching Risk
type: PrematureSourceTransitionState
type: NamedIndividual
activated by event: Accelerated Project Initiation
activated by event: Water Source Consideration
activates constraint: Engineers A B Simultaneous Transition Safety
activates obligation: Engineer A Post-Override Regulatory Reporting
activates obligation: Engineers A B Public Health Risk Disclosure
affects: Engineer A
affects: Engineer B
affects: Metropolitan Water Commission
affects: Public
active period: From the MWC vote to proceed through completion of required corrosion control improvements
affected parties: Engineer A
affected parties: Engineer B
affected parties: MWC
affected parties: Public water consumers in MWC service area
concept category: State
confidence: 0.88
principle transformation: Transforms the general duty to protect public health and safety into a concrete obligation to object, document, and report when a utility proceeds with a supply change that creates foreseeable lead leaching risk in the distribution system.
state class: Premature Source Transition State
subject: MWC water supply transition before corrosion control safeguards are in place
terminated by: Completion of corrosion control improvements sufficient to prevent lead leaching above drinking water standards, or reversal of the source change decision
text references: The improvements are needed prior to the change in water source to ensure that sufficient corrosion control is provided so that old service pipes in the MWC service area don't leach lead at levels in excess of drinking water standards.
text references: the MWC voted to proceed simultaneously with the accelerated evaluation and design of needed water treatment improvements and the change in water source
triggering event: MWC decision to change water source before the three-year evaluation and improvement timeline recommended by Engineer B could be completed
urgency level: high
discovered in case: 76
discovered in pass: 1
discovered in section: facts
first discovered at: 2026-06-05T11:17:42.957900+00:00
first discovered in case: 76
match confidence: 0.0
matches existing: false
source text: The improvements are needed prior to the change in water source to ensure that sufficient corrosion control is provided so that old service pipes in the MWC service area don't leach lead at levels in excess of drinking water standards.
synthesis literal: activePeriod
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: stateClass
synthesis literal: subject
synthesis literal: terminatedBy
synthesis literal: textReferences
synthesis literal: triggeringEvent
synthesis literal: urgencyLevel
comment: MWC water supply transition before corrosion control safeguards are in place
generated at time: 2026-06-05T11:17:42.957900+00:00
was attributed to: Case 76 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

Engineer A Faithful Agent Boundary
type: FaithfulAgentBoundaryObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer A Post-Override Regulatory Reporting
defeasible under: MWC Override of Engineers A and B
obligated party: Engineer A
case context: Engineer A served as superintendent and chief engineer for the MWC, creating a strong faithful agent relationship. After the MWC voted to override the joint recommendation, Engineer A's faithful agent duty was defeasible in the face of the public health risk.
compliance status: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.85
derived from principle: Engineers A B Faithful Agent Duty
obligation class: Faithful Agent Boundary Obligation
obligation statement: Engineer A was obligated to serve the MWC's legitimate interests as a faithful agent while refusing to allow the faithful agent duty to override the paramount duty to public welfare when the MWC's decision created a risk of lead exposure to water consumers.
temporal scope: Throughout the engagement and following the MWC override vote
text references: Both Engineer A and Engineer B met with the MWC at a meeting sparsely attended by the public and recommended that the change in water source be substantially delayed until improvements could be completed.
text references: Engineer A is a professional engineer who serves as the superintendent and chief engineer for the Metropolitan Water Commission (MWC).
discovered in case: 76
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: facts
first discovered at: 2026-06-05T11:23:42.907966+00:00
first discovered in case: 76
match confidence: 0.95
match reasoning: Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Faithful Agent Boundary Obligation'
matched ontology class: FaithfulAgentBoundaryObligation
matched ontology label: Faithful Agent Boundary Obligation
matches existing: true
source text: Engineer A is a professional engineer who serves as the superintendent and chief engineer for the Metropolitan Water Commission (MWC).
synthesis literal: caseContext
synthesis literal: complianceStatus
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: obligationClass
synthesis literal: obligationStatement
synthesis literal: temporalScope
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineer A was obligated to serve the MWC's legitimate interests as a faithful agent while refusing to allow the faithful agent duty to override the paramount duty to public welfare when the MWC's decision created a risk of lead exposure to water consumers.
generated at time: 2026-06-05T11:23:42.907966+00:00
was attributed to: Case 76 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

Engineer A Safety Reporting
type: SafetyReportingEngineer
type: NamedIndividual
adheres to principle: Engineers A B Client Override Refusal
adheres to principle: Engineers A B Complete Reporting
adheres to principle: Engineers A B Concurrent Safety Reporting
adheres to principle: Engineers A B Formal Escalation Obligation
adheres to principle: Engineers A B Graduated Response
adheres to principle: Engineers A B Post-Formal Persistence
adheres to principle: Engineers A B Proactive Risk Disclosure
adheres to principle: Engineers A B Public Welfare Paramountcy
has obligation: Engineer A Client Economic Pressure Refusal
has obligation: Engineer A Faithful Agent Boundary
has obligation: Engineer A Post-Override Regulatory Reporting
has obligation: Engineer A Risk Disclosure to MWC
has obligation: Engineer A Safety Reporting Escalation
actor: Engineer A
case involvement: As chief engineer and superintendent, Engineer A jointly presented findings and recommendations with Engineer B, had those recommendations overruled by the MWC, and bears an obligation to formally report the public health danger to the state regulatory agency and other appropriate authorities.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.9
has license: Professional Engineer
role category: public_responsibility
role class: Safety Reporting Engineer
role in organization: Superintendent and Chief Engineer, MWC
text references: Engineers A and B have an obligation to further pursue the matter.
text references: Engineers A and B have presented the findings and recommendations jointly
text references: The engineering judgments of Engineer A and Engineer B were overruled by the MWC.
discovered in case: 76
discovered in pass: 1
discovered in section: discussion
first discovered at: 2026-06-05T11:18:16.149700+00:00
first discovered in case: 76
match confidence: 0.0
matches existing: false
source text: Engineers A and B have presented the findings and recommendations jointly
synthesis literal: caseInvolvement
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: roleCategory
synthesis literal: roleClass
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: As chief engineer and superintendent, Engineer A jointly presented findings and recommendations with Engineer B, had those recommendations overruled by the MWC, and bears an obligation to formally report the public health danger to the state regulatory agency and other appropriate authorities.
generated at time: 2026-06-05T11:18:16.149700+00:00
was attributed to: Case 76 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

Engineers A B Concurrent Safety Reporting
type: ConcurrentSafetyReportingPrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
invoked by: Engineer A
invoked by: Engineer B
applied to: Metropolitan Water Commission Client
applied to: State Regulatory Agency Authority
balancing with: Individual professional autonomy
concept category: Principle
concrete expression: Because Engineers A and B jointly presented their findings and recommendations to the MWC, their subsequent safety reporting actions were required to be coordinated and conducted in concert, though not necessarily identical in form, so that the joint professional judgment was consistently communicated to the client and to regulatory authorities.
confidence: 0.85
interpretation: The joint nature of the original presentation creates a relational obligation of coordination in follow-through; neither engineer can treat the other's silence as a substitute for their own reporting obligation, and neither should act in a way that contradicts or undermines the other's concurrent reporting.
invoked by: Engineer A Safety Reporting
invoked by: Engineer B Safety Reporting
principle class: Concurrent Safety Reporting Principle
tension resolution: The case text acknowledges that the actions need not be identical, preserving individual professional autonomy, but requires that they be in concert, ensuring the joint professional judgment is not fragmented or contradicted.
text references: It is important to note that Engineers A and B have presented the findings and recommendations jointly and, as such, their actions should be in concert, although not identical.
discovered in case: 76
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: discussion
first discovered at: 2026-06-05T11:26:55.962095+00:00
first discovered in case: 76
match confidence: 0.0
matches existing: false
source text: It is important to note that Engineers A and B have presented the findings and recommendations jointly and, as such, their actions should be in concert, although not identical.
synthesis literal: appliedTo
synthesis literal: balancingWith
synthesis literal: concreteExpression
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: interpretation
synthesis literal: principleClass
synthesis literal: tensionResolution
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Because Engineers A and B jointly presented their findings and recommendations to the MWC, their subsequent safety reporting actions were required to be coordinated and conducted in concert, though not necessarily identical in form, so that the joint professional judgment was consistently communicated to the client and to regulatory authorities.
generated at time: 2026-06-05T11:26:55.962095+00:00
was attributed to: Case 76 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

Project Failure Advisement
type: Action
type: NamedIndividual
fulfills obligation: Engineers A B Formal Project Failure Notice
fulfills obligation: Engineers A B Project Success Notification
initiates: MWC Confirmed Risk Without Safeguards
initiates: MWC Public Safety Risk
agent relation: and
concept category: Action
foreseen unintended effects: Formal advisement may still fail to change MWC's course
foreseen unintended effects: May further strain the relationship between the engineers and the MWC
fulfills obligation text: Notify Employer or Client of Safety Concerns
fulfills obligation text: Provide Objective and Truthful Professional Opinion
guided by principle: Engineer A Public Welfare Water Safety
guided by principle: Engineer B Public Welfare Water Safety
guided by principle: Engineers A B Concurrent Safety Reporting
guided by principle: Engineers A B Faithful Agent Duty
guided by principle: Engineers A B Proactive Risk Disclosure
guided by principle: Engineers A B Public Funds Stewardship
guided by principle: Engineers A B Public Welfare Paramountcy
guided by principle text: Faithful Agency within Bounds of Public Safety
guided by principle text: Public Safety Paramountcy
has agent: Engineer A (superintendent and chief engineer, MWC) and Engineer B (consulting engineer retained by MWC)
has mental state: deliberate
initiates text: Formal Project Failure Warning on Record
initiates text: MWC Formally Advised of Inadequate Safety Approach
intended outcome: Place the MWC on formal notice that the accelerated simultaneous approach cannot achieve the safety outcome required to protect the public, and create a documented record of that professional judgment
raises obligation text: Hold Paramount Public Safety Health and Welfare
requires capability text: Engineering judgment on project feasibility and safety
requires capability text: Formal written professional communication
temporal extent: instant
temporal marker: Post-MWC vote, implied by Discussion
temporal sequence: 9
within competence: true
synthesis literal: agentRelation
synthesis literal: agents
synthesis literal: description
synthesis literal: foreseenUnintendedEffects
synthesis literal: hasAgent
synthesis literal: hasMentalState
synthesis literal: intendedOutcome
synthesis literal: temporalExtent
synthesis literal: temporalMarker
synthesis literal: temporalSequence
synthesis literal: withinCompetence
comment: Engineers A and B are obligated to formally advise the MWC that the project as structured, proceeding simultaneously with the source change and accelerated improvements, will not succeed in protecting the public from lead exposure, framing this as a professional judgment about project outcome.
has time: Post-MWC vote, implied by Discussion
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

Engineers A B Public Welfare Paramountcy
type: PublicWelfareParamountcyPrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
invoked by: Engineer A
invoked by: Engineer B
applied to: Metropolitan Water Commission Client Override
balancing with: Faithful Agent Duty Principle
concept category: Principle
concrete expression: Engineers A and B identified that proceeding with the water source change without adequate treatment would endanger public health through lead exposure, and their paramount obligation to public welfare required them to act even without client consent.
confidence: 0.97
interpretation: Public welfare paramountcy means that the MWC's overruling of the joint engineering recommendations does not relieve Engineers A and B of their obligation to protect the public, and client consent is not a prerequisite for fulfilling that obligation.
invoked by: Engineer A Safety Reporting
invoked by: Engineer B Safety Reporting
principle class: Public Welfare Paramountcy Principle
tension resolution: The case text explicitly states that the consent of the MWC is not required, resolving the tension in favor of public welfare paramountcy.
text references: As Engineers A and B are required to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public, and as this duty is a fundamental canon of the NSPE Code of Ethics, the consent of the MWC is not required.
discovered in case: 76
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: discussion
first discovered at: 2026-06-05T11:26:55.962095+00:00
first discovered in case: 76
match confidence: 0.95
match reasoning: Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Public Welfare Paramountcy Principle'
matched ontology class: PublicWelfareParamountcyPrinciple
matched ontology label: Public Welfare Paramountcy Principle
matches existing: true
source text: As Engineers A and B are required to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public, and as this duty is a fundamental canon of the NSPE Code of Ethics, the consent of the MWC is not required.
synthesis literal: appliedTo
synthesis literal: balancingWith
synthesis literal: concreteExpression
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: interpretation
synthesis literal: principleClass
synthesis literal: tensionResolution
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineers A and B identified that proceeding with the water source change without adequate treatment would endanger public health through lead exposure, and their paramount obligation to public welfare required them to act even without client consent.
generated at time: 2026-06-05T11:26:55.962095+00:00
was attributed to: Case 76 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

Engineers A and B Public Safety Risk
type: PublicSafetyatRisk
type: NamedIndividual
activated by event: Public Health Risk Identified
activates obligation: Engineers A B Formal Project Failure Notice
activates obligation: Engineers A B Formal Regulatory Presentation
activates obligation: Engineers A B Post-Presentation Persistence
affects: Engineer A
affects: Engineer B
affects: Metropolitan Water Commission
affects: Public
terminated by event: Engineer Retention
active period: From the engineers' determination that life or property is endangered through resolution by corrective action or regulatory intervention
affected parties: Engineer A
affected parties: Engineer B
affected parties: Municipal Water Commission
affected parties: Public served by the water system
concept category: State
confidence: 0.95
principle transformation: Transforms the general duty to report safety concerns into a specific procedural obligation requiring formal written communication to authorities, distinguishing mere contact from a complete formal presentation of professional findings.
state class: Public Safety at Risk
subject: Confirmed public safety risk identified by Engineers A and B that the MWC declined to address
terminated by: Implementation of adequate safeguards or regulatory enforcement
text references: If Engineers A and B believe life or property is endangered
text references: given the gravity of the danger to public health and safety
triggering event: Engineers A and B determined that the MWC's plans endangered life or property
urgency level: critical
discovered in case: 76
discovered in pass: 1
discovered in section: discussion
first discovered at: 2026-06-05T11:18:53.656605+00:00
first discovered in case: 76
match confidence: 0.95
match reasoning: Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Public Safety at Risk'
matched ontology class: PublicSafetyAtRisk
matched ontology label: Public Safety at Risk
matches existing: true
source text: If Engineers A and B believe life or property is endangered
synthesis literal: activePeriod
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: stateClass
synthesis literal: subject
synthesis literal: terminatedBy
synthesis literal: textReferences
synthesis literal: triggeringEvent
synthesis literal: urgencyLevel
comment: Confirmed public safety risk identified by Engineers A and B that the MWC declined to address
generated at time: 2026-06-05T11:18:53.656605+00:00
was attributed to: Case 76 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

MWC Source Change Override
type: ClientOverrideofSafetyRecommendationState
type: NamedIndividual
activated by event: Public Health Risk Identified
activated by event: Recommendation Override
activates constraint: Engineers A B Confidentiality Safety Override
activates constraint: Engineers A B Public Safety Paramount
activates obligation: Engineer A Safety Reporting Escalation
affects: Engineer A
affects: Engineer B
affects: Metropolitan Water Commission
affects: Public
active period: From the MWC vote to proceed through completion of required treatment improvements or other resolution
affected parties: Engineer A
affected parties: Engineer B
affected parties: MWC
affected parties: Public water consumers in MWC service area
concept category: State
confidence: 0.9
principle transformation: Transforms the general duty to protect public safety into a concrete obligation to formally object, document dissent, and evaluate reporting or withdrawal when a client overrides a safety recommendation.
state class: Client Override of Safety Recommendation State
subject: MWC's decision to proceed with water source change despite professional recommendations for delay
terminated by: Completion of required corrosion control and treatment improvements, regulatory intervention, or professional withdrawal
text references: Despite those recommendations, the MWC voted to proceed simultaneously with the accelerated evaluation and design of needed water treatment improvements and the change in water source.
triggering event: MWC vote to proceed simultaneously with source change and evaluation of needed improvements, contrary to the joint recommendation of Engineer A and Engineer B
urgency level: high
discovered in case: 76
discovered in pass: 1
discovered in section: facts
first discovered at: 2026-06-05T11:17:42.957900+00:00
first discovered in case: 76
match confidence: 0.88
match reasoning: Via class 'Client Override of Safety Recommendation State': An existing class 'Client Override of Safety Recommendation State' is present in the previously extracted classes list and captures precisely this scenario: a client has been informed of a professional's safety recommendation and has explicitly directed the professional to proceed without implementing it, citing cost or other business constraints.
matched ontology class: ClientOverrideofSafetyRecommendationState
matched ontology label: Client Override of Safety Recommendation State
matches existing: true
source text: Despite those recommendations, the MWC voted to proceed simultaneously with the accelerated evaluation and design of needed water treatment improvements and the change in water source.
synthesis literal: activePeriod
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: stateClass
synthesis literal: subject
synthesis literal: terminatedBy
synthesis literal: textReferences
synthesis literal: triggeringEvent
synthesis literal: urgencyLevel
comment: MWC's decision to proceed with water source change despite professional recommendations for delay
generated at time: 2026-06-05T11:17:42.957900+00:00
was attributed to: Case 76 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

Accelerated Project Initiation
type: Event
type: NamedIndividual
initiates: Engineers A and B Public Safety Risk
initiates: MWC Confirmed Risk Without Safeguards
initiates: MWC Lead Leaching Risk
initiates: MWC Public Safety Risk
causes state change: The water system began transitioning toward the new source without the safeguards the engineers deemed necessary, placing the public at ongoing and escalating risk of lead exposure.
concept category: Event
event type: automatic_trigger
initiates text: Ongoing Public Safety Risk
initiates text: Unapproved Project Proceeding State
severity: critical
temporal extent: interval
temporal marker: After the MWC vote
temporal sequence: 8
terminates text: Project in Planning State
synthesis literal: causesStateChange
synthesis literal: description
synthesis literal: eventType
synthesis literal: severity
synthesis literal: temporalExtent
synthesis literal: temporalMarker
synthesis literal: temporalSequence
comment: Following the MWC vote, the water source change and evaluation or design work began proceeding simultaneously on an accelerated schedule, contrary to the engineers' recommended phased approach.
has time: After the MWC vote
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

Engineers A B Proactive Risk Disclosure
type: ProactiveRiskDisclosurePrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
invoked by: Engineer A
invoked by: Engineer B
applied to: Lead leaching risk from old service pipes
applied to: MWC decision to proceed without completing improvements first
balancing with: Client confidentiality
balancing with: Faithful Agent Duty Principle
concept category: Principle
concrete expression: Engineers A and B disclosed the lead leaching risk and the need for a three-year improvement timeline to the MWC before the vote. Following the override, the proactive risk disclosure principle requires them to disclose the ongoing risk to the state regulatory agency and potentially to the public.
confidence: 0.93
interpretation: Disclosure to the MWC was a necessary first step, but the override does not extinguish the disclosure obligation. The principle requires escalation to the state regulatory agency as the next appropriate audience for the risk disclosure.
invoked by: Engineer A Safety Reporting
invoked by: Engineer B Safety Reporting
principle class: Proactive Risk Disclosure Principle
tension resolution: The proactive risk disclosure principle requires escalation beyond the client when the client has overridden safety recommendations and the risk to the public remains unmitigated.
text references: Both Engineer A and Engineer B met with the MWC at a meeting sparsely attended by the public and recommended that the change in water source be substantially delayed until improvements could be completed.
text references: The improvements are needed prior to the change in water source to ensure that sufficient corrosion control is provided so that old service pipes in the MWC service area don't leach lead at levels in excess of drinking water standards.
discovered in case: 76
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: facts
first discovered at: 2026-06-05T11:22:15.977522+00:00
first discovered in case: 76
match confidence: 0.93
match reasoning: Via class 'Proactive Risk Disclosure Principle': The existing ontology contains 'Proactive Risk Disclosure Principle' defined as requiring engineers to disclose known or reasonably anticipated risks to affected parties as soon as those risks are identified, without waiting for risks to materialize or for a convenient moment. This is a direct match to the disclosure obligations of Engineers A and B following the MWC override.
matched ontology class: ProactiveRiskDisclosurePrinciple
matched ontology label: Proactive Risk Disclosure Principle
matches existing: true
source text: Both Engineer A and Engineer B met with the MWC at a meeting sparsely attended by the public and recommended that the change in water source be substantially delayed until improvements could be completed.
synthesis literal: appliedTo
synthesis literal: balancingWith
synthesis literal: concreteExpression
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: interpretation
synthesis literal: principleClass
synthesis literal: tensionResolution
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineers A and B disclosed the lead leaching risk and the need for a three-year improvement timeline to the MWC before the vote. Following the override, the proactive risk disclosure principle requires them to disclose the ongoing risk to the state regulatory agency and potentially to the public.
generated at time: 2026-06-05T11:22:15.977522+00:00
was attributed to: Case 76 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

Joint Advisory Recommendation
type: Action
type: NamedIndividual
fulfills obligation: Engineer A Safety Reporting Escalation
fulfills obligation: Engineer B Safety Reporting Escalation
fulfills obligation: Engineers A B Project Success Notification
agent relation: and
concept category: Action
foreseen unintended effects: Recommendation conflicts with MWC's financial and political goals
foreseen unintended effects: Sparse public attendance limits public awareness of the safety concern
fulfills obligation text: Notify Employer or Client of Safety Concerns
fulfills obligation text: Provide Objective and Truthful Professional Opinion
guided by principle: Engineer A Public Welfare Water Safety
guided by principle: Engineer B Public Welfare Water Safety
guided by principle: Engineers A B Concurrent Safety Reporting
guided by principle: Engineers A B Faithful Agent Duty
guided by principle: Engineers A B Proactive Risk Disclosure
guided by principle: Engineers A B Public Welfare Paramountcy
guided by principle text: Faithful Agency within Bounds of Public Safety
guided by principle text: Public Safety Paramountcy
has agent: Engineer A (superintendent and chief engineer, MWC) and Engineer B (consulting engineer retained by MWC)
has mental state: deliberate
initiates text: Engineers' Safety Recommendation Presented to Client
initiates text: Joint Position on Record Before MWC Vote
intended outcome: Persuade the MWC to delay the water source change until safety improvements were in place, protecting the public from lead exposure
raises obligation text: Hold Paramount Public Safety Health and Welfare
requires capability text: Engineering judgment on water treatment
requires capability text: Professional communication to governing bodies
temporal extent: instant
temporal marker: At the MWC meeting
temporal sequence: 6
within competence: true
synthesis literal: agentRelation
synthesis literal: agents
synthesis literal: description
synthesis literal: foreseenUnintendedEffects
synthesis literal: hasAgent
synthesis literal: hasMentalState
synthesis literal: intendedOutcome
synthesis literal: temporalExtent
synthesis literal: temporalMarker
synthesis literal: temporalSequence
synthesis literal: withinCompetence
comment: Engineers A and B jointly presented their findings and recommendations at the MWC meeting, recommending that the water source change be substantially delayed until all necessary water treatment improvements were completed.
has time: At the MWC meeting
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

MWC Confirmed Risk Without Safeguards
type: ConfirmedRiskWithoutAdequateSafeguardsState
type: NamedIndividual
activated by event: Accelerated Project Initiation
activates constraint: Engineers A B Simultaneous Transition Safety
activates obligation: Engineer A Post-Override Regulatory Reporting
activates obligation: Engineers A B Public Health Risk Disclosure
affects: Engineer A
affects: Engineer B
affects: Metropolitan Water Commission
affects: Public
active period: From the MWC vote to proceed through completion of required improvements
affected parties: Engineer A
affected parties: Engineer B
affected parties: MWC
affected parties: Public water consumers
concept category: State
confidence: 0.91
principle transformation: Transforms the general duty to protect public health and safety into a concrete obligation to object, document, and report when a utility proceeds with a supply change that creates foreseeable lead leaching risk in the distribution system.
state class: Confirmed Risk Without Adequate Safeguards State
subject: Confirmed risk of lead leaching above drinking water standards due to proceeding with source change before corrosion control improvements
terminated by: Completion of adequate corrosion control measures or reversal of source change decision
text references: Engineer B, a consulting engineer retained by the MWC charged with evaluating water treatment needs for the change in water source, provided a report to Engineer A recommending extensive capital investments and a three-year timeline for further evaluation of water quality, design, and construction of improvements.
text references: The improvements are needed prior to the change in water source to ensure that sufficient corrosion control is provided so that old service pipes in the MWC service area don't leach lead at levels in excess of drinking water standards.
triggering event: Engineer B's report confirming that corrosion control improvements are required before source change, combined with MWC's decision to proceed without completing those improvements
urgency level: high
discovered in case: 76
discovered in pass: 1
discovered in section: facts
first discovered at: 2026-06-05T11:17:42.957900+00:00
first discovered in case: 76
match confidence: 0.95
match reasoning: Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Confirmed Risk Without Adequate Safeguards State'
matched ontology class: ConfirmedRiskWithoutAdequateSafeguardsState
matched ontology label: Confirmed Risk Without Adequate Safeguards State
matches existing: true
source text: Engineer B, a consulting engineer retained by the MWC charged with evaluating water treatment needs for the change in water source, provided a report to Engineer A recommending extensive capital investments and a three-year timeline for further evaluation of water quality, design, and construction of improvements.
synthesis literal: activePeriod
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: stateClass
synthesis literal: subject
synthesis literal: terminatedBy
synthesis literal: textReferences
synthesis literal: triggeringEvent
synthesis literal: urgencyLevel
comment: Confirmed risk of lead leaching above drinking water standards due to proceeding with source change before corrosion control improvements
generated at time: 2026-06-05T11:17:42.957900+00:00
was attributed to: Case 76 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

MWC Override of Engineers A and B
type: ClientOverrideofSafetyRecommendationState
type: NamedIndividual
activated by event: Public Health Risk Identified
activated by event: Recommendation Override
activates constraint: Engineers A B Confidentiality Safety Override
activates constraint: Engineers A B Public Safety Paramount
activates obligation: Engineers A B Public Health Risk Disclosure
affects: Engineer A
affects: Engineer B
affects: Metropolitan Water Commission
affects: Public
terminated by event: Engineer Retention
active period: From the MWC vote overruling the engineers' recommendations through the period of formal presentations and any subsequent escalation
affected parties: Engineer A
affected parties: Engineer B
affected parties: Municipal Water Commission
affected parties: Public served by the water system
concept category: State
confidence: 0.9
principle transformation: Transforms the general duty to protect public safety into a concrete obligation to formally object, document dissent, and evaluate reporting or withdrawal when a client overrides a safety recommendation.
state class: Client Override of Safety Recommendation State
subject: Municipal Water Commission rejection of joint safety recommendations by Engineers A and B
terminated by: MWC adoption of corrective measures, regulatory intervention, or engineer withdrawal
text references: The engineering judgments of Engineer A and Engineer B were overruled by the MWC.
text references: as this duty is a fundamental canon of the NSPE Code of Ethics, the consent of the MWC is not required
triggering event: MWC formally overruled the engineering judgments of Engineers A and B regarding public safety
urgency level: high
discovered in case: 76
discovered in pass: 1
discovered in section: discussion
first discovered at: 2026-06-05T11:18:53.656605+00:00
first discovered in case: 76
match confidence: 0.95
match reasoning: Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Client Override of Safety Recommendation State'
matched ontology class: ClientOverrideofSafetyRecommendationState
matched ontology label: Client Override of Safety Recommendation State
matches existing: true
source text: The engineering judgments of Engineer A and Engineer B were overruled by the MWC.
synthesis literal: activePeriod
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: stateClass
synthesis literal: subject
synthesis literal: terminatedBy
synthesis literal: textReferences
synthesis literal: triggeringEvent
synthesis literal: urgencyLevel
comment: Municipal Water Commission rejection of joint safety recommendations by Engineers A and B
generated at time: 2026-06-05T11:18:53.656605+00:00
was attributed to: Case 76 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

Engineers A B Public Health Risk Disclosure
type: PublicHealthRiskDisclosureObligation
type: NamedIndividual
obligated party: Engineer A
obligated party: Engineer B
case context: Engineer B's evaluation identified that changing the water source without corrosion control improvements would cause old service pipes to leach lead at levels exceeding drinking water standards. This risk was required to be disclosed fully to the MWC and to the regulatory authority.
compliance status: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.86
derived from principle: Engineers A B Complete Reporting
obligated party: Engineers A and B jointly
obligation class: Public Health Risk Disclosure Obligation
obligation statement: Engineers A and B were obligated to disclose clearly and completely to the MWC and to the state regulatory authority the specific public health risk posed by lead leaching from old service pipes if the water source change proceeded without adequate corrosion control.
temporal scope: At the time of the joint presentation to the MWC and in the formal presentation to the state regulatory agency.
text references: Engineer B's report to Engineer A and the joint presentation to the MWC included the full scope of required improvements, the three-year timeline, and the lead leaching risk.
discovered in case: 76
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: discussion
first discovered at: 2026-06-05T11:28:12.343728+00:00
first discovered in case: 76
match confidence: 0.0
matches existing: false
source text: Engineer B's report to Engineer A and the joint presentation to the MWC included the full scope of required improvements, the three-year timeline, and the lead leaching risk.
synthesis literal: caseContext
synthesis literal: complianceStatus
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: obligationClass
synthesis literal: obligationStatement
synthesis literal: temporalScope
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineers A and B were obligated to disclose clearly and completely to the MWC and to the state regulatory authority the specific public health risk posed by lead leaching from old service pipes if the water source change proceeded without adequate corrosion control.
generated at time: 2026-06-05T11:28:12.343728+00:00
was attributed to: Case 76 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

Formal Authority Notification
type: Action
type: NamedIndividual
fulfills obligation: Engineer A Post-Override Regulatory Reporting
fulfills obligation: Engineer B Post-Override Regulatory Reporting
fulfills obligation: Engineers A B Post-Override Regulatory Escalation
fulfills obligation: Engineers A B Public Health Risk Disclosure
agent relation: and
concept category: Action
foreseen unintended effects: Formal notification may create conflict with the MWC as client and employer
foreseen unintended effects: May trigger regulatory intervention that halts or modifies the MWC's chosen course
fulfills obligation text: Duty to Report Safety Violations to Appropriate Public Authorities
fulfills obligation text: Hold Paramount Public Safety Health and Welfare
fulfills obligation text: Notify All Appropriate Authorities When Life or Property Is Endangered
guided by principle: Engineer A Public Welfare Water Safety
guided by principle: Engineer B Public Welfare Water Safety
guided by principle: Engineers A B Concurrent Safety Reporting
guided by principle: Engineers A B Proactive Risk Disclosure
guided by principle: Engineers A B Public Welfare Paramountcy
guided by principle text: Professional Obligation to Act Without Client Consent When Public Is Endangered
guided by principle text: Public Safety Paramountcy
has agent: Engineer A (superintendent and chief engineer, MWC) and Engineer B (consulting engineer retained by MWC)
has mental state: deliberate
initiates text: Formal Safety Disclosure to Regulatory Authorities
initiates text: Regulatory Authority Informed of Overruled Recommendation
intended outcome: Ensure that appropriate regulatory authorities are formally informed of the overruled safety concerns so that the public is protected from lead exposure risk
requires capability text: Formal technical reporting
requires capability text: Knowledge of regulatory authority jurisdiction
requires capability text: Professional documentation of safety findings
temporal extent: instant
temporal marker: Post-MWC vote, implied by Discussion
temporal sequence: 10
terminates text: Informal or Partial Reporting State
within competence: true
synthesis literal: agentRelation
synthesis literal: agents
synthesis literal: description
synthesis literal: foreseenUnintendedEffects
synthesis literal: hasAgent
synthesis literal: hasMentalState
synthesis literal: intendedOutcome
synthesis literal: temporalExtent
synthesis literal: temporalMarker
synthesis literal: temporalSequence
synthesis literal: withinCompetence
comment: Engineers A and B are obligated to formally present their facts, findings, and recommendations to the state regulatory agency and all other appropriate authorities after the MWC overruled their safety recommendations, without requiring the MWC's consent to do so.
has time: Post-MWC vote, implied by Discussion
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

MWC Public Safety Risk
type: PublicSafetyatRisk
type: NamedIndividual
activated by event: Accelerated Project Initiation
activated by event: Water Source Consideration
activates constraint: Engineers A B Simultaneous Transition Safety
activates obligation: Engineer A Post-Override Regulatory Reporting
activates obligation: Engineers A B Public Health Risk Disclosure
affects: Engineer A
affects: Engineer B
affects: Metropolitan Water Commission
affects: Public
active period: From the MWC vote to proceed through completion of adequate corrosion control measures
affected parties: Engineer A
affected parties: Engineer B
affected parties: MWC
affected parties: Public water consumers in MWC service area
concept category: State
confidence: 0.92
principle transformation: Transforms the general duty to protect public health and safety into a concrete obligation to object, document, and report when a utility proceeds with a supply change that creates foreseeable lead leaching risk in the distribution system.
state class: Public Safety at Risk
subject: Risk of lead leaching into drinking water above regulatory standards in MWC service area
terminated by: Completion of required treatment improvements or reversal of source change
text references: sufficient corrosion control is provided so that old service pipes in the MWC service area don't leach lead at levels in excess of drinking water standards
triggering event: MWC decision to change water source before required corrosion control improvements are in place, combined with the presence of old service pipes susceptible to lead leaching
urgency level: high
discovered in case: 76
discovered in pass: 1
discovered in section: facts
first discovered at: 2026-06-05T11:17:42.957900+00:00
first discovered in case: 76
match confidence: 0.95
match reasoning: Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Public Safety at Risk'
matched ontology class: PublicSafetyAtRisk
matched ontology label: Public Safety at Risk
matches existing: true
source text: sufficient corrosion control is provided so that old service pipes in the MWC service area don't leach lead at levels in excess of drinking water standards
synthesis literal: activePeriod
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: stateClass
synthesis literal: subject
synthesis literal: terminatedBy
synthesis literal: textReferences
synthesis literal: triggeringEvent
synthesis literal: urgencyLevel
comment: Risk of lead leaching into drinking water above regulatory standards in MWC service area
generated at time: 2026-06-05T11:17:42.957900+00:00
was attributed to: Case 76 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

Recommendation Override
type: Event
type: NamedIndividual
initiates: Engineer A Faithful Agent Conflict
initiates: Engineers A and B Public Safety Risk
initiates: MWC Confirmed Risk Without Safeguards
initiates: MWC Override of Engineers A and B
initiates: MWC Public Safety Risk
initiates: MWC Source Change Override
terminates: MWC Override of Engineers A and B
terminates: MWC Source Change Override
caused by action: Joint Advisory Recommendation
causes state change: The MWC's decision to proceed against engineering advice placed the public water supply at risk and created a situation where the engineers' professional safety obligations conflicted with their client's directive.
concept category: Event
event type: outcome
initiates text: Accelerated Source Change Proceeding
initiates text: Client Directive Contrary to Safety
initiates text: Engineer Ethical Conflict State
initiates text: Public Safety Risk Active
severity: critical
temporal extent: instant
temporal marker: At the public MWC meeting, after the joint presentation
temporal sequence: 7
terminates text: Recommendation Under Consideration
terminates text: Source Change Under Consideration
synthesis literal: causesStateChange
synthesis literal: description
synthesis literal: eventType
synthesis literal: severity
synthesis literal: temporalExtent
synthesis literal: temporalMarker
synthesis literal: temporalSequence
comment: The MWC voted to proceed simultaneously with the accelerated evaluation and design phase and the actual water source change, directly overruling the engineers' recommendations for a phased, three-year timeline and prior capital investment.
has time: At the public MWC meeting, after the joint presentation
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

Engineer Retention
type: Event
type: NamedIndividual
initiates: Engineer A Client Relationship MWC
initiates: Engineer B Client Relationship MWC
causes state change: Engineer B entered a formal consulting relationship with the MWC, creating a professional engagement with associated duties.
concept category: Event
event type: outcome
initiates text: Active Consulting Engagement
initiates text: Professional Duty to Client
severity: routine
temporal extent: instant
temporal marker: Before report submission
temporal sequence: 2
synthesis literal: causesStateChange
synthesis literal: description
synthesis literal: eventType
synthesis literal: severity
synthesis literal: temporalExtent
synthesis literal: temporalMarker
synthesis literal: temporalSequence
comment: Engineer B was retained by the MWC to evaluate the treatment requirements and infrastructure needs associated with a potential switch to the local river as a water source.
has time: Before report submission
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

Engineer A Post-Override Regulatory Reporting
type: ClientOverridePublicSafetyReportingObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer A Faithful Agent Boundary
obligated party: Engineer A
prevails over: Engineer A Faithful Agent Boundary
case context: Engineer A served as both superintendent and chief engineer for the MWC, creating a dual role in which the faithful agent duty to the employer and the paramount duty to public welfare came into direct conflict after the MWC voted to override the joint engineering recommendation.
compliance status: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.9
obligation class: Client Override Public Safety Reporting Obligation
obligation statement: As chief engineer and superintendent of the MWC, Engineer A was obligated after the MWC override to report the public health risk to the appropriate state regulatory authority, placing the paramount duty to public welfare above the faithful agent duty to the MWC as employer.
temporal scope: Following the MWC vote to override the joint engineering recommendation
text references: Despite those recommendations, the MWC voted to proceed simultaneously with the accelerated evaluation and design of needed water treatment improvements and the change in water source.
text references: Engineer A is a professional engineer who serves as the superintendent and chief engineer for the Metropolitan Water Commission (MWC).
discovered in case: 76
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: facts
first discovered at: 2026-06-05T11:23:42.907966+00:00
first discovered in case: 76
match confidence: 0.95
match reasoning: Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Client Override Public Safety Reporting Obligation'
matched ontology class: ClientOverridePublicSafetyReportingObligation
matched ontology label: Client Override Public Safety Reporting Obligation
matches existing: true
source text: Engineer A is a professional engineer who serves as the superintendent and chief engineer for the Metropolitan Water Commission (MWC).
synthesis literal: caseContext
synthesis literal: complianceStatus
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: obligationClass
synthesis literal: obligationStatement
synthesis literal: temporalScope
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: As chief engineer and superintendent of the MWC, Engineer A was obligated after the MWC override to report the public health risk to the appropriate state regulatory authority, placing the paramount duty to public welfare above the faithful agent duty to the MWC as employer.
generated at time: 2026-06-05T11:23:42.907966+00:00
was attributed to: Case 76 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

Public
type: Agent
type: NamedIndividual
has role: Public Affected Water Consumers
has role: Public Endangered Water Consumers

Public Health Risk Identified
type: Event
type: NamedIndividual
initiates: Engineers A and B Public Safety Risk
initiates: MWC Confirmed Risk Without Safeguards
initiates: MWC Public Safety Risk
caused by action: Evaluation Report Submission
causes state change: A documented public health risk associated with the proposed source change became known to the engineers and, upon report submission, to the MWC.
concept category: Event
event type: outcome
initiates text: Informed Client State
initiates text: Lead Leaching Hazard Documented
initiates text: Public Safety Risk
severity: critical
temporal extent: instant
temporal marker: During report preparation, before submission
temporal sequence: 3
synthesis literal: causesStateChange
synthesis literal: description
synthesis literal: eventType
synthesis literal: severity
synthesis literal: temporalExtent
synthesis literal: temporalMarker
synthesis literal: temporalSequence
comment: Engineer B's evaluation identified that switching to the local river source without extensive capital investment and a three-year evaluation period would risk lead leaching from old service pipes, posing a public health hazard.
has time: During report preparation, before submission
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 76 Extraction

Metropolitan Water Commission
type: Agent
type: NamedIndividual
has role: Metropolitan Water Commission Client
has role: Metropolitan Water Commission Client Override

Engineer A
type: Agent
type: NamedIndividual
employed by: Metropolitan Water Commission
has client: Metropolitan Water Commission
has role: Engineer A Safety Reporting
has role: Engineer A Water Commission Chief Engineer
professional peer of: Engineer B

Engineer B
type: Agent
type: NamedIndividual
has client: Engineer A
has client: Metropolitan Water Commission
has role: Engineer B Safety Reporting
has role: Engineer B Water Treatment Consultant
professional peer of: Engineer A