ProEthica Case 7 Ontology
type: Ontology
created: 2026-02-24T06:27:07.712444
imports: cases
imports: intermediate

AI-Assisted Design Comprehensive Verification Obligation Violated By Engineer A In Design Documents
type: AI-AssistedDesignComprehensiveVerificationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A conducted only a high-level review of AI-generated design documents for groundwater infrastructure, resulting in misaligned dimensions and omission of key safety features required by local regulations, which Client W identified upon review.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 7
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T06:17:54.068481+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 7
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T06:17:54.068481+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: AI-Assisted Design Comprehensive Verification Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to conduct a comprehensive, technically substantive verification of the AI-generated engineering design documents — including verification of all dimensions, safety features, and regulatory compliance requirements — before sealing and delivering those documents to Client W.
sourcetext: Engineer A elected to only conduct a high-level review and adjusted certain elements to align with site-specific conditions. When Client W reviewed the design documents, they found misaligned dimensions and key safety features (including those necessary for compliance with local regulations) were omitted.
temporalscope: Prior to sealing and delivering AI-generated design documents to Client W
textreferences: AI-generated technical work requires at least the same level of scrutiny as human-created work.
textreferences: Engineer A elected to only conduct a high-level review and adjusted certain elements to align with site-specific conditions. When Client W reviewed the design documents, they found misaligned dimensions and key safety features (including those necessary for compliance with local regulations) were omitted.
textreferences: The errors in the AI-generated design documents could have led to regulatory noncompliance and safety hazards, conflicting with the Fundamental Canon I.1, 'hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public'.
wasattributedto: Case 7 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:27:07.731050
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

AI-Generated Design Documents Non-Compliant State
type: Non-CompliantState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Client W's identification of deficiencies through required revision and verification
affectedparties: Client W
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Public (safety feature omissions)
concept category: State
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 7
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T06:07:52.916021+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 7
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T06:07:52.916021+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Client W noticed several issues with the AI-generated design documents, including misaligned dimensions and an omission of key safety features required by local regulations
stateclass: Non-Compliant State
subject: Engineering design documents generated by AI-assisted tools containing dimensional errors and safety feature omissions
terminatedby: Successful revision and verification of design documents to meet professional and regulatory standards
textreferences: Client W noticed several issues with the AI-generated design documents, including misaligned dimensions and an omission of key safety features required by local regulations
textreferences: Client W raised concerns about the accuracy and reliability of the engineering design and instructed Engineer A to revise the plans, ensuring that all elements satisfied the necessary professional and regulatory standards
triggeringevent: Client W identified misaligned dimensions and omission of key safety features required by local regulations in the AI-generated design documents
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 7 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:27:07.716011
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

AI-Generated Work Product Competence Verification Obligation Breached By Engineer A In Design Document Review
type: AI-GeneratedWorkProductCompetenceVerificationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A conducted only a cursory review of AI-generated design documents produced by a tool with which Engineer A had no prior experience, resulting in submission of documents containing misaligned dimensions and omissions of required safety features.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 7
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T06:12:52.067436+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 7
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T06:12:52.067436+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: AI-Generated Work Product Competence Verification Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to conduct a substantive and technically adequate review of the AI-generated design documents sufficient to identify misaligned dimensions and omitted safety features required by local regulations before submitting those documents to Client W.
sourcetext: The AI drafting software was new to the market and Engineer A had no previous experience with the tool.
temporalscope: Prior to submission of engineering design documents to Client W
textreferences: Client W, however, noticed several issues with the AI-generated design documents, including misaligned dimensions and an omission of key safety features required by local regulations.
textreferences: Engineer A completed a cursory review of the AI-generated plans and adjusted certain elements to align with site-specific conditions.
textreferences: The AI drafting software was new to the market and Engineer A had no previous experience with the tool.
wasattributedto: Case 7 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:27:07.722908
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

AI-Generated Work Product Competence Verification Obligation Partially Met By Engineer A In Report Review
type: AI-GeneratedWorkProductCompetenceVerificationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A conducted a thorough factual cross-check of the AI-generated report against professional journal articles and verified phrasing via search engine queries, but lacked full understanding of the AI tool's capabilities and limitations, and the report's stylistic inconsistency was noted by Client W.
compliancestatus: partial
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.82
discoveredincase: 7
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T06:12:52.067436+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 7
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T06:12:52.067436+00:00
importance: medium
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: AI-Generated Work Product Competence Verification Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to conduct a substantive and technically adequate review of the AI-generated report draft sufficient to verify factual accuracy, originality, and professional adequacy before submitting it under a professional seal.
sourcetext: Not being familiar with the full functionality of the AI software, including the accuracy and originality of AI-generated text, Engineer A conducted a thorough review of the report, cross-checking key facts against professional journal articles and verifying the phrasing by running search engine queries to ensure the content did not match any existing language.
temporalscope: Prior to submission of the draft report to Client W
textreferences: Client W noted that the section analyzing the groundwater monitoring data would benefit from minor edits for grammar and clarity, but found the introduction discussing the contaminant's manufacture, use, and characteristics to be exceptionally polished. The Client commented that the report read as if written by two different authors but was otherwise satisfactory.
textreferences: Not being familiar with the full functionality of the AI software, including the accuracy and originality of AI-generated text, Engineer A conducted a thorough review of the report, cross-checking key facts against professional journal articles and verifying the phrasing by running search engine queries to ensure the content did not match any existing language.
wasattributedto: Case 7 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:27:07.723060
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

AI-Generated Work Product Competence Verification Obligation Violated By Engineer A In Design Phase
type: AI-GeneratedWorkProductCompetenceVerificationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A used an AI-assisted drafting tool that was new to the market and with which Engineer A had no prior experience, without first establishing adequate competence in the tool, resulting in failure to detect misaligned dimensions and omitted safety features.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 7
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T06:17:54.068481+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 7
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T06:17:54.068481+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: AI-Generated Work Product Competence Verification Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to possess sufficient understanding of the AI-assisted drafting tool's capabilities, limitations, and failure modes to critically evaluate and verify the accuracy, completeness, and regulatory compliance of all AI-generated design documents before delivering them to Client W under a professional seal.
sourcetext: Engineer A also prepared draft design documents with a AI-assisted drafting tool that was new to the market.
temporalscope: Prior to and during use of the AI-assisted drafting tool for groundwater infrastructure design documents
textreferences: By relying on AI-assisted tools without a comprehensive verification process of its output, Engineer A risked violating this requirement.
textreferences: Engineer A also prepared draft design documents with a AI-assisted drafting tool that was new to the market.
textreferences: The change to CADD provides the BER with concerns that require assurance that the professional engineer has the requisite background, education and training to be proficient with the dynamics of CADD including the limitations of current technology.
textreferences: failure to detect misaligned dimensions and omitted safety features further indicates that Engineer A did not exercise sufficient diligence.
wasattributedto: Case 7 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:27:07.731856
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

AI-Generated Work Product Disclosure Constraint Engineer A Design Document Submission
type: AI-GeneratedWorkProductDisclosureConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A submitted AI-generated design documents without disclosure; Client W identified misaligned dimensions and omitted safety features, raising concerns about accuracy and reliability.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.91
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: AI-Generated Work Product Disclosure Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was constrained from submitting AI-assisted engineering design documents to Client W without disclosing that AI-assisted drafting tools were used to generate the preliminary plans and specifications.
discoveredincase: 7
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T06:14:18.405742+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 7
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T06:14:18.405742+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics — Honesty and non-deception provisions; AI Software Usage Disclosure Norms
sourcetext: Again, Engineer A did not cite the AI-assisted drafting tools they used to generate the engineering design documents.
temporalscope: At the time of design document submission to Client W
textreferences: Again, Engineer A did not cite the AI-assisted drafting tools they used to generate the engineering design documents.
textreferences: Client W noticed several issues with the AI-generated design documents, including misaligned dimensions and an omission of key safety features required by local regulations.
wasattributedto: Case 7 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:27:07.727885
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

AI-Generated Work Product Disclosure Constraint Engineer A Report Submission
type: AI-GeneratedWorkProductDisclosureConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A submitted an AI-drafted environmental report without disclosing AI tool use; Client W noticed the report 'read as if written by two different authors,' suggesting the AI-generated introduction was stylistically distinct from Engineer A's own writing.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.91
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: AI-Generated Work Product Disclosure Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was constrained from submitting the AI-generated environmental report to Client W without disclosing that AI software was used to generate the substantive draft, as non-disclosure created a misleading impression of independent professional authorship.
discoveredincase: 7
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T06:14:18.405742+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 7
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T06:14:18.405742+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics — Honesty and non-deception provisions; AI Software Usage Disclosure Norms
sourcetext: Engineer A did not cite their use of AI-software or its large language models, and submitted the draft report to Client W for review
temporalscope: At the time of report submission to Client W
textreferences: Engineer A did not cite their use of AI-software or its large language models, and submitted the draft report to Client W for review
textreferences: The Client commented that the report read as if written by two different authors but was otherwise satisfactory.
wasattributedto: Case 7 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:27:07.727700
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

AI Attribution Citation Constraint Engineer A Design Documents
type: AIAttributionandCreditDisclosureConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: AI-assisted drafting tools fundamentally shaped the engineering design documents submitted to Client W, but Engineer A provided no attribution or disclosure of the AI tool's contribution, raising concerns about transparency and credit obligations.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.85
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: AI Attribution and Credit Disclosure Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was constrained to acknowledge the AI-assisted drafting tool's substantial contribution to the engineering design documents, warranting disclosure under Code section III.9, a constraint violated by submitting design documents without attribution of the AI tool's role.
discoveredincase: 7
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T06:19:39.889621+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 7
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T06:19:39.889621+00:00
importance: medium
severity: medium
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section III.9; BER Case 98-3
sourcetext: AI, while not a human contributor, fundamentally shaped the report and design documents, warranting disclosure under Code section III.9, '[e]ngineers shall give credit for engineering work to those to whom credit is due, and will recognize the proprietary interests of others.'
temporalscope: At time of submission of AI-generated engineering design documents to Client W
textreferences: AI, while not a human contributor, fundamentally shaped the report and design documents, warranting disclosure under Code section III.9, '[e]ngineers shall give credit for engineering work to those to whom credit is due, and will recognize the proprietary interests of others.'
textreferences: BER Case 98-3 emphasized that engineers must acknowledge significant contributions by others.
wasattributedto: Case 7 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:27:07.733091
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

AI Attribution Citation Constraint Engineer A Report
type: AIAttributionandCreditDisclosureConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A submitted an AI-generated report without including citations of pertinent documents of technical authority, violating the professional obligation to give credit for engineering work to those to whom credit is due under Code section III.9.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.9
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: AI Attribution and Credit Disclosure Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was constrained to include appropriate citations to pertinent documents of technical authority and attribution for AI-generated content in the environmental groundwater monitoring report, a constraint violated by submitting the report without such citations.
discoveredincase: 7
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T06:19:39.889621+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 7
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T06:19:39.889621+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section III.9
sourcetext: Per Code section III.9, engineers are required to 'give credit for engineering work to those to whom credit is due,' so Engineer A's ethical use of the AI software would need to include appropriate citations.
temporalscope: At time of submission of AI-generated environmental report to Client W
textreferences: Absent this professional level of care, diligence, and documentation, Engineer A's use of the AI language processing software would be less than ethical.
textreferences: Per Code section III.9, engineers are required to 'give credit for engineering work to those to whom credit is due,' so Engineer A's ethical use of the AI software would need to include appropriate citations.
textreferences: Similarly, the facts do not indicate the AI-generated report included citations of pertinent documents of technical authority.
wasattributedto: Case 7 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:27:07.732932
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

AI Design Documents Generated
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Event
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:27:07.737574
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

AI Direction Control Constraint Engineer A Design Documents
type: ResponsibleChargeVerificationConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A used a newly marketed AI-assisted drafting tool and conducted only a high-level review, resulting in misaligned dimensions and omitted safety features required by local regulations, constituting a failure of responsible charge.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.95
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Responsible Charge Verification Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was constrained to maintain active direction and control over the AI-assisted design documents by conducting comprehensive verification of all outputs — including dimensional accuracy and safety feature completeness — before affixing their professional seal, a constraint violated by conducting only a high-level review.
discoveredincase: 7
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T06:19:39.889621+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 7
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T06:19:39.889621+00:00
importance: high
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.2.b; NSPE Code Section III.8.a; NSPE Position Statement No. 10-1778 on Responsible Charge
sourcetext: Engineer A did not maintain responsible charge in violation of licensure law which violates Code section III.8.a.
temporalscope: During preparation and submission of AI-generated engineering design documents to Client W
textreferences: By relying on AI-assisted tools without a comprehensive verification process of its output, Engineer A risked violating this requirement.
textreferences: Engineer A did not maintain responsible charge in violation of licensure law which violates Code section III.8.a.
textreferences: Engineer A elected to only conduct a high-level review and adjusted certain elements to align with site-specific conditions.
wasattributedto: Case 7 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:27:07.732622
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

AI Direction Control Constraint Engineer A Report
type: ResponsibleChargeVerificationConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A used AI language processing software to draft the environmental report and conducted a thorough review with cross-checking, satisfying the direction and control requirement for the report but failing on citation attribution obligations.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.87
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Responsible Charge Verification Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was constrained to maintain active direction and control over the AI-generated environmental report by outlining guidelines, challenging outputs, and verifying content against professional sources — a constraint partially satisfied through cross-checking against professional journal articles and making textual adjustments, but not fully satisfied due to absence of citation attribution.
discoveredincase: 7
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T06:19:39.889621+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 7
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T06:19:39.889621+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.2.b; NSPE Position Statement No. 10-1778 on Responsible Charge
sourcetext: Because Engineer A performed a thorough review, cross-checked key facts against professional sources, and made adjustments to the text, the final document remained under Engineer A's direction and control, as required by Code section II.2.b
temporalscope: During preparation and submission of the AI-generated environmental groundwater monitoring report
textreferences: Because Engineer A performed a thorough review, cross-checked key facts against professional sources, and made adjustments to the text, the final document remained under Engineer A's direction and control, as required by Code section II.2.b
textreferences: Much like directing an engineering intern to solve a problem, responsible use of AI requires an engineer to outline solution guidelines and constraints.
wasattributedto: Case 7 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:27:07.732475
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

AI Report Draft Generated
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Event
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:27:07.737539
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

AI Software Usage Disclosure Norms
type: AISoftwareUsageDisclosureStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.75
createdby: Professional engineering societies and emerging regulatory guidance
discoveredincase: 7
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: Emerging Professional Standards for Disclosure of AI Tool Use in Engineering Work Products
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T06:07:19.549822+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 7
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T06:07:19.549822+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: AI Software Usage Disclosure Standard
sourcetext: Engineer A did not cite their use of AI-software or its large language models, and submitted the draft report to Client W for review
textreferences: Again, Engineer A did not cite the AI-assisted drafting tools they used to generate the engineering design documents
textreferences: Engineer A did not cite their use of AI-software or its large language models, and submitted the draft report to Client W for review
usedby: Engineer A (obligation to disclose); Client W (expectation of transparency)
usedincontext: Implicitly invoked by the case as the absent standard that Engineer A failed to follow by not disclosing AI tool use in either the report or the engineering design documents
version: Emerging/not yet fully codified
wasattributedto: Case 7 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:27:07.714484
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

AI Tool Attribution Citation Obligation Violated By Engineer A In Environmental Report
type: AIToolAttributionandCitationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A used AI language processing software to draft an environmental report for Client W. The AI-generated report lacked citations to pertinent documents of technical authority, and Engineer A did not attribute the AI's material contribution to the report.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 7
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T06:17:54.068481+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 7
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T06:17:54.068481+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: AI Tool Attribution and Citation Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to ensure that the AI-generated environmental groundwater monitoring report included citations to pertinent documents of technical authority and appropriate attribution of AI contributions, in accordance with NSPE III.9.
sourcetext: the facts do not indicate the AI-generated report included citations of pertinent documents of technical authority. Per Code section III.9, engineers are required to 'give credit for engineering work to those to whom credit is due,' so Engineer A's ethical use of the AI software would need to include appropriate citations.
temporalscope: At the time of preparing and submitting the AI-drafted environmental report to Client W
textreferences: Absent this professional level of care, diligence, and documentation, Engineer A's use of the AI language processing software would be less than ethical.
textreferences: the facts do not indicate the AI-generated report included citations of pertinent documents of technical authority. Per Code section III.9, engineers are required to 'give credit for engineering work to those to whom credit is due,' so Engineer A's ethical use of the AI software would need to include appropriate citations.
wasattributedto: Case 7 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:27:07.730759
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

AI Tool Competence Boundary Constraint Engineer A Novel Drafting Software
type: AIToolCompetenceBoundaryConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A used a newly released open-source AI drafting tool with no prior experience, conducting only a cursory review of AI-generated design documents that contained misaligned dimensions and omitted safety features.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.9
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: AI Tool Competence Boundary Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A's lack of prior experience with the newly marketed open-source AI drafting software constrained the degree to which its outputs could be professionally relied upon without independent substantive verification; a cursory review was insufficient to satisfy this constraint.
discoveredincase: 7
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T06:14:18.405742+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 7
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T06:14:18.405742+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics — Competence provisions; BER-Case-98-3 (technology must not replace engineering judgment)
sourcetext: The AI drafting software was new to the market and Engineer A had no previous experience with the tool.
temporalscope: Throughout the preparation and submission of both the environmental report and engineering design documents
textreferences: Engineer A completed a cursory review of the AI-generated plans and adjusted certain elements to align with site-specific conditions.
textreferences: Not being familiar with the full functionality of the AI software, including the accuracy and originality of AI-generated text
textreferences: The AI drafting software was new to the market and Engineer A had no previous experience with the tool.
wasattributedto: Case 7 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:27:07.727424
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

AI Tool Competence Boundary Constraint Engineer A Novel Drafting Tool
type: AIToolCompetenceBoundaryConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A used a newly marketed AI-assisted drafting tool with no prior experience, conducting only a high-level review of outputs, resulting in misaligned dimensions and omitted safety features — demonstrating that the competence boundary constraint was violated by insufficient verification of an unfamiliar tool's outputs.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.93
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: AI Tool Competence Boundary Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was constrained from relying on the newly marketed AI-assisted drafting tool's outputs without independent substantive verification, given Engineer A's lack of prior experience with the tool and unverified understanding of its capabilities, limitations, and failure modes — a constraint violated by conducting only a high-level review of AI-generated design documents.
discoveredincase: 7
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T06:19:39.889621+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 7
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T06:19:39.889621+00:00
importance: high
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Fundamental Canon I.2; Code Section II.2.a; BER Case 98-3
sourcetext: Engineer A also prepared draft design documents with a AI-assisted drafting tool that was new to the market.
temporalscope: During selection and use of the newly marketed AI-assisted drafting tool for engineering design document preparation
textreferences: Engineer A also prepared draft design documents with a AI-assisted drafting tool that was new to the market.
textreferences: Engineer A elected to only conduct a high-level review and adjusted certain elements to align with site-specific conditions.
textreferences: The BER considers the change to CADD provides the BER with concerns that require assurance that the professional engineer has the requisite background, education and training to be proficient with the dynamics of CADD including the limitations of current technology.
wasattributedto: Case 7 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:27:07.733760
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

AI Tool Disclosure Obligation Breached By Engineer A In Design Document Submission To Client W
type: AIToolDisclosureObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A used AI-assisted drafting tools to generate preliminary design documents for groundwater infrastructure modifications and submitted them to Client W without any disclosure of AI tool use.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 7
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T06:12:52.067436+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 7
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T06:12:52.067436+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: AI Tool Disclosure Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to disclose to Client W that AI-assisted drafting tools were used to generate the preliminary engineering design documents, including identification of the tools and the nature of their contribution, prior to or upon submission of those documents.
sourcetext: Again, Engineer A did not cite the AI-assisted drafting tools they used to generate the engineering design documents.
temporalscope: At the time of submission of the engineering design documents to Client W
textreferences: Again, Engineer A did not cite the AI-assisted drafting tools they used to generate the engineering design documents.
wasattributedto: Case 7 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:27:07.722765
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

AI Tool Disclosure Obligation Breached By Engineer A In Report Submission To Client W
type: AIToolDisclosureObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A used open-source AI language processing software to generate the initial draft of the environmental contaminant report and submitted it to Client W without any disclosure of AI tool use, applying a professional seal.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 7
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T06:12:52.067436+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 7
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T06:12:52.067436+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: AI Tool Disclosure Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to disclose to Client W that AI software was used to generate the initial draft of the environmental report, including identification of the AI tool and the nature of its contribution, prior to or upon submission of the report.
sourcetext: Engineer A did not cite their use of AI-software or its large language models, and submitted the draft report to Client W for review, including language to clearly identify that the supplied report was a draft, but applied their seal consistent with state law.
temporalscope: At the time of submission of the draft report to Client W
textreferences: Engineer A did not cite their use of AI-software or its large language models, and submitted the draft report to Client W for review, including language to clearly identify that the supplied report was a draft, but applied their seal consistent with state law.
wasattributedto: Case 7 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:27:07.722604
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

AI Tool Transparency Obligation Breached By Engineer A In Design Document Submission
type: AIToolTransparencyandDisclosure
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Client W Engineering Client Reviewer
appliedto: Engineering design documents for groundwater infrastructure
balancingwith: Client Loyalty
balancingwith: Responsible Charge Engagement
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A submitted AI-assisted design documents to Client W without disclosing the use of AI-assisted drafting tools, despite those tools having generated the preliminary plans and specifications
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 7
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T06:11:15.672802+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 7
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T06:11:15.672802+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Disclosure of AI tool use in design documents was material because it would have alerted Client W to the need for heightened scrutiny and would have enabled Client W to assess the reliability of the design outputs
invokedby: Engineer A Groundwater Infrastructure Design Engineer
principleclass: AI Tool Transparency and Disclosure
sourcetext: Again, Engineer A did not cite the AI-assisted drafting tools they used to generate the engineering design documents.
tensionresolution: Non-disclosure was not justified; the subsequent discovery of errors by Client W demonstrates the materiality of the AI involvement to the reliability of the deliverable
textreferences: Again, Engineer A did not cite the AI-assisted drafting tools they used to generate the engineering design documents.
textreferences: Client W, however, noticed several issues with the AI-generated design documents, including misaligned dimensions and an omission of key safety features required by local regulations.
wasattributedto: Case 7 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:27:07.721390
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

AI Tool Transparency Obligation Breached By Engineer A In Report Submission
type: AIToolTransparencyandDisclosure
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Client W Environmental Engineering Client
appliedto: Comprehensive environmental report on organic contaminant
balancingwith: Intellectual Integrity in Authorship
balancingwith: Professional Dignity
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A submitted an AI-drafted environmental report to Client W without disclosing that AI software had generated the initial draft, despite the AI's substantial contribution to the report's content and structure
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 7
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T06:11:15.672802+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 7
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T06:11:15.672802+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The transparency principle required Engineer A to disclose AI involvement so that Client W could assess the provenance and reliability of the report; the non-disclosure left Client W unable to make an informed judgment about the report's intellectual origins
invokedby: Engineer A Environmental Engineering Consultant
principleclass: AI Tool Transparency and Disclosure
sourcetext: Engineer A did not cite their use of AI-software or its large language models, and submitted the draft report to Client W for review
tensionresolution: The principle of transparency was not satisfied; the obligation to disclose AI involvement was not outweighed by any competing consideration identified in the case
textreferences: Engineer A did not cite their use of AI-software or its large language models, and submitted the draft report to Client W for review
textreferences: The Client commented that the report read as if written by two different authors but was otherwise satisfactory.
wasattributedto: Case 7 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:27:07.721237
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

AI Tool Transparency and Disclosure Applied to Client W Relationship
type: AIToolTransparencyandDisclosure
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: AI-assisted design documents delivered to Client W
appliedto: AI-generated environmental groundwater monitoring report
balancingwith: Attribution and Citation Integrity in AI-Assisted Work
balancingwith: Intellectual Integrity in Authorship
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A failed to proactively disclose to Client W that AI tools substantially contributed to the environmental report and design documents, which contributed to Client W's confusion about quality inconsistencies and undermined trust in the professional relationship
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 7
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T06:16:08.451188+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 7
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T06:16:08.451188+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: When AI substantially shapes a professional work product, disclosure to the client is warranted as best practice even absent universal mandates, particularly when the client identifies quality issues that disclosure could have contextualized
invokedby: Engineer A AI-Assisted Engineering Practitioner
principleclass: AI Tool Transparency and Disclosure
sourcetext: Given that Client W identified issues in the engineering design and questioned inconsistencies in the report, proactive disclosure could have prevented misunderstandings and strengthened trust.
tensionresolution: Transparency obligation favors disclosure; proactive disclosure could have prevented misunderstandings and strengthened trust with Client W
textreferences: Given that Client W identified issues in the engineering design and questioned inconsistencies in the report, proactive disclosure could have prevented misunderstandings and strengthened trust.
textreferences: There are currently no universal guidelines mandating AI disclosure in engineering work, but best practices suggest informing clients when AI substantially contributes to a work product.
textreferences: While Engineer A reviewed the content, the lack of disclosure raises concerns about transparency.
wasattributedto: Case 7 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:27:07.729619
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

AI generation of preliminary design documents before Engineer A's cursory review of design documents
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:27:07.738061
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

AI generation of report draft before Engineer A's thorough review and cross-checking of report
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:27:07.737983
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Attribution and Citation Integrity in AI-Assisted Work Applied to Environmental Report
type: AttributionandCitationIntegrityinAI-AssistedWork
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: AI-generated environmental groundwater monitoring report
appliedto: Technical authority sources underlying the report's conclusions
balancingwith: AI Tool Transparency and Disclosure
balancingwith: Intellectual Integrity in Authorship
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A's AI-generated environmental groundwater monitoring report lacked citations to pertinent documents of technical authority, and Engineer A did not acknowledge AI's material contribution to the report, falling short of the professional standard requiring credit to be given to those to whom credit is due
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 7
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T06:16:08.451188+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 7
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T06:16:08.451188+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Professional ethical use of AI requires not only accurate content but also transparent attribution of sources and acknowledgment of AI's role, enabling clients and reviewers to assess the provenance and reliability of the work product
invokedby: Engineer A AI-Assisted Engineering Practitioner
principleclass: Attribution and Citation Integrity in AI-Assisted Work
sourcetext: Similarly, the facts do not indicate the AI-generated report included citations of pertinent documents of technical authority.
tensionresolution: Attribution obligation required Engineer A to include citations and disclose AI contribution; absence of both rendered the use of AI less than ethical per the BER's analysis
textreferences: AI, while not a human contributor, fundamentally shaped the report and design documents, warranting disclosure under Code section III.9.
textreferences: Absent this professional level of care, diligence, and documentation, Engineer A's use of the AI language processing software would be less than ethical.
textreferences: Per Code section III.9, engineers are required to 'give credit for engineering work to those to whom credit is due,' so Engineer A's ethical use of the AI software would need to include appropriate citations.
textreferences: Similarly, the facts do not indicate the AI-generated report included citations of pertinent documents of technical authority.
wasattributedto: Case 7 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:27:07.729950
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

BER-Case-90-6
type: BERCasePrecedent
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.98
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
discoveredincase: 7
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case 90-6
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T06:08:18.965003+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 7
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T06:08:18.965003+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: BER Case Precedent
sourcetext: Almost 35 years ago, in BER Case 90-6, the BER looked at a hypothetical involving an engineer's use of computer assisted drafting and design tools.
textreferences: Almost 35 years ago, in BER Case 90-6, the BER looked at a hypothetical involving an engineer's use of computer assisted drafting and design tools.
textreferences: In BER Case 90-6, the BER determined that it was ethical for an engineer to sign and seal documents that were created using a CADD system whether prepared by the engineer themselves or by other engineers working under their direction and control.
usedby: BER in establishing analogical foundation for AI tool use analysis
usedincontext: Cited as precedent establishing that it is ethical for an engineer to sign and seal documents created using CADD systems, and as historical foreshadowing of AI tool use in engineering practice
version: 1990
wasattributedto: Case 7 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:27:07.716874
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

BER-Case-98-3
type: BERCasePrecedent
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.98
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
discoveredincase: 7
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case 98-3
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T06:08:18.965003+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 7
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T06:08:18.965003+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: BER Case Precedent
sourcetext: BER Case 98-3 discussed a solicitation by mail for engineers to use new technology to help gain more work.
textreferences: BER Case 98-3 discussed a solicitation by mail for engineers to use new technology to help gain more work.
textreferences: BER Case 98-3 emphasized that engineers must acknowledge significant contributions by others.
textreferences: In its discussion in BER Case 98-3, the BER reviewed several cases involving engineering competency, and concluded it would be unethical for an engineer to offer facilities design and construction services using a tool like this CD-ROM based on the facts presented in the case.
textreferences: The BER notes that in BER Case 98-3, the BER stated that technology must not replace or be used as a substitute for engineering judgement.
usedby: BER in analyzing Engineer A's review adequacy and disclosure obligations
usedincontext: Cited as precedent on engineering competency and technology use, establishing that technology must not replace engineering judgment, and that engineers must acknowledge significant contributions by others; used analogically to evaluate Engineer A's use of AI-assisted drafting tools
version: 1998
wasattributedto: Case 7 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:27:07.717018
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

BER Case 90-6
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:49:08.779767
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

BER Case 90-6 (~1990) before BER Case 98-3 (~1998)
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:27:07.738214
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

BER Case 98-3
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:49:08.779798
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

BER Case 98-3 (~1998) before current case analysis (present)
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:27:07.738243
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Case 7 Timeline
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:27:07.738301
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

CausalLink_Chose AI for Report Drafting
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:49:08.779996
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

CausalLink_Conducted Cursory Design Docum
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:49:08.783993
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

CausalLink_Conducted Thorough Report Revi
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:49:08.780056
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

CausalLink_Input Confidential Data into P
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:49:08.780025
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

CausalLink_Used AI for Design Document Ge
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:49:08.783956
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Chose AI for Report Drafting
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:27:07.737114
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Chose AI for Report Drafting → AI Report Draft Generated
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:27:07.737710
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Client Consent for Third-Party Data Sharing Obligation Violated By Engineer A
type: ClientConsentforThird-PartyDataSharingObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A uploaded Client W's confidential project information into an open-source AI interface without obtaining Client W's prior consent, in violation of NSPE II.1.c.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 7
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T06:17:54.068481+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 7
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T06:17:54.068481+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Client Consent for Third-Party Data Sharing Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to obtain prior informed consent from Client W before uploading Client W's private project information into the open-source AI interface, as doing so was tantamount to placing the client's private information in the public domain.
sourcetext: Per Code section II.1.c, confidential information can only be shared with prior consent of the Client.
temporalscope: Prior to uploading Client W's project information into the AI open-source interface
textreferences: Per Code section II.1.c, confidential information can only be shared with prior consent of the Client.
textreferences: When Engineer A uploaded Client W's information into the AI open-source interface, this was tantamount to placing the Client's private information in the public domain. The facts here do not indicate Engineer A obtained permission from Client W to use the private information in the public domain.
wasattributedto: Case 7 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:27:07.730896
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Client Data Confidentiality in AI Tool Use Violated by Engineer A
type: ClientDataConfidentialityinAIToolUse
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Client W's confidential project information
appliedto: Open-source AI language processing interface
balancingwith: Professional Competence (use of best available tools)
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A uploaded Client W's private project information into an open-source AI interface without obtaining Client W's prior consent, effectively placing confidential client data in the public domain
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 7
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T06:16:08.451188+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 7
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T06:16:08.451188+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Uploading client data to an open-source AI platform is functionally equivalent to placing that data in the public domain, violating the confidentiality obligation regardless of the engineer's intent to use the tool for legitimate professional purposes
invokedby: Engineer A AI-Assisted Engineering Practitioner
principleclass: Client Data Confidentiality in AI Tool Use
sourcetext: When Engineer A uploaded Client W's information into the AI open-source interface, this was tantamount to placing the Client's private information in the public domain.
tensionresolution: Confidentiality obligation was not satisfied; Engineer A was required to obtain Client W's consent before using client data in any public-domain interface
textreferences: Per Code section II.1.c, confidential information can only be shared with prior consent of the Client.
textreferences: The facts here do not indicate Engineer A obtained permission from Client W to use the private information in the public domain.
textreferences: When Engineer A uploaded Client W's information into the AI open-source interface, this was tantamount to placing the Client's private information in the public domain.
wasattributedto: Case 7 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:27:07.729777
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Client W Engagement Established
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Event
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:27:07.737466
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Client W Engineering Client Reviewer
type: EngineeringClientReviewer
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'type': 'Private client', 'confidentiality_interest': 'Private information uploaded to public AI interface without consent', 'review_findings': ['Misaligned dimensions', 'Omitted safety features', 'Regulatory compliance gaps', 'Report inconsistencies']}
caseinvolvement: Retained Engineer A for environmental consulting and design services; reviewed AI-assisted design documents and identified misaligned dimensions and omitted safety features; questioned inconsistencies in the report; held confidentiality interests in information uploaded to public AI systems without consent.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 7
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T06:08:43.823389+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 7
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T06:08:43.823389+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'confidentiality_holder', 'target': 'Client W private information'}
relationships: {'type': 'service_recipient', 'target': 'Engineer A AI-Assisted Engineering Practitioner'}
rolecategory: provider_client
roleclass: Engineering Client Reviewer
sourcetext: When Client W reviewed the design documents, they found misaligned dimensions and key safety features (including those necessary for compliance with local regulations) were omitted
textreferences: Given that Client W identified issues in the engineering design and questioned inconsistencies in the report
textreferences: The facts here do not indicate Engineer A obtained permission from Client W to use the private information in the public domain
textreferences: When Client W reviewed the design documents, they found misaligned dimensions and key safety features (including those necessary for compliance with local regulations) were omitted
textreferences: proactive disclosure could have prevented misunderstandings and strengthened trust
wasattributedto: Case 7 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:27:07.718430
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Client W Environmental Engineering Client
type: EnvironmentalEngineeringClient
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'type': 'Client organization', 'authority': 'Review and revision instruction authority', 'regulatory_awareness': 'Identified omission of safety features required by local regulations'}
caseinvolvement: Retained Engineer A for environmental contaminant reporting and groundwater infrastructure design; reviewed deliverables, identified quality inconsistencies in the report and critical deficiencies in the design documents, and instructed Engineer A to revise plans to meet professional and regulatory standards
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 7
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T06:07:34.529100+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 7
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T06:07:34.529100+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'client', 'target': 'Engineer A'}
relationships: {'type': 'recipient', 'target': 'Environmental report and design documents'}
rolecategory: provider_client
roleclass: Environmental Engineering Client
sourcetext: Engineer A was retained by Client W
textreferences: Client W noticed several issues with the AI-generated design documents
textreferences: Client W raised concerns about the accuracy and reliability of the engineering design and instructed Engineer A to revise the plans
textreferences: Engineer A was retained by Client W
textreferences: When Client W reviewed the draft report, Client W noted that the section analyzing the groundwater monitoring data would benefit from minor edits
wasattributedto: Case 7 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:27:07.715154
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Client W's review of both deliverables before Client W's demand for revisions to design documents
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:27:07.738183
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Competence Assurance Under Novel Tool Adoption Applied to AI Drafting Tool
type: CompetenceAssuranceUnderNovelToolAdoption
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: AI-assisted drafting tool new to the market
appliedto: Groundwater infrastructure design documents
balancingwith: Public Welfare Paramount
balancingwith: Responsible Charge Engagement
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A adopted an AI-assisted drafting tool that was new to the market without ensuring sufficient understanding of its limitations, resulting in failure to detect misaligned dimensions and omitted safety features in the generated design documents
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 7
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T06:16:08.451188+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 7
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T06:16:08.451188+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Using a tool that is 'new to the market' without adequate verification of its accuracy and failure modes constitutes insufficient competence assurance, particularly when the outputs affect public safety
invokedby: Engineer A AI-Assisted Engineering Practitioner
principleclass: Competence Assurance Under Novel Tool Adoption
sourcetext: Engineer A also prepared draft design documents with a AI-assisted drafting tool that was new to the market.
tensionresolution: The principle was violated; Engineer A should have conducted comprehensive verification of the new tool's outputs before relying on them in professional deliverables
textreferences: Engineer A elected to only conduct a high-level review and adjusted certain elements to align with site-specific conditions.
textreferences: In addition to using AI to prepare the report, Engineer A also prepared draft design documents with a AI-assisted drafting tool that was new to the market.
textreferences: The BER considers the change to CAD to merely represent a drafting enhancement. The change to CADD provides the BER with concerns that require assurance that the professional engineer has the requisite background, education and training to be proficient with the dynamics of CADD including the limitations of current technology.
wasattributedto: Case 7 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:27:07.729453
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Competence Assurance Under Novel Tool Adoption Invoked By Engineer A
type: CompetenceAssuranceUnderNovelToolAdoption
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: AI language processing software for environmental report
appliedto: AI-assisted drafting tools for engineering design documents
balancingwith: Client Loyalty
balancingwith: Responsible Charge Engagement
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A used an AI drafting tool that was new to the market and with which Engineer A had no prior experience, without first establishing adequate familiarity with the tool's accuracy, limitations, or failure modes, resulting in design documents with dimensional errors and missing safety features
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 7
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T06:11:15.672802+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 7
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T06:11:15.672802+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The principle required Engineer A to either acquire sufficient competence with the AI tools before professional reliance, or to apply verification procedures commensurate with the tool's novelty and opacity; the cursory review of design documents fell below this standard
invokedby: Engineer A AI-Assisted Engineering Practitioner
principleclass: Competence Assurance Under Novel Tool Adoption
sourcetext: The AI drafting software was new to the market and Engineer A had no previous experience with the tool.
tensionresolution: The obligation to ensure competence with the novel tool was not satisfied by the cursory review; the principle required either deeper validation of AI outputs or deferral of reliance until competence was established
textreferences: Client W, however, noticed several issues with the AI-generated design documents, including misaligned dimensions and an omission of key safety features required by local regulations.
textreferences: Engineer A completed a cursory review of the AI-generated plans and adjusted certain elements to align with site-specific conditions.
textreferences: Not being familiar with the full functionality of the AI software, including the accuracy and originality of AI-generated text, Engineer A conducted a thorough review of the report
textreferences: The AI drafting software was new to the market and Engineer A had no previous experience with the tool.
wasattributedto: Case 7 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:27:07.721565
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Competence Constraint Engineer A Technical Writing Self-Assessment
type: CompetenceConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A is personally less confident in technical writing and had previously relied on Engineer B's mentorship to compensate; this competence boundary motivated the undisclosed use of AI drafting tools.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.87
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Competence Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A's self-assessed limitation in technical writing constrained the quality and reliability of independently authored professional reports, creating a recognized competence boundary that required compensating measures such as peer review or disclosed AI assistance rather than undisclosed AI substitution.
discoveredincase: 7
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T06:14:18.405742+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 7
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T06:14:18.405742+00:00
importance: medium
severity: medium
source: NSPE Code of Ethics — Competence provisions; BER-Case-98-3
sourcetext: Engineer A is known for their strong technical expertise but is, personally, less confident in their technical writing.
temporalscope: Throughout Engineer A's professional practice, specifically during preparation of the environmental report
textreferences: Engineer A is known for their strong technical expertise but is, personally, less confident in their technical writing.
textreferences: Previously, Engineer A had relied on guidance and quality assurance reviews by their mentor and supervisor, Engineer B, to refine report drafts.
wasattributedto: Case 7 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:27:07.728471
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Competence Obligation Breached By Engineer A In Selection And Use Of Novel AI Drafting Tool
type: CompetenceObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A used an AI drafting tool that was new to the market and with which Engineer A had no prior experience to generate engineering design documents, without first establishing adequate competence in the tool.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 7
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T06:12:52.067436+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 7
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T06:12:52.067436+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Competence Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to ensure competence in the AI-assisted drafting tool before relying on it to generate professional engineering design documents, including understanding the tool's capabilities, limitations, and failure modes.
sourcetext: The AI drafting software was new to the market and Engineer A had no previous experience with the tool.
temporalscope: Prior to and during use of AI-assisted drafting tools for Client W design documents
textreferences: Not being familiar with the full functionality of the AI software, including the accuracy and originality of AI-generated text
textreferences: The AI drafting software was new to the market and Engineer A had no previous experience with the tool.
wasattributedto: Case 7 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:27:07.724022
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Conclusion_1
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 1
conclusion number: 1
conclusion text: Engineer A's use of AI in report writing was partly ethical, and partly unethical.
conclusion type: board_explicit
extraction reasoning: Parsed from imported case text (no LLM)
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:49:08.781657
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Conclusion_101
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 101
cited provision1: II.1.c.
conclusion number: 101
conclusion text: Beyond the Board's finding that Engineer A's use of AI in report writing was partly ethical and partly unethical, a critical and independent ethical breach exists that the Board did not explicitly address: Engineer A violated the client confidentiality obligation by uploading Client W's proprietary site data and groundwater monitoring information into an open-source AI platform without obtaining Client W's prior consent. Open-source AI platforms typically process and may retain user-submitted data in ways that expose it to third parties or incorporate it into training datasets, creating a foreseeable risk of disclosure beyond Engineer A's control. This breach of Code provision II.1.c stands entirely apart from questions about report quality, AI disclosure, or design document accuracy. A competent engineer deploying any third-party software tool — particularly a newly released, open-source platform with unknown data handling practices — bears an independent obligation to evaluate whether inputting confidential client data is permissible under the client relationship before acting. Engineer A's failure to seek Client W's consent before uploading that data constitutes a separate and self-standing ethical violation that the Board's analysis of report quality and AI transparency does not cure or subsume.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:49:08.781870
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Conclusion_102
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 102
answers question2: 2
cited provision1: I.2.
cited provision2: II.2.a.
cited provision3: II.2.b.
conclusion number: 102
conclusion text: The Board's conclusion that AI-assisted drafting tools are not unethical per se must be qualified by a competence threshold that Engineer A did not meet with respect to the design documents. Code provisions I.2 and II.2.a require that engineers perform services only within areas of their competence, and this obligation extends to the tools they deploy. When an engineer uses a novel, unfamiliar AI drafting tool — one newly released to market with no prior experience on the engineer's part — and then conducts only a cursory, high-level review of its outputs before sealing and submitting engineering design documents, the engineer has not satisfied the competence standard that makes AI tool use ethically permissible in the first place. The Board's permissive conclusion about AI drafting tools implicitly assumes that the engineer possesses sufficient understanding of the tool's capabilities, limitations, and failure modes to exercise meaningful professional judgment over its outputs. Engineer A lacked that understanding entirely. The resulting design documents contained misaligned dimensions and omitted safety features required by local regulations — defects that a competent, engaged review would have identified. Accordingly, the ethical permissibility of AI-assisted drafting tools is conditional, not categorical: it depends on whether the engineer has sufficient competence with the tool and applies sufficient verification rigor to maintain genuine responsible charge over the work product.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:49:08.781949
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Conclusion_103
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 103
answers question2: 3
cited provision1: I.5.
cited provision2: III.3.
cited provision3: I.1.
conclusion number: 103
conclusion text: The Board's conclusion that Engineer A has no universal ethical obligation to disclose AI use to Client W — analogizing AI tools to other engineering software — requires significant qualification in light of the specific facts of this case and must not be read as a blanket rule. The analogy to conventional engineering software breaks down in at least three respects. First, conventional design software such as CAD or finite element analysis tools operates deterministically on engineer-supplied inputs and produces outputs the engineer can fully audit; large language model AI generates probabilistic, non-deterministic text and design content whose provenance and accuracy the engineer cannot fully trace or verify. Second, the observable stylistic discontinuity in the report — which Client W independently detected, noting it read as if written by two different authors — created an implicit misrepresentation about the nature of the work product and its authorship. At the moment Client W raised that observation, Engineer A's silence became an act of omission that a reasonable client would regard as misleading, implicating Code provisions I.5 and III.3. Third, the design document defects — misaligned dimensions and omitted safety features — demonstrate that undisclosed AI-generated outputs in this case did reach a client and could have proceeded to construction without correction absent Client W's independent review. The Board's no-disclosure-obligation conclusion is therefore defensible only in circumstances where the engineer has exercised thorough, competent review of AI outputs and where no client inquiry or observable anomaly has created an affirmative duty to speak. In this case, neither condition was fully satisfied for the design documents, and the stylistic anomaly in the report created a specific moment at which silence was ethically problematic.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:49:08.782029
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Conclusion_104
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 102
answers question2: 104
cited provision1: I.2.
cited provision2: II.2.a.
conclusion number: 104
conclusion text: The Board's analysis does not address a systemic professional vulnerability exposed by this case: Engineer A's over-reliance on AI tools was directly precipitated by the absence of the peer review and mentorship previously provided by Engineer B. When Engineer B retired, Engineer A lost not merely editorial guidance on technical writing but a substantive quality assurance mechanism that had been integral to Engineer A's professional practice. Rather than arranging an alternative peer review process — such as engaging a qualified colleague, a professional review service, or a subconsultant — Engineer A substituted an unfamiliar AI tool for that oversight function. This substitution was ethically inadequate for two independent reasons. First, AI tools are not peer reviewers: they do not apply independent professional judgment, cannot identify regulatory non-compliance from contextual knowledge, and cannot assume professional responsibility for the work. Second, the substitution required uploading confidential client data to an open-source platform, compounding the ethical problem. Code provision II.2.a's competence obligation and the broader duty of diligence implicit in responsible charge together suggest that when an engineer's established quality assurance mechanism becomes unavailable, the engineer bears an affirmative obligation to arrange a functionally equivalent alternative before undertaking complex, high-stakes engagements — not to proceed with an untested technological substitute. The NSPE Code of Ethics does not currently provide explicit guidance on peer review succession planning, and this case illustrates that such guidance would meaningfully serve the profession.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:49:08.782120
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Conclusion_105
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 2
answers question2: 102
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: II.2.b.
cited provision3: III.8.a.
conclusion number: 105
conclusion text: The Board's finding that Engineer A's use of AI was partly unethical with respect to the design documents is further supported by the public safety dimension that the Board did not fully develop. Code provision I.1 places the safety, health, and welfare of the public as the paramount obligation of a licensed engineer, and this obligation is not merely aspirational — it is the foundational constraint against which all other professional judgments must be measured. The AI-generated design documents submitted by Engineer A contained omitted safety features required by local regulations. These omissions were not caught by Engineer A's cursory review and were only identified by Client W. Had Client W not conducted an independent technical review, those deficient documents could have proceeded to construction, creating a direct risk to public safety. The fact that the error was caught before construction does not retroactively satisfy the responsible charge standard; the standard requires that the engineer's own review be sufficient to ensure compliance, not that a client's independent review serve as the final safety check. Engineer A's sealing of documents containing regulatory safety omissions — after only a cursory review — therefore implicates not only Code provisions II.2.b and III.8.a regarding sealing and registration law compliance, but also the paramount public safety obligation of Code provision I.1. The ethical violation in the design phase is accordingly more serious than a mere procedural lapse in review thoroughness: it represents a failure of the core public protection function that professional licensure exists to serve.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:49:08.782199
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Conclusion_106
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 104
cited provision1: III.9.
cited provision2: I.5.
conclusion number: 106
conclusion text: Engineer A's failure to cite the professional journal articles used to cross-check AI-generated content, and the absence of any attribution for the AI-generated text itself, raises an underexamined concern about the evidentiary integrity of a technical report that may inform regulatory decisions or remediation actions. Code provision III.9 requires engineers to give credit for engineering work to those to whom credit is due. While this provision is most commonly applied to prevent engineers from claiming credit for others' work, it also carries an affirmative dimension: a technical report submitted in a professional capacity implicitly represents that its intellectual content reflects the engineer's own analysis and judgment. Where substantial portions of the report's prose and synthesis were generated by an AI system, and where the factual cross-checking relied on professional journal articles that are not cited, the report's evidentiary foundation is obscured. Regulators, future engineers, or legal proceedings relying on the report cannot assess the quality of the underlying analysis, trace its sources, or evaluate the reliability of the AI-generated synthesis. This is particularly consequential for a report addressing an emerging contaminant of concern, where the scientific basis for conclusions may be contested and where the report may serve as a foundational document for remediation planning or regulatory compliance. The absence of attribution and citation therefore undermines not only intellectual honesty in authorship but also the professional reliability and traceability of the work product itself.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:49:08.782279
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Conclusion_2
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 2
conclusion number: 2
conclusion text: The use of AI-assisted drafting tools by Engineer A was not unethical per se.
conclusion type: board_explicit
extraction reasoning: Parsed from imported case text (no LLM)
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:49:08.781723
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Conclusion_201
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 101
cited provision1: II.1.c.
conclusion number: 201
conclusion text: In response to Q101: Engineer A's upload of Client W's confidential site data and groundwater monitoring information into an open-source AI platform constitutes an independent and discrete ethical violation of Code provision II.1.c, entirely separate from any question about report quality or AI disclosure. The confidentiality obligation is not contingent on whether the resulting work product is accurate, polished, or ultimately beneficial to the client. By inputting proprietary client data into a publicly accessible AI system without obtaining Client W's prior consent, Engineer A exposed that information to potential third-party access, retention, or reuse by the AI platform — consequences Engineer A could not control or fully anticipate, particularly given their admitted unfamiliarity with the software. This breach stands on its own ethical foundation: the harm is the unauthorized exposure itself, not merely any downstream misuse. A competent engineer deploying a novel open-source tool with client data bears an affirmative obligation to investigate the data handling, storage, and privacy policies of that tool before use, and to obtain explicit client consent if any confidential information will be transmitted to a third-party system. Engineer A did neither. This violation is not remediated by the thoroughness of the subsequent report review, by the accuracy of the final work product, or by any disclosure or non-disclosure decision regarding AI authorship.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:49:08.782375
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Conclusion_202
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 102
cited provision1: I.2.
cited provision2: II.2.a.
conclusion number: 202
conclusion text: In response to Q102: Engineer B's retirement did not merely create an inconvenience for Engineer A — it removed the primary quality assurance mechanism upon which Engineer A had structurally depended for professional-grade output, particularly in technical writing. When that mechanism was removed, Engineer A faced a dual-scope engagement of meaningful complexity: a comprehensive contaminant characterization report requiring synthesis of groundwater monitoring data, and engineering design documents for infrastructure modifications. Rather than arranging an alternative peer review process — such as engaging a qualified colleague, contracting a third-party reviewer, or consulting with a professional organization — Engineer A substituted an unfamiliar, newly released open-source AI tool for that professional oversight. This substitution was not ethically neutral. The NSPE Code's competence provisions (I.2 and II.2.a) require engineers to undertake assignments only when qualified, and qualification encompasses not only technical domain knowledge but also the professional infrastructure necessary to deliver work of adequate quality. An engineer who knows they have a recognized weakness in a critical deliverable component, who has lost their primary quality assurance resource, and who then deploys an untested tool as a replacement — without any independent verification of that tool's reliability — has not satisfied the competence standard. Engineer A had an independent ethical obligation to arrange alternative peer review before proceeding, and the failure to do so compounded every subsequent deficiency in both the report and the design documents.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:49:08.782478
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Conclusion_203
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 103
cited provision1: I.5.
cited provision2: III.3.
conclusion number: 203
conclusion text: In response to Q103: When Client W directly observed that the report appeared to have been written by two different authors — a stylistically inconsistent observation that was, in fact, an accurate description of the report's dual-origin nature — Engineer A's silence in that moment was not ethically neutral. Code provisions I.5 and III.3 prohibit deceptive acts and conduct that deceives the public or clients. Deception does not require an affirmative false statement; it can arise from deliberate silence in circumstances where a reasonable client would expect disclosure and where the omission creates or sustains a materially false impression. Client W's comment was a direct, specific observation that implicitly invited clarification about the report's authorship. A client who is told their report reads as if written by two people is, in practical terms, asking why. Engineer A's failure to respond honestly — by acknowledging that AI software had generated the more polished sections — allowed Client W to proceed under the false impression that the entire report was the product of Engineer A's own professional authorship. This silence, in context, constitutes a deceptive act under I.5 and conduct that deceives under III.3, independent of whether disclosure was required before submission. The moment of Client W's observation created a discrete, time-specific obligation to clarify, and Engineer A's failure to do so transformed a prior omission into an active, ongoing misrepresentation.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:49:08.782563
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Conclusion_204
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 104
cited provision1: III.9.
conclusion number: 204
conclusion text: In response to Q104: Engineer A's failure to cite the professional journal articles used to cross-check AI-generated content raises a concern under Code provision III.9, which requires engineers to give credit for engineering work to those to whom credit is due. While III.9 is most commonly applied to crediting the work of other engineers, its underlying principle — that the intellectual and evidentiary foundations of professional work must be honestly attributed — extends to the sources that substantiate technical conclusions. In a report that may inform regulatory decisions or remediation actions affecting public health and environmental safety, the absence of citations to the scientific literature used to verify AI-generated claims is not merely a stylistic deficiency. It deprives Client W, regulators, and any subsequent reviewers of the ability to independently assess the evidentiary basis for the report's conclusions, to identify the scope and currency of the literature consulted, and to evaluate whether the cross-checking process was adequate. This omission undermines the epistemic integrity of the report as a professional document. Furthermore, in the context of an emerging contaminant of concern — a category of substance where scientific understanding is actively evolving — the failure to ground conclusions in cited, verifiable sources creates a foreseeable risk that outdated, incomplete, or AI-hallucinated information could go undetected by downstream users who rely on the report's apparent professional authority.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:49:08.782627
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Conclusion_205
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 201
cited provision1: I.5.
cited provision2: III.3.
cited provision3: III.9.
conclusion number: 205
conclusion text: In response to Q201: A genuine tension exists between the principle that professional competence in report writing can be satisfied through thorough post-generation verification and the principle of intellectual honesty in authorship. The Board concluded that Engineer A's thorough review of the AI-generated report text was sufficient to render that use of AI ethical. However, this conclusion does not fully resolve the authorship integrity question. When an engineer applies their professional seal to a document, they represent to the client and to the public that the work reflects their professional judgment, expertise, and authorship. The seal is not merely a quality certification — it is an assertion of intellectual ownership and responsible charge. A report whose prose was substantially composed by a non-human language model, and whose authorship was personalized only through minor wording adjustments, does not straightforwardly satisfy that representation, even if every factual claim has been verified. The verification process confirms accuracy; it does not transform AI-generated prose into the engineer's own professional expression. These two principles can be reconciled only if the engineering profession explicitly adopts a framework — which it has not yet done — that defines AI-assisted authorship as a recognized and disclosed mode of professional work product creation. Absent such a framework, the tension remains unresolved, and the Board's conclusion on report ethics should be understood as provisional rather than definitive.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:49:08.782703
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Conclusion_206
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 202
cited provision1: II.2.b.
cited provision2: I.2.
cited provision3: II.2.a.
conclusion number: 206
conclusion text: In response to Q202: The tension between Responsible Charge Engagement and Competence Assurance Under Novel Tool Adoption is not merely theoretical — it is demonstrated concretely by the outcome in this case. Engineer A applied their professional seal to AI-generated design documents after only a cursory, high-level review. The professional seal carries a legal and ethical certification that the engineer has exercised responsible charge over the work: that they understand its content, have directed its preparation, and can stand behind its technical adequacy. A cursory review of output generated by a novel AI drafting tool — one with which Engineer A had no prior experience and whose generative logic Engineer A did not fully understand — cannot satisfy that standard. The subsequent discovery of misaligned dimensions and omitted safety features required by local regulations confirms that the cursory review was substantively inadequate. Code provision II.2.b prohibits engineers from affixing their signatures to plans dealing with subject matter in which they lack competence. Competence here encompasses not only domain knowledge in groundwater infrastructure design, but also sufficient understanding of the AI tool's outputs to certify their reliability. Engineer A possessed the former but demonstrably lacked the latter. The seal, in this context, was affixed in violation of II.2.b, and the tension between these two principles is resolved against Engineer A: responsible charge cannot be satisfied by reviewing outputs from a tool whose behavior the reviewing engineer does not adequately understand.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:49:08.782794
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Conclusion_207
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 204
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: II.2.b.
cited provision3: III.8.a.
conclusion number: 207
conclusion text: In response to Q204: The Board's conclusion that there is no universal ethical obligation to disclose AI use is placed under significant strain by the facts of this case. The principle that public welfare is paramount — Code provision I.1 — is not merely aspirational; it functions as a constraint on every other professional decision an engineer makes. In this case, AI-generated design documents containing omitted safety features required by local regulations were submitted to Client W under Engineer A's professional seal. Had Client W not independently identified these deficiencies, the documents could have proceeded toward construction in a non-compliant and potentially dangerous state. The Board's general conclusion about disclosure is grounded in an analogy to other software tools used in engineering practice — an analogy that may hold when the tool is well-understood, widely validated, and used within established professional norms. It does not hold with equal force when the tool is newly released, unfamiliar to the practitioner, and demonstrably capable of generating safety-critical omissions that a cursory review failed to catch. In such circumstances, the public welfare principle does not merely permit disclosure — it may affirmatively require it, because disclosure enables the client and downstream reviewers to apply appropriate scrutiny to outputs whose reliability has not been professionally validated. The Board's conclusion on disclosure should therefore be understood as conditional: it applies when AI tools are used competently and their outputs are rigorously verified, not when they are deployed as substitutes for professional judgment with only superficial review.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:49:08.782868
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Conclusion_208
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 301
cited provision1: I.5.
cited provision2: III.3.
conclusion number: 208
conclusion text: In response to Q301: From a deontological perspective, Engineer A did not fulfill their duty of candor toward Client W. Kantian deontological ethics evaluates the moral worth of an action by reference to the maxim underlying it and whether that maxim could be universalized without contradiction. The maxim implicit in Engineer A's conduct — that an engineer may submit AI-generated work products under their professional seal without disclosing the AI's role, provided the outputs are verified for accuracy — cannot be universalized without undermining the foundational trust relationship between licensed professionals and their clients. If all engineers adopted this maxim, the professional seal would cease to function as a reliable signal of personal authorship and responsible charge, and clients would be systematically deprived of information material to their assessment of the work product's provenance and reliability. Furthermore, the duty of candor is not contingent on outcome: it is not satisfied by the fact that the report was accurate or that the design errors were caught. Deontological ethics holds that the duty to be honest with those who rely on one's professional representations exists independently of whether the deception caused harm. Engineer A's silence about AI's role — particularly in the face of Client W's direct observation about the report's stylistic inconsistency — constitutes a breach of the duty of candor that is not remediated by the quality of the final work product.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:49:08.782941
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Conclusion_209
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 302
cited provision1: II.2.b.
cited provision2: I.1.
cited provision3: III.8.a.
conclusion number: 209
conclusion text: In response to Q302: From a deontological perspective, Engineer A breached their categorical duty to maintain Responsible Charge by sealing engineering design documents that contained safety omissions and dimensional errors they had only cursorily reviewed. Responsible Charge is not a procedural formality — it is a substantive professional and ethical duty that requires the engineer to have directed the work, to understand its content, and to be able to certify its technical adequacy. The professional seal is the outward expression of that duty, and affixing it to documents that have not been adequately reviewed is a categorical violation regardless of intent or outcome. From a deontological standpoint, the duty is breached at the moment of sealing, not at the moment of harm. The fact that Client W identified the errors before construction does not retroactively satisfy the Responsible Charge obligation; it merely prevented the consequences from being worse. Code provision II.2.b makes this categorical character explicit: engineers shall not affix their signatures to plans dealing with subject matter in which they lack competence. Engineer A's unfamiliarity with the AI drafting tool's outputs, combined with a cursory review that failed to detect regulatory non-compliance, establishes that the competence threshold was not met at the time of sealing. The deontological analysis therefore yields a clear conclusion: the duty was breached, independently of any consequentialist assessment of harm.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:49:08.783045
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Conclusion_210
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 303
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: II.2.a.
cited provision3: II.2.b.
conclusion number: 210
conclusion text: In response to Q303: From a consequentialist perspective, the harm produced by Engineer A's cursory review of AI-generated design documents — resulting in misaligned dimensions and omitted safety features required by local regulations — does outweigh the efficiency benefits gained from using AI-assisted drafting tools in the design phase, and this outcome is ethically significant even though the errors were caught before construction. Consequentialist analysis evaluates actions by their expected outcomes, including foreseeable risks. A competent engineer deploying a novel, untested AI drafting tool for safety-critical infrastructure design, with no prior experience and only a cursory review process, creates a foreseeable probability of undetected errors reaching construction. The actual outcome — regulatory non-compliance and safety omissions — was not an improbable accident; it was a predictable consequence of an inadequate verification process applied to an unreliable generative tool. The efficiency gain from AI-assisted drafting is real but modest relative to the risk: the time saved in initial document generation was offset by the need for revision, the erosion of client trust, and the potential — had Client W not been diligent — for construction of non-compliant infrastructure. Consequentialist ethics does not require that harm actually occur to render a decision unethical; it requires that the expected value of the action, accounting for foreseeable risks, be negative. Here, the expected value of deploying an unfamiliar AI tool with cursory review for safety-critical design work was negative at the time of the decision, and the actual outcome confirms that assessment.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:49:08.783119
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Conclusion_211
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 304
cited provision1: I.5.
cited provision2: III.3.
cited provision3: III.9.
conclusion number: 211
conclusion text: In response to Q304: From a virtue ethics perspective, Engineer A did not demonstrate the professional integrity and intellectual honesty expected of a licensed engineer in the report authorship process. Virtue ethics evaluates conduct by reference to the character traits and dispositions that a person of practical wisdom — a phronimos — would exhibit in the relevant professional role. A licensed engineer of good character, confronted with a recognized weakness in technical writing and the loss of their primary quality assurance resource, would seek transparent solutions: engaging a peer reviewer, disclosing limitations to the client, or explicitly attributing AI assistance in the work product. Engineer A instead chose a path that preserved the appearance of unassisted professional authorship while relying substantially on AI-generated prose. The minor wording adjustments made to personalize the content do not constitute the kind of intellectual engagement that transforms another's expression into one's own. A person of practical wisdom would recognize that submitting AI-generated text under a professional seal — without attribution, and in the face of a client's direct observation about stylistic inconsistency — is not merely a procedural omission but a failure of intellectual honesty. The virtue of integrity requires consistency between one's professional representations and the actual nature of one's work. Engineer A's conduct fell short of that standard, regardless of the report's factual accuracy.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:49:08.783229
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Conclusion_212
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 305
cited provision1: I.2.
cited provision2: II.2.a.
conclusion number: 212
conclusion text: In response to Q305: From a virtue ethics perspective, Engineer A did not exhibit the prudence and professional humility expected of a competent engineer in choosing to deploy a novel, unfamiliar AI drafting tool as a substitute for the mentorship and peer review previously provided by Engineer B. Prudence — the virtue of practical wisdom applied to professional decision-making — requires an engineer to accurately assess their own capabilities and limitations, to recognize the boundaries of their competence, and to seek appropriate resources when those boundaries are approached. Engineer A's self-acknowledged weakness in technical writing, combined with the loss of Engineer B's quality assurance function, created a situation that called for heightened caution and deliberate compensatory measures. Instead, Engineer A responded by introducing a second source of uncertainty: an AI tool that was new to the market, open-source, and entirely unfamiliar to Engineer A. Professional humility would have led Engineer A to recognize that substituting one unknown — AI-generated output — for a known quality assurance resource — Engineer B's expert review — does not reduce professional risk; it compounds it. A prudent engineer in Engineer A's position would have sought an alternative qualified peer reviewer, disclosed the limitation to Client W, or scoped the engagement to match their verified capabilities. The choice to proceed without these safeguards reflects not merely a procedural lapse but a deficit in the practical wisdom that the engineering profession requires of its licensed practitioners.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:49:08.783301
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Conclusion_213
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 306
cited provision1: II.1.c.
cited provision2: I.2.
conclusion number: 213
conclusion text: In response to Q306: From a consequentialist perspective, Engineer A's decision to input Client W's confidential site data into open-source AI software without prior consent created a foreseeable risk of harm to Client W's proprietary interests that outweighs the drafting efficiency gained, and that risk calculus should have been apparent to a competent engineer before acting. Open-source AI platforms are, by their nature, systems whose data handling, retention, training data incorporation, and third-party access policies are not under the control of the user. A competent engineer — particularly one engaged in environmental consulting involving site-specific groundwater data that may have regulatory, litigation, or competitive sensitivity — bears a professional obligation to investigate how any third-party system will handle client data before transmitting it. The efficiency benefit of AI-assisted drafting is real but bounded: it accelerates initial document generation. The risk created by uploading confidential client data to an unvetted public platform is potentially unbounded: it includes regulatory exposure, competitive harm, litigation risk, and reputational damage to Client W. A consequentialist analysis that assigns even a modest probability to these harms — and a competent engineer should have assigned a non-trivial probability — yields a negative expected value for the decision to use open-source AI without consent. The fact that Engineer A was unfamiliar with the AI software's full functionality, including its data handling practices, does not mitigate this conclusion; it reinforces it, because proceeding under conditions of ignorance about foreseeable risks is itself a consequentialist failure.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:49:08.783369
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Conclusion_214
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 401
cited provision1: II.1.c.
cited provision2: I.5.
conclusion number: 214
conclusion text: In response to Q401: If Engineer A had disclosed their intended use of open-source AI software to Client W before beginning work, and Client W had withheld consent to upload confidential site data to a public AI platform, Engineer A would have faced a clear ethical fork: either decline the use of open-source AI tools entirely, or identify a privacy-compliant alternative — such as an enterprise AI system with contractual data protection guarantees, or a locally deployed model with no external data transmission. The obligation to decline would not have been absolute; it would have been an obligation to find a compliant solution or to proceed without AI assistance. This counterfactual illuminates a structural point: the ethical failure was not the decision to use AI per se, but the decision to use a specific category of AI tool — open-source, publicly accessible — without first obtaining client consent for the data exposure that use necessarily entailed. Had Engineer A followed the disclosure-and-consent pathway, the subsequent work product might have been produced differently — perhaps with a privacy-compliant AI tool, perhaps without AI assistance at all — but the client relationship and the engineer's ethical standing would have been preserved. The counterfactual also suggests that the Board's conclusion that AI use is not unethical per se should be understood as conditional on the use of appropriate tools under appropriate consent frameworks, not as a blanket endorsement of any AI tool for any purpose.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:49:08.783444
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Conclusion_215
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 402
cited provision1: II.2.b.
cited provision2: I.1.
cited provision3: II.2.a.
conclusion number: 215
conclusion text: In response to Q402: If Engineer A had conducted a rigorous, line-by-line technical review of the AI-generated design documents — equivalent in thoroughness to the review applied to the report — the safety omissions and dimensional errors would very likely have been identified before submission to Client W, and such a review would have been substantially more likely to satisfy the Responsible Charge standard. The case establishes a clear asymmetry: Engineer A's thorough review of the report was sufficient to catch factual inaccuracies and verify content quality, while the cursory review of the design documents was not sufficient to detect regulatory non-compliance and dimensional errors. This asymmetry suggests that the review process, not the use of AI per se, was the determinative variable in the design document failure. A rigorous review — one that checked each dimension against site survey data, verified each specification against local regulatory requirements, and confirmed the presence of all required safety features — would have functioned as an adequate Responsible Charge mechanism even for AI-generated outputs, provided the reviewing engineer possessed the domain competence to evaluate what they were reviewing. Engineer A possessed that domain competence in groundwater infrastructure design. The ethical failure was therefore not the use of AI drafting tools, but the decision to apply a cursory rather than rigorous review standard to safety-critical outputs from an untested tool. This counterfactual reinforces the Board's conclusion that AI-assisted drafting is not unethical per se, while clarifying that the adequacy of the review process is the critical ethical variable.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:49:08.783542
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Conclusion_216
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 404
cited provision1: I.5.
cited provision2: III.3.
cited provision3: III.9.
conclusion number: 216
conclusion text: In response to Q404: If Engineer A had explicitly cited the use of AI software in the report — identifying which sections were AI-generated and which were independently authored — Client W's observation that the report read as if written by two different authors would have been resolved rather than raised as a concern. The stylistic inconsistency that Client W detected was, in fact, an accurate artifact of the report's dual-origin nature: AI-generated prose tends to exhibit a characteristic uniformity and polish that differs from the more variable style of human technical writing, particularly from an engineer who self-identifies as less confident in technical writing. Explicit attribution would have provided Client W with a framework for understanding and contextualizing that observation, transforming a source of unease into a transparent feature of the work product. However, explicit attribution would also have raised a different set of questions: it would have invited Client W to scrutinize the AI-generated sections more carefully, to inquire about the AI tool's data handling practices, and potentially to raise concerns about the confidential data exposure that had already occurred. In this sense, disclosure would have been simultaneously clarifying and consequential — it would have resolved the authorship ambiguity while potentially surfacing the deeper confidentiality violation. This counterfactual suggests that the ethical case for disclosure is stronger than the Board's agnostic conclusion implies: transparency about AI use not only serves intellectual honesty but also enables clients to exercise informed oversight of work products that may have been generated under conditions they would not have approved.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:49:08.783618
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Conclusion_3
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 3
conclusion number: 3
conclusion text: Similar to other software used in the design or detailing process, Engineer A has no professional or ethical obligation to disclose AI use to Client W (unless such disclosure is required under Engineer A’s contract with Client W).
conclusion type: board_explicit
extraction reasoning: Parsed from imported case text (no LLM)
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:49:08.781803
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Conclusion_301
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 201
cited provision1: I.5.
cited provision2: III.3.
cited provision3: III.9.
conclusion number: 301
conclusion text: The tension between Professional Competence Satisfied for Report Writing and Intellectual Honesty in Authorship was left substantively unresolved by the Board. The Board accepted that Engineer A's thorough factual verification of AI-generated text satisfied the competence dimension of responsible charge for the report, but it did not squarely confront the authorship dimension: when an engineer personalizes AI-generated prose with only minor wording adjustments and submits it under a professional seal without attribution, the seal implicitly represents that the engineer is the intellectual author of the work product. These two principles pull in opposite directions — competence review can be satisfied by rigorous fact-checking, but intellectual honesty in authorship requires that the origin of the substantive prose be accurately represented. The case teaches that competence and authorship are distinct professional obligations, and that satisfying one does not discharge the other. A fully ethical resolution would have required Engineer A to either disclose the AI's generative role or to rewrite the report in their own voice after verification, rather than treating minor wording edits as sufficient to claim authorship.
conclusion type: principle_synthesis
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:49:08.783693
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Conclusion_302
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 202
answers question2: 204
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: I.2.
cited provision3: II.2.b.
conclusion number: 302
conclusion text: The tension between Responsible Charge Engagement and Competence Assurance Under Novel Tool Adoption was resolved against Engineer A in the design document context, but the resolution reveals a deeper principle hierarchy: when an engineer applies a professional seal, the seal does not merely certify that the engineer reviewed the output — it certifies that the engineer exercised personal, informed judgment over the generative process itself. Because Engineer A had no prior experience with the AI drafting tool and did not understand its full functionality, a cursory high-level review was structurally incapable of satisfying responsible charge, regardless of how much time was spent. The case teaches that the standard of review required to satisfy responsible charge scales inversely with the engineer's familiarity with the generative tool: the less the engineer understands how the tool produces its output, the more rigorous the independent verification must be. Deploying an unfamiliar AI tool is not ethically equivalent to deploying familiar software; it introduces an epistemic gap that only deeper review — not a high-level scan — can close. Public Welfare Paramount ultimately overrides both efficiency and tool novelty as a justification for reduced oversight, particularly where safety-critical omissions in design documents could reach construction.
conclusion type: principle_synthesis
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:49:08.783791
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Conclusion_303
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 203
answers question2: 403
cited provision1: II.1.c.
cited provision2: I.2.
cited provision3: II.2.a.
conclusion number: 303
conclusion text: The tension between Client Data Confidentiality in AI Tool Use and Mentorship Continuity and Succession Planning exposes a systemic vulnerability that the Board's conclusions do not address: Engineer A's loss of Engineer B's peer review created professional pressure to substitute AI assistance for human oversight, but the only available AI tool was open-source, meaning that satisfying the need for quality assurance necessarily required exposing Client W's confidential site data and groundwater monitoring information to a public platform without prior consent. This creates a structural conflict in which the engineer cannot simultaneously honor the confidentiality obligation and use the available compensating mechanism. The case teaches that this conflict is not resolvable by choosing one principle over the other after the fact — it is resolvable only by proactive planning before the engagement begins. The principle of Mentorship Continuity and Succession Planning, read alongside the confidentiality obligation under Code provision II.1.c, implies that when a primary quality assurance mechanism is lost, the engineer's first obligation is to identify a compliant replacement — whether a qualified peer reviewer, a privacy-compliant AI platform, or a scope limitation — before accepting work that cannot be competently and confidentially performed alone. Engineer A's failure to engage in that prior planning rendered the confidentiality breach not merely a procedural lapse but a foreseeable consequence of an inadequately structured professional practice.
conclusion type: principle_synthesis
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:49:08.783892
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Conducted Cursory Design Document Review
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:27:07.737364
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Conducted Cursory Design Document Review → Design Document Defects Discovered
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:27:07.737770
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Conducted Thorough Report Review
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:27:07.737218
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Confidential Client Data Input Constraint Engineer A Open-Source AI Upload
type: ConfidentialClientDataInputConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A input confidential information gathered from Client W into open-source AI software to generate both the environmental report draft and the engineering design documents, without apparent assessment of data exposure risks inherent in open-source AI platforms.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.88
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Confidential Client Data Input Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was constrained from inputting Client W's confidential project information into the open-source AI software without Client W's informed consent and without assessing the data retention and public exposure risks of the open-source platform.
discoveredincase: 7
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T06:14:18.405742+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 7
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T06:14:18.405742+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics — Confidentiality provisions; professional duty to protect client information
sourcetext: Engineer A gathered the relevant information provided by Client W and relied on the AI software to synthesize the information
temporalscope: At the time of inputting Client W's information into the AI software for both the report and design documents
textreferences: Engineer A entered the information gathered from Client W into the AI software and relied on the AI-assisted drafting tools to generate a preliminary design
textreferences: Engineer A gathered the relevant information provided by Client W and relied on the AI software to synthesize the information
textreferences: Engineer A input the information gathered from Client W into the AI software
textreferences: The AI drafting software was also open-sourced.
wasattributedto: Case 7 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:27:07.728189
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Confidential Client Data Input Constraint Engineer A Open Source AI
type: ConfidentialClientDataInputConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A uploaded Client W's confidential project information into an open-source AI interface to generate the environmental report draft, without obtaining Client W's prior consent, effectively placing private client information in the public domain.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.95
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Confidential Client Data Input Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was constrained from uploading Client W's private project information into the open-source AI interface without prior consent, as doing so was tantamount to placing the client's private information in the public domain, violating confidentiality obligations under Code section II.1.c.
discoveredincase: 7
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T06:19:39.889621+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 7
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T06:19:39.889621+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.1.c
sourcetext: When Engineer A uploaded Client W's information into the AI open-source interface, this was tantamount to placing the Client's private information in the public domain.
temporalscope: At time of uploading Client W's information into the open-source AI interface for report generation
textreferences: Per Code section II.1.c, confidential information can only be shared with prior consent of the Client.
textreferences: The facts here do not indicate Engineer A obtained permission from Client W to use the private information in the public domain.
textreferences: When Engineer A uploaded Client W's information into the AI open-source interface, this was tantamount to placing the Client's private information in the public domain.
wasattributedto: Case 7 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:27:07.733286
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Confidential Data Exposed to AI
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Event
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:27:07.737502
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

DP1
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP1
decision question: Did Engineer A have an ethical obligation to disclose the AI's generative role in drafting the environmental report to Client W — both at submission and upon Client W's direct observation of stylistic inconsistency — and does submitting AI-generated prose with only minor wording edits under a professional seal without attribution constitute a breach of intellectual authorship integrity and candor?
focus: Engineer A's obligation to disclose AI-generated authorship and maintain intellectual honesty when submitting the environmental report to Client W under a professional seal, particularly after Client W directly observed stylistic inconsistency suggesting dual authorship.
option1: Disclose AI tool's generative role in the report to Client W at submission and clarify AI authorship when Client W raises the stylistic inconsistency observation
option2: Submit the AI-generated report under professional seal without disclosing AI involvement and remain silent when Client W observes the stylistic inconsistency
role label: Engineer A
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:49:08.780276
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

DP10
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP10
decision question: Should Engineer B (as the mentor/quality assurance figure whose retirement precipitated Engineer A's AI over-reliance) have fulfilled the Responsible Charge Active Review Obligation and AI-Generated Work Product Competence Verification Obligation by ensuring continuity of oversight before retiring, and does Engineer A's subsequent cursory review of AI-generated design documents constitute a categorical breach of responsible charge?
focus: Engineer B Mentor Engineer: Responsible Charge Active Review and AI-Generated Work Product Competence Verification Obligations in Design Document Phase
option1: Conduct rigorous line-by-line technical review of all AI-generated design documents, verifying each dimension against site survey data and each specification against local regulatory requirements, before affixing professional seal
option2: Apply cursory high-level review of AI-generated design documents and affix professional seal without verifying regulatory compliance or dimensional accuracy against site-specific requirements
role label: Engineer B Mentor Engineer
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:49:08.786394
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

DP11
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP11
decision question: Should Engineer B (as the departing mentor) have fulfilled the Mentorship Succession and Peer Review Continuity Obligation by arranging or facilitating alternative peer review mechanisms for Engineer A before retiring, and does Engineer A bear an independent obligation to arrange such alternatives rather than substituting an unfamiliar AI tool for professional oversight?
focus: Engineer B Mentor Engineer: Mentorship Succession and Peer Review Continuity Obligation — Arranging Alternative Oversight Before Retirement
option1: Arrange alternative qualified peer review mechanism (qualified colleague, professional review service, or subconsultant) before accepting the dual-scope engagement following Engineer B's retirement
option2: Proceed with the engagement by substituting a newly released open-source AI tool for Engineer B's expert review without arranging any alternative human oversight mechanism
role label: Engineer B Mentor Engineer
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:49:08.786512
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

DP12
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP12
decision question: Should Engineer B (as the quality assurance anchor for Engineer A's practice) have fulfilled the AI-Generated Work Product Competence Verification Obligation and Regulatory Compliance Verification Obligation by ensuring Engineer A possessed sufficient competence with the AI tool and applied adequate verification rigor before sealing outputs, and does Engineer A's failure to do so — combined with silence when Client W identified stylistic inconsistency — constitute independent ethical violations of candor and competence?
focus: Engineer B Mentor Engineer: AI-Generated Work Product Competence Verification and Regulatory Compliance Verification Obligations — Conditional Permissibility of AI Tool Use and Disclosure
option1: Disclose AI tool's generative role to Client W when Client W raises the stylistic inconsistency observation, cite journal articles used to cross-check AI content, and verify all AI-generated design outputs against local regulatory requirements before sealing
option2: Remain silent about AI's generative role when Client W raises the stylistic inconsistency, omit citations to verification sources, and seal design documents after cursory review without verifying regulatory compliance
role label: Engineer B Mentor Engineer
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:49:08.786604
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

DP13
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP13
decision question: Should Engineer A conduct a rigorous, line-by-line technical review of AI-generated design documents sufficient to detect safety omissions and dimensional errors before affixing a professional seal, rather than relying on a cursory high-level check?
focus: Engineer A: Responsible Charge Active Review Obligation and Safety Obligation Violated By Engineer A Over AI-Generated Design Documents
option1: Conduct rigorous line-by-line technical review of AI-generated design documents verifying each dimension, specification, and safety feature against site data and local regulatory requirements before sealing
option2: Perform cursory high-level review of AI-generated design documents and affix professional seal without verifying individual dimensions, specifications, or regulatory safety feature compliance
role label: Engineer A
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:49:08.786705
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

DP14
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP14
decision question: Should Engineer A verify sufficient competence with a novel AI drafting tool and disclose its use to Client W — particularly when client-observable anomalies arise and when confidential client data is necessarily transmitted to a public platform — as preconditions for ethically permissible AI-assisted work product submission?
focus: Engineer A: AI-Generated Work Product Competence Verification Obligation Violated By Engineer A — Conditional Ethical Permissibility of AI Tool Adoption and Disclosure Obligations
option1: Verify competence with the AI tool before deployment, disclose AI use to Client W when client-observable anomalies arise or safety-critical outputs are involved, and cite sources used to cross-check AI-generated content
option2: Deploy novel AI tool without prior competence verification, remain silent about AI authorship when client raises stylistic concerns, and submit work products without attribution or citation of cross-checking sources
role label: Engineer A
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:49:08.786809
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

DP15
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP15
decision question: Should Engineer A arrange a functionally equivalent alternative peer review mechanism — and select a confidentiality-compliant AI tool — before undertaking a complex dual-scope engagement after losing the primary quality assurance resource provided by Engineer B, rather than substituting an unfamiliar open-source AI tool for that professional oversight?
focus: Engineer A: Mentorship Succession and Peer Review Continuity Obligation Breached — Obligation to Arrange Alternative Quality Assurance Before Proceeding With Complex AI-Assisted Engagement, Including Confidentiality-Compliant Tool Selection
option1: Arrange alternative qualified peer review before accepting the engagement, select a privacy-compliant AI tool with contractual data protection guarantees or obtain Client W's explicit consent before uploading confidential data, and scope the engagement to match verified professional infrastructure
option2: Proceed with the engagement by substituting an unfamiliar open-source AI tool for Engineer B's peer review function and upload confidential client data to the public platform without obtaining prior consent or investigating its data handling practices
role label: Engineer A
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:49:08.786921
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

DP16
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP16
decision question: Should Engineer A apply a rigorous, line-by-line technical review to AI-generated work products before affixing a professional seal, or is a high-level cursory review sufficient to satisfy the Responsible Charge standard when AI-assisted drafting tools are used?
focus: Engineer A: Responsible Charge and AI-Generated Work Product Competence Verification — Differential Review Standards Applied to Report vs. Design Documents
option1: Apply rigorous, line-by-line technical review of all AI-generated work products before sealing, verifying each dimension, specification, and safety feature against regulatory requirements and site data
option2: Conduct a high-level cursory review of AI-generated design documents before sealing, relying on the AI tool's output quality without independently verifying each technical element
role label: Engineer A
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:49:08.787014
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

DP17
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP17
decision question: Should Engineer A have assessed their own competence with a novel AI drafting tool — including its capabilities, limitations, and failure modes — before deploying it for safety-critical engineering design documents, or was domain expertise in the subject matter sufficient to satisfy the competence standard for AI-assisted work?
focus: Engineer A: Competence Obligation and Regulatory Compliance Verification — Deploying a Novel, Unfamiliar AI Drafting Tool Without Sufficient Understanding of Its Capabilities and Failure Modes for Safety-Critical Design Work
option1: Assess competence with the novel AI tool before deployment, investigate its capabilities and failure modes, and arrange alternative qualified peer review to compensate for the loss of Engineer B's oversight before undertaking the engagement
option2: Deploy the novel AI drafting tool relying on existing domain expertise in groundwater infrastructure design as sufficient competence, without separately investigating the tool's limitations or arranging alternative peer review
role label: Engineer A
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:49:08.787126
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

DP18
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP18
decision question: Should Engineer A have obtained Client W's prior informed consent before uploading confidential site data and groundwater monitoring information to an open-source AI platform, and independently arranged alternative peer review after Engineer B's retirement, rather than proceeding without either safeguard?
focus: Engineer A: Client Data Confidentiality, AI Tool Disclosure, and Mentorship Succession — Uploading Confidential Client Data to Open-Source AI Without Consent and Failing to Arrange Alternative Peer Review After Engineer B's Retirement
option1: Obtain Client W's prior informed consent before uploading any confidential site data to the AI platform, investigate the platform's data handling and privacy policies, and arrange alternative qualified peer review to replace Engineer B's oversight function before accepting the engagement
option2: Upload confidential client data to the open-source AI platform without prior consent and proceed without arranging alternative peer review, relying on the AI tool as a substitute for Engineer B's quality assurance function
role label: Engineer A
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:49:08.787247
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

DP2
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP2
decision question: Did Engineer A satisfy the Responsible Charge and competence standards by conducting only a cursory, high-level review of AI-generated design documents produced by a novel, unfamiliar drafting tool before affixing a professional seal, given that the review failed to detect misaligned dimensions and safety features required by local regulations?
focus: Engineer A's obligation to conduct a substantive, comprehensive review of AI-generated engineering design documents before sealing and submitting them to Client W, given Engineer A's unfamiliarity with the novel AI drafting tool, the safety-critical nature of the groundwater infrastructure design, and the resulting omission of required safety features and misaligned dimensions.
option1: Conduct a rigorous, line-by-line technical review of all AI-generated design documents — verifying each dimension, safety feature, and regulatory compliance requirement — before affixing a professional seal, and arrange alternative qualified peer review to compensate for Engineer B's absence
option2: Seal and submit AI-generated design documents after only a cursory high-level review, relying on the AI tool's output without independent verification of dimensions, safety features, or regulatory compliance
role label: Engineer A
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:49:08.780368
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

DP3
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP3
decision question: Did Engineer A independently violate the client confidentiality obligation under Code provision II.1.c by uploading Client W's proprietary site data and groundwater monitoring information into an open-source AI platform without obtaining prior consent, and does this breach stand as a self-contained ethical violation regardless of the accuracy or quality of the resulting work products?
focus: Engineer A's obligation to obtain Client W's prior informed consent before uploading confidential site data and groundwater monitoring information into an open-source AI platform, constituting an independent ethical breach of client confidentiality separate from questions of report quality, AI disclosure, or design document accuracy.
option1: Obtain Client W's prior informed consent before uploading confidential site data to the open-source AI platform, and investigate the platform's data handling and privacy policies before any client data transmission
option2: Upload Client W's confidential site data and groundwater monitoring information into the open-source AI platform without obtaining prior consent or investigating the platform's data handling practices
role label: Engineer A
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:49:08.780457
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

DP4
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP4
decision question: Did Engineer A have an ethical obligation to proactively disclose the use of AI tools to Client W when submitting AI-generated work products, and did silence in the face of Client W's direct observation about stylistic inconsistency constitute a deceptive act?
focus: Engineer A: Proactive AI Disclosure and Candor Obligation Toward Client W
option1: Proactively disclose AI tool usage and AI-generated sections to Client W before or upon submission, and clarify AI's role when Client W raises the stylistic inconsistency observation
option2: Submit AI-generated work products without disclosure and remain silent when Client W observes the stylistic inconsistency, treating AI as an internal drafting tool equivalent to other engineering software
role label: Engineer A
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:49:08.780525
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

DP5
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP5
decision question: Did Engineer A independently violate the client confidentiality obligation under Code provision II.1.c by uploading Client W's confidential site data and groundwater monitoring information to an open-source AI platform without obtaining prior consent, and does this constitute a discrete ethical breach separate from any question about AI disclosure or work product quality?
focus: Engineer A: Client Consent for Third-Party Data Sharing Obligation — Uploading Confidential Site Data to Open-Source AI Platform
option1: Investigate the open-source AI platform's data handling and privacy policies before use, obtain Client W's explicit prior consent for uploading confidential site data, and identify a privacy-compliant alternative if consent is withheld
option2: Upload Client W's confidential site data and groundwater monitoring information to the open-source AI platform without prior investigation of data handling practices and without obtaining Client W's consent
role label: Engineer A
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:49:08.785832
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

DP6
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP6
decision question: Did Engineer A satisfy the Responsible Charge standard and competence obligation under Code provisions II.2.a and II.2.b by applying only a cursory, high-level review to AI-generated engineering design documents before affixing their professional seal, given that the documents contained safety omissions and dimensional errors that the review failed to detect?
focus: Engineer A: Responsible Charge and Competence Verification Obligation for AI-Generated Design Documents — Depth of Review and Professional Seal
option1: Conduct a rigorous, line-by-line technical review of all AI-generated design documents — verifying each dimension against site survey data, each specification against local regulatory requirements, and confirming the presence of all required safety features — before affixing the professional seal
option2: Apply a cursory, high-level review to AI-generated design documents and affix the professional seal without verifying dimensional accuracy, regulatory compliance, or the presence of required safety features
role label: Engineer A
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:49:08.785947
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

DP7
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP7
decision question: Should Engineer A fulfill the Intellectual Authorship Integrity Obligation and the AI-Assisted Design Comprehensive Verification Obligation by conducting thorough, proportionate review of AI-generated work products before sealing and submitting them to Client W, given that the report received a thorough review while the design documents received only a cursory high-level check?
focus: Engineer A: Intellectual Authorship Integrity and AI-Assisted Design Comprehensive Verification Obligations in Report and Design Document Submission
option1: Conduct rigorous, line-by-line technical verification of all AI-generated work products — proportionate to tool novelty and safety-criticality — before affixing professional seal, and attribute AI generative contributions in the work product
option2: Apply a high-level cursory review to AI-generated design documents and seal them without attribution, treating AI output as equivalent to conventional engineering software output
role label: Engineer A
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:49:08.786065
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

DP8
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP8
decision question: Should Engineer A fulfill the Proactive AI Disclosure to Client Obligation by disclosing the use of AI tools to Client W — particularly at the moment Client W directly observed that the report appeared to have been written by two different authors — or does silence in that moment constitute a deceptive act under Code provisions I.5 and III.3?
focus: Engineer A: Proactive AI Disclosure to Client Obligation and Duty of Candor When Client W Identifies Stylistic Anomaly in AI-Generated Report
option1: Proactively disclose AI tool usage and identify AI-generated sections to Client W — particularly upon Client W's direct observation of stylistic inconsistency — and attribute AI generative contributions in both the report and design documents
option2: Remain silent about AI tool usage when Client W raises the stylistic inconsistency observation, treating AI as an undisclosed internal drafting mechanism equivalent to conventional engineering software
role label: Engineer A
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:49:08.786161
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

DP9
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP9
decision question: Should Engineer A fulfill the Client Data Confidentiality Obligation and the Peer Review Succession Obligation by obtaining Client W's prior consent before uploading confidential site data to an open-source AI platform, and by arranging an alternative qualified peer review mechanism to replace Engineer B's oversight before undertaking a complex dual-scope engagement — rather than substituting an unfamiliar open-source AI tool for both functions?
focus: Engineer A: Client Data Confidentiality and Peer Review Succession Obligations — Uploading Confidential Client Data to Open-Source AI Platform Without Consent and Substituting AI for Lost Mentorship Oversight
option1: Obtain Client W's prior informed consent before uploading confidential site data to any third-party AI platform, investigate the platform's data handling and privacy policies before use, and arrange an alternative qualified peer reviewer or privacy-compliant AI tool to replace Engineer B's oversight before accepting the dual-scope engagement
option2: Upload confidential client data to the open-source AI platform without prior consent and proceed with the engagement using the AI tool as a substitute for Engineer B's peer review oversight, treating the efficiency benefit as sufficient justification
role label: Engineer A
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:49:08.786290
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Design Document Defects Discovered
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Event
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:27:07.737645
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Diligent Verification of AI-Generated Technical Outputs Violated in Design Phase
type: DiligentVerificationofAI-GeneratedTechnicalOutputs
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: AI-assisted groundwater infrastructure design documents
appliedto: Safety features required for local regulatory compliance
balancingwith: Mentorship Continuity and Succession Planning
balancingwith: Public Welfare Paramount
balancingwith: Responsible Charge Engagement
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A conducted only a high-level review of AI-generated design documents rather than comprehensive technical verification, resulting in failure to detect misaligned dimensions and omitted safety features required for regulatory compliance
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 7
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T06:16:08.451188+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 7
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T06:16:08.451188+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: AI-generated engineering designs require at least the same level of technical scrutiny as human-generated work; a high-level review that fails to catch dimensional errors and safety omissions does not satisfy the professional verification standard
invokedby: Engineer A AI-Assisted Engineering Practitioner
invokedby: Engineer A Engineer in Responsible Charge
principleclass: Diligent Verification of AI-Generated Technical Outputs
sourcetext: AI-generated technical work requires at least the same level of scrutiny as human-created work.
tensionresolution: Verification obligation was not met; Engineer A's reliance on AI outputs without comprehensive review violated both the diligent verification principle and the responsible charge requirement
textreferences: AI-generated technical work requires at least the same level of scrutiny as human-created work.
textreferences: By relying on AI-assisted tools without a comprehensive verification process of its output, Engineer A risked violating this requirement.
textreferences: Engineer A elected to only conduct a high-level review and adjusted certain elements to align with site-specific conditions.
textreferences: Only after the engineer in Responsible Charge has satisfied themselves that the proposed solution is in accordance with their own and professional standards should the design/report be accepted. These are steps that, in this case, Engineer A chose not to follow.
textreferences: failure to detect misaligned dimensions and omitted safety features further indicates that Engineer A did not exercise sufficient diligence.
wasattributedto: Case 7 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:27:07.730121
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Engineer A AI-Assisted Engineering Practitioner
type: AI-AssistedEngineeringPractitioner
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'license': 'Professional Engineer', 'specialty': 'Environmental engineering', 'experience': 'Several years of experience with strong technical expertise', 'ai_tools_used': ['AI language processing software', 'AI-assisted drafting tool']}
caseinvolvement: Used AI language processing software to draft an environmental groundwater monitoring report and AI-assisted drafting tools to prepare design documents; performed insufficient review of AI-generated design outputs resulting in misaligned dimensions and omitted safety features; uploaded client confidential information to a public AI interface without client consent; failed to include appropriate citations for AI-generated content.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 7
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T06:08:43.823389+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 7
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T06:08:43.823389+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'client', 'target': 'Client W'}
relationships: {'type': 'peer_mentor', 'target': 'Engineer B'}
relationships: {'type': 'public_responsibility', 'target': 'General Public'}
rolecategory: provider_client
roleclass: AI-Assisted Engineering Practitioner
sourcetext: Engineer A used AI language processing software to assist in drafting the report
textreferences: Engineer A also prepared draft design documents with a AI-assisted drafting tool that was new to the market
textreferences: Engineer A did not maintain responsible charge in violation of licensure law
textreferences: Engineer A elected to only conduct a high-level review and adjusted certain elements to align with site-specific conditions
textreferences: Engineer A used AI language processing software to assist in drafting the report
textreferences: When Engineer A uploaded Client W's information into the AI open-source interface, this was tantamount to placing the Client's private information in the public domain
wasattributedto: Case 7 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:27:07.717202
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Engineer A AI Attribution Citation Capability Deficient
type: AIAttributionandCitationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: AI Attribution and Citation Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A failed to include appropriate citations to pertinent documents of technical authority in the AI-generated environmental report and did not provide attribution for AI's substantial contribution to both the report and design documents, in violation of Code section III.9.
casecontext: Engineer A used AI language processing software to draft the environmental report but did not include required citations or attribution for AI contributions, raising concerns under Code section III.9 regarding credit for engineering work
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.87
demonstratedthrough: Submission of AI-generated environmental report without citations to technical authority documents and without disclosure of AI's substantial contribution to report and design document content
discoveredincase: 7
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T06:19:50.248347+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 7
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T06:19:50.248347+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: The facts do not indicate the AI-generated report included citations of pertinent documents of technical authority.
textreferences: AI, while not a human contributor, fundamentally shaped the report and design documents, warranting disclosure under Code section III.9.
textreferences: Per Code section III.9, engineers are required to 'give credit for engineering work to those to whom credit is due,' so Engineer A's ethical use of the AI software would need to include appropriate citations.
textreferences: The facts do not indicate the AI-generated report included citations of pertinent documents of technical authority.
wasattributedto: Case 7 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:27:07.734874
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Engineer A AI Disclosure Transparency Capability Deficient
type: AIDisclosureandTransparencyCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: AI Disclosure and Transparency Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A failed to proactively disclose to Client W that AI tools substantially contributed to both the environmental report and the engineering design documents, missing the opportunity to prevent misunderstandings and maintain client trust through transparent communication.
casecontext: Engineer A used AI language processing software and AI-assisted drafting tools to generate professional deliverables but did not disclose this to Client W, contrary to best practices and professional transparency obligations
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstratedthrough: Submission of AI-generated environmental report and design documents to Client W without disclosure of AI's substantial contribution, leading Client W to identify quality inconsistencies and question the work product
discoveredincase: 7
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T06:19:50.248347+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 7
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T06:19:50.248347+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: While Engineer A reviewed the content, the lack of disclosure raises concerns about transparency.
textreferences: Given that Client W identified issues in the engineering design and questioned inconsistencies in the report, proactive disclosure could have prevented misunderstandings and strengthened trust.
textreferences: There are currently no universal guidelines mandating AI disclosure in engineering work, but best practices suggest informing clients when AI substantially contributes to a work product.
textreferences: While Engineer A reviewed the content, the lack of disclosure raises concerns about transparency.
wasattributedto: Case 7 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:27:07.735801
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Engineer A AI Disclosure and Transparency Capability Instance
type: AIDisclosureandTransparencyCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: AI Disclosure and Transparency Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A demonstrated absent or deficient AI disclosure and transparency capability, failing to disclose the use of AI software in generating both the environmental report and the engineering design documents to Client W
casecontext: Applied (or failed to be applied) at the point of submission of both the environmental report and the engineering design documents to Client W, resulting in breaches of disclosure and intellectual authorship integrity obligations
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstratedthrough: Engineer A submitted both the AI-drafted environmental report and AI-generated design documents without citing the AI tools used, despite professional obligations to accurately represent the intellectual provenance of work product
discoveredincase: 7
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T06:14:17.054833+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 7
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T06:14:17.054833+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: Engineer A did not cite their use of AI-software or its large language models, and submitted the draft report to Client W for review
textreferences: Again, Engineer A did not cite the AI-assisted drafting tools they used to generate the engineering design documents.
textreferences: Engineer A did not cite their use of AI-software or its large language models, and submitted the draft report to Client W for review
textreferences: The Client commented that the report read as if written by two different authors but was otherwise satisfactory.
wasattributedto: Case 7 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:27:07.725689
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Engineer A AI Drafting Tool Unfamiliarity
type: UnfamiliarToolDeploymentState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Engineer A's adoption of the new AI-assisted drafting tool through Client W's identification of errors in the design documents
affectedparties: Client W
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Public
concept category: State
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 7
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T06:09:02.921474+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 7
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T06:09:02.921474+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer A also prepared draft design documents with an AI-assisted drafting tool that was new to the market.
stateclass: Unfamiliar Tool Deployment State
subject: Engineer A's use of a newly marketed AI-assisted drafting tool with only high-level review of its outputs
terminatedby: Client W's identification of misaligned dimensions and omitted safety features prompting required revision
textreferences: By relying on AI-assisted tools without a comprehensive verification process of its output, Engineer A risked violating this requirement.
textreferences: Engineer A also prepared draft design documents with an AI-assisted drafting tool that was new to the market.
textreferences: Engineer A elected to only conduct a high-level review and adjusted certain elements to align with site-specific conditions.
textreferences: When Client W reviewed the design documents, they found misaligned dimensions and key safety features (including those necessary for compliance with local regulations) were omitted.
triggeringevent: Engineer A electing to use an AI-assisted drafting tool new to the market and conducting only a high-level review of its outputs before sealing design documents
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 7 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:27:07.719643
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Engineer A AI Output Verification Capability Deficient Design Documents
type: AIOutputVerificationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: AI Output Verification Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A failed to conduct substantive, domain-informed verification of AI-generated design documents sufficient to detect misaligned dimensions and omitted safety features required by local regulations, conducting only a high-level review that fell below the standard required for professional deliverables.
casecontext: Engineer A reviewed AI-generated engineering design documents at only a high level, failing to identify dimensional errors and regulatory compliance omissions that Client W subsequently identified upon review
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.91
demonstratedthrough: Failure to detect misaligned dimensions and omitted key safety features in AI-generated groundwater infrastructure design documents before submission to Client W
discoveredincase: 7
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T06:19:50.248347+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 7
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T06:19:50.248347+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: Engineer A elected to only conduct a high-level review and adjusted certain elements to align with site-specific conditions.
textreferences: Engineer A elected to only conduct a high-level review and adjusted certain elements to align with site-specific conditions.
textreferences: Failure to detect misaligned dimensions and omitted safety features further indicates that Engineer A did not exercise sufficient diligence.
textreferences: When Client W reviewed the design documents, they found misaligned dimensions and key safety features (including those necessary for compliance with local regulations) were omitted.
wasattributedto: Case 7 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:27:07.735368
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Engineer A AI Output Verification Capability Design Documents Instance
type: AIOutputVerificationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: AI Output Verification Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A demonstrated deficient AI output verification capability with respect to the engineering design documents, conducting only a cursory review that failed to detect misaligned dimensions and omitted safety features
casecontext: Applied during review of AI-generated engineering design documents for groundwater infrastructure modifications, resulting in submission of deficient plans that required revision
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.91
demonstratedthrough: Engineer A's cursory review of AI-generated design documents failed to identify misaligned dimensions and omission of key safety features required by local regulations, which were subsequently identified by Client W upon review
discoveredincase: 7
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T06:14:17.054833+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 7
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T06:14:17.054833+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: Engineer A completed a cursory review of the AI-generated plans and adjusted certain elements to align with site-specific conditions.
textreferences: Client W, however, noticed several issues with the AI-generated design documents, including misaligned dimensions and an omission of key safety features required by local regulations.
textreferences: Engineer A completed a cursory review of the AI-generated plans and adjusted certain elements to align with site-specific conditions.
wasattributedto: Case 7 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:27:07.725437
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Engineer A AI Output Verification Capability Partial Report
type: AIOutputVerificationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: AI Output Verification Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A demonstrated partial AI output verification capability with respect to the environmental report, conducting a thorough review and cross-checking key facts against professional sources, though failing to address citation and attribution requirements.
casecontext: Engineer A's review of the AI-generated environmental report was substantively adequate for factual accuracy but incomplete with respect to citation and attribution obligations under Code section III.9
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: Thorough review and cross-checking of AI-generated environmental report content against professional sources, with adjustments to text, resulting in a factually accurate final document — though without required citations to technical authority
discoveredincase: 7
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T06:19:50.248347+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 7
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T06:19:50.248347+00:00
importance: medium
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: Because Engineer A performed a thorough review, cross-checked key facts against professional sources, and made adjustments to the text, the final document remained under Engineer A's direction and control.
textreferences: Because Engineer A performed a thorough review, cross-checked key facts against professional sources, and made adjustments to the text, the final document remained under Engineer A's direction and control.
textreferences: Engineer A performed a thorough review and cross-checked the work on the report, much like Engineer A would have likely done if the report had been initially drafted by an engineer intern or other support staff.
textreferences: The facts do not indicate the AI-generated report included citations of pertinent documents of technical authority.
wasattributedto: Case 7 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:27:07.735639
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Engineer A AI Output Verification Capability Report Instance
type: AIOutputVerificationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: AI Output Verification Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A demonstrated intermediate AI output verification capability with respect to the environmental report, conducting a substantive cross-check of factual content against professional journal articles and verifying originality of phrasing
casecontext: Applied during review of the AI-generated environmental report on the organic contaminant, resulting in a partially adequate verification that caught factual issues but did not address authorship disclosure obligations
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.87
demonstratedthrough: Engineer A cross-checked key facts against professional journal articles and ran search engine queries to verify phrasing originality, resulting in a report that Client W found substantively satisfactory with only minor grammar and clarity edits needed
discoveredincase: 7
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T06:14:17.054833+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 7
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T06:14:17.054833+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: Engineer A conducted a thorough review of the report, cross-checking key facts against professional journal articles and verifying the phrasing by running search engine queries to ensure the content did not match any existing language.
textreferences: Client W noted that the section analyzing the groundwater monitoring data would benefit from minor edits for grammar and clarity, but found the introduction discussing the contaminant's manufacture, use, and characteristics to be exceptionally polished.
textreferences: Engineer A conducted a thorough review of the report, cross-checking key facts against professional journal articles and verifying the phrasing by running search engine queries to ensure the content did not match any existing language.
wasattributedto: Case 7 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:27:07.724610
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Engineer A AI Tool Competence Assessment Capability Deficient Design Tool
type: AIToolCompetenceAssessmentCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: AI Tool Competence Assessment Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A failed to adequately assess their own competence with the novel AI-assisted drafting tool before relying on it to generate professional engineering design documents, proceeding without sufficient understanding of the tool's limitations and failure modes.
casecontext: Engineer A adopted a novel AI-assisted drafting tool for groundwater infrastructure design without the competence assessment required by Code section II.2.a, which requires engineers to undertake assignments only when qualified by education or experience in the specific technical fields involved
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.89
demonstratedthrough: Use of a novel AI-assisted drafting tool that was new to the market without establishing sufficient competence in its capabilities and limitations, resulting in undetected errors in professional design deliverables
discoveredincase: 7
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T06:19:50.248347+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 7
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T06:19:50.248347+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: Engineer A also prepared draft design documents with a AI-assisted drafting tool that was new to the market.
textreferences: Engineer A also prepared draft design documents with a AI-assisted drafting tool that was new to the market.
textreferences: Fundamental Canon I.2 states that engineers 'perform services only in areas of their competence' and Code section II.2.a states that engineers must 'undertake assignments only when qualified by education or experience in the specific technical fields involved.'
textreferences: The change to CADD provides the BER with concerns that require assurance that the professional engineer has the requisite background, education and training to be proficient with the dynamics of CADD including the limitations of current technology.
wasattributedto: Case 7 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:27:07.735969
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Engineer A AI Tool Competence Assessment Capability Instance
type: AIToolCompetenceAssessmentCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: AI Tool Competence Assessment Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A demonstrated limited AI tool competence assessment capability, failing to adequately evaluate personal readiness to rely on a novel, unfamiliar AI drafting tool for professional engineering deliverables
casecontext: Engineer A selected and used open-sourced AI software for both report drafting and engineering design document generation despite having no previous experience with the tool and limited familiarity with its functionality and accuracy characteristics
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: Engineer A used an AI drafting tool that was new to the market with no prior experience, without first assessing whether sufficient competence existed to rely on it for professional work product; this gap was evidenced by the cursory review of design documents and the resulting errors identified by Client W
discoveredincase: 7
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T06:14:17.054833+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 7
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T06:14:17.054833+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: The AI drafting software was new to the market and Engineer A had no previous experience with the tool.
textreferences: Not being familiar with the full functionality of the AI software, including the accuracy and originality of AI-generated text
textreferences: The AI drafting software was new to the market and Engineer A had no previous experience with the tool.
wasattributedto: Case 7 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:27:07.724445
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Engineer A AI Tool Scope Calibration Capability Deficient
type: AIToolScopeCalibrationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: AI Tool Scope Calibration Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A failed to correctly calibrate the depth of review required for AI-generated design documents, electing a high-level review that was insufficient to detect dimensional misalignments and omitted safety features that a substantive review would have identified.
casecontext: Engineer A used a novel AI-assisted drafting tool and conducted only a high-level review, failing to recognize that AI-generated technical work requires at least the same level of scrutiny as human-created work
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: Selection of high-level review approach for AI-generated design documents resulting in undetected misaligned dimensions and omitted safety features required by local regulations
discoveredincase: 7
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T06:19:50.248347+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 7
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T06:19:50.248347+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: Engineer A elected to only conduct a high-level review and adjusted certain elements to align with site-specific conditions.
textreferences: AI-generated technical work requires at least the same level of scrutiny as human-created work.
textreferences: Engineer A elected to only conduct a high-level review and adjusted certain elements to align with site-specific conditions.
textreferences: When Client W reviewed the design documents, they found misaligned dimensions and key safety features (including those necessary for compliance with local regulations) were omitted.
wasattributedto: Case 7 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:27:07.734565
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Engineer A Client Data Confidentiality Management Capability Deficient
type: ClientDataConfidentialityManagementCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Client Data Confidentiality Management Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A failed to recognize that uploading Client W's private project information into an open-source AI interface was equivalent to placing that information in the public domain, and did not obtain prior informed consent from Client W before doing so.
casecontext: Engineer A used an open-source AI language processing tool to draft the environmental report, uploading client-specific project data without recognizing the public domain exposure implications or obtaining required client consent
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.89
demonstratedthrough: Uploading Client W's confidential project information into an open-source AI language processing interface without obtaining prior client consent, in violation of Code section II.1.c
discoveredincase: 7
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T06:19:50.248347+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 7
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T06:19:50.248347+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: When Engineer A uploaded Client W's information into the AI open-source interface, this was tantamount to placing the Client's private information in the public domain.
textreferences: Per Code section II.1.c, confidential information can only be shared with prior consent of the Client.
textreferences: The facts here do not indicate Engineer A obtained permission from Client W to use the private information in the public domain.
textreferences: When Engineer A uploaded Client W's information into the AI open-source interface, this was tantamount to placing the Client's private information in the public domain.
wasattributedto: Case 7 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:27:07.734729
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Engineer A Client Relationship with Client W
type: ClientRelationshipEstablished
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From retention by Client W through completion of deliverables
affectedparties: Client W
affectedparties: Engineer A
concept category: State
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 7
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T06:07:52.916021+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 7
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T06:07:52.916021+00:00
importance: medium
sourcetext: Engineer A, an environmental engineer with several years of experience and holding a professional engineering license, was retained by Client W to prepare a comprehensive report
stateclass: Client Relationship Established
subject: Engineer A's professional engagement with Client W for report and design document preparation
textreferences: Engineer A, an environmental engineer with several years of experience and holding a professional engineering license, was retained by Client W to prepare a comprehensive report
triggeringevent: Client W retained Engineer A to prepare a comprehensive report and engineering design documents
urgencylevel: low
wasattributedto: Case 7 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:27:07.716152
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Engineer A Client W Data Public Domain Exposure
type: ClientDataExposedtoPublicDomainState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From the moment Engineer A uploaded Client W's data to the AI open-source interface onward, absent remediation or retroactive consent
affectedparties: Client W
affectedparties: Engineer A
concept category: State
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 7
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T06:09:02.921474+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 7
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T06:09:02.921474+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: When Engineer A uploaded Client W's information into the AI open-source interface, this was tantamount to placing the Client's private information in the public domain.
stateclass: Client Data Exposed to Public Domain State
subject: Engineer A's upload of Client W's confidential information to open-source AI interface
terminatedby: Not terminated in the facts presented; no consent obtained and no disclosure made
textreferences: Per Code section II.1.c, confidential information can only be shared with prior consent of the Client.
textreferences: The facts here do not indicate Engineer A obtained permission from Client W to use the private information in the public domain.
textreferences: When Engineer A uploaded Client W's information into the AI open-source interface, this was tantamount to placing the Client's private information in the public domain.
triggeringevent: Engineer A uploading Client W's private information into an open-source AI language processing interface without prior client consent
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 7 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:27:07.718883
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Engineer A Domain Expertise Environmental Engineering Instance
type: DomainExpertise
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Domain Expertise
capabilitystatement: Engineer A possessed strong domain expertise in environmental engineering, including groundwater monitoring data analysis and knowledge of organic contaminants, enabling substantive technical review of AI-generated report content
casecontext: Applied throughout the project, including in the analysis of groundwater monitoring data and the review of AI-generated report content on the organic contaminant
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: Engineer A's ability to cross-check AI-generated report content against professional journal articles and to perform groundwater monitoring data analysis over more than a year of site observation, resulting in a technically satisfactory report
discoveredincase: 7
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T06:14:17.054833+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 7
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T06:14:17.054833+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer A is known for their strong technical expertise
textreferences: Engineer A conducted a thorough review of the report, cross-checking key facts against professional journal articles
textreferences: Engineer A is known for their strong technical expertise
textreferences: This work required Engineer A to perform an analysis of groundwater monitoring data from a site Engineer A had been observing for over a year.
wasattributedto: Case 7 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:27:07.726878
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Engineer A Engineer in Responsible Charge
type: EngineerinResponsibleCharge
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'license': 'Professional Engineer', 'statutory_obligation': 'NSPE Position Statement No. 10-1778 Responsible Charge', 'violation': 'Code section III.8.a - failure to maintain responsible charge'}
caseinvolvement: Bore statutory responsible charge obligations over the groundwater monitoring report and design documents; failed to maintain active engagement in the design and development process by relying on AI-generated plans without comprehensive verification; did not satisfy responsible charge requirements by conducting only a high-level post-preparation review.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 7
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T06:08:43.823389+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 7
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T06:08:43.823389+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'responsible_charge_over', 'target': 'AI-generated design documents'}
relationships: {'type': 'responsible_charge_over', 'target': 'AI-generated environmental report'}
relationships: {'type': 'supervisory', 'target': 'Engineer B (absent)'}
rolecategory: public_responsibility
roleclass: Engineer in Responsible Charge
sourcetext: Engineer A did not maintain responsible charge in violation of licensure law which violates Code section III.8.a
textreferences: Engineer A appears to be operating in a compromised manner – namely, without the help of Engineer B – such that Engineer A relied on the AI-generated plans and specifications without proper oversight
textreferences: Engineer A did not maintain responsible charge in violation of licensure law which violates Code section III.8.a
textreferences: Engineer A, as the engineer in Responsible Charge of the project, is required to provide an experienced-based quality assurance review, engaging in critical discussions, mentorship, and professional development—elements that AI cannot replicate
wasattributedto: Case 7 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:27:07.717348
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Engineer A Environmental Engineering Consultant
type: EnvironmentalEngineeringConsultant
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'license': 'Professional Engineering License', 'specialty': 'Environmental engineering, groundwater analysis, contaminant characterization', 'experience': 'Several years', 'self_assessed_weakness': 'Technical writing confidence', 'ai_tool_experience': 'None prior to this engagement'}
caseinvolvement: Retained by Client W to prepare a comprehensive environmental report on an organic contaminant and to develop engineering design documents for groundwater infrastructure modifications; used AI software to generate initial drafts without disclosing AI use; applied professional seal to submitted work
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 7
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T06:07:34.529100+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 7
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T06:07:34.529100+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'client', 'target': 'Client W'}
relationships: {'type': 'mentee', 'target': 'Engineer B'}
relationships: {'type': 'service_provider', 'target': 'Client W'}
rolecategory: provider_client
roleclass: Environmental Engineering Consultant
sourcetext: Engineer A, an environmental engineer with several years of experience and holding a professional engineering license, was retained by Client W
textreferences: Engineer A did not cite their use of AI-software or its large language models
textreferences: Engineer A opted to use open-sourced artificial intelligence (AI) software
textreferences: Engineer A, an environmental engineer with several years of experience and holding a professional engineering license, was retained by Client W
textreferences: applied their seal consistent with state law
wasattributedto: Case 7 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:27:07.714640
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Engineer A Groundwater Infrastructure Design Engineer
type: GroundwaterInfrastructureDesignEngineer
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'license': 'Professional Engineering License', 'specialty': 'Groundwater infrastructure design', 'design_method': 'AI-assisted drafting tools', 'review_quality': 'Cursory'}
caseinvolvement: Developed engineering design documents including plans and specifications for groundwater infrastructure modifications using AI-assisted drafting tools; conducted only cursory review resulting in misaligned dimensions and omission of required safety features
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 7
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T06:07:34.529100+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 7
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T06:07:34.529100+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'client', 'target': 'Client W'}
relationships: {'type': 'designer', 'target': 'Groundwater infrastructure'}
rolecategory: provider_client
roleclass: Groundwater Infrastructure Design Engineer
sourcetext: Engineer A was tasked to develop engineering design documents (plans and specifications) for modifications to groundwater infrastructure
textreferences: Client W noticed several issues with the AI-generated design documents, including misaligned dimensions and an omission of key safety features required by local regulations
textreferences: Engineer A completed a cursory review of the AI-generated plans and adjusted certain elements to align with site-specific conditions
textreferences: Engineer A entered the information gathered from Client W into the AI software and relied on the AI-assisted drafting tools to generate a preliminary design
textreferences: Engineer A was tasked to develop engineering design documents (plans and specifications) for modifications to groundwater infrastructure
wasattributedto: Case 7 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:27:07.714806
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Engineer A Insufficient Responsible Charge
type: InsufficientResponsibleChargeState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Engineer A's adoption of AI-assisted drafting with only high-level review through identification of errors by Client W
affectedparties: Client W
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Licensing Board
affectedparties: Public
concept category: State
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 7
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T06:09:02.921474+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 7
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T06:09:02.921474+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer A did not maintain responsible charge in violation of licensure law which violates Code section III.8.a.
stateclass: Insufficient Responsible Charge State
subject: Engineer A's failure to maintain responsible charge over AI-generated design documents by conducting only post-preparation high-level review without active engagement in design development
terminatedby: Not terminated in the facts presented; violation identified through Client W's review
textreferences: Engineer A appears to be operating in a compromised manner – namely, without the help of Engineer B – such that Engineer A relied on the AI-generated plans and specifications without proper oversight.
textreferences: Engineer A did not maintain responsible charge in violation of licensure law which violates Code section III.8.a.
textreferences: Engineer A, as the engineer in Responsible Charge of the project, is required to provide an experienced-based quality assurance review, engaging in critical discussions, mentorship, and professional development—elements that AI cannot replicate.
textreferences: Reviewing drawings or documents after preparation without involvement in the design and development process does not satisfy the definition of Responsible Charge.
triggeringevent: Engineer A sealing and submitting design documents generated by AI-assisted tools after only a high-level review, without active engagement in the design process from conception to completion and without the mentorship support of Engineer B
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 7 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:27:07.720038
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Engineer A Mentor Support Absent
type: MentorSupportAbsentState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Engineer B's retirement through the delivery of the report and design documents; ongoing
affectedparties: Client W
affectedparties: Engineer A
concept category: State
confidence: 0.85
discoveredincase: 7
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T06:07:52.916021+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 7
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T06:07:52.916021+00:00
importance: medium
sourcetext: Engineer B recently retired and was no longer available to Engineer A in a work capacity
stateclass: Mentor Support Absent State
subject: Engineer A's professional practice following Engineer B's retirement
textreferences: Engineer B recently retired and was no longer available to Engineer A in a work capacity
textreferences: Faced with the need to deliver both the report and the engineering design documents without the review by and mentorship from Engineer B, Engineer A opted to use open-sourced artificial intelligence (AI) software
triggeringevent: Engineer B retired and was no longer available to Engineer A in a work capacity
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 7 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:27:07.720223
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Engineer A Non-Compliant AI Design Documents
type: Non-CompliantAI-GeneratedDesignState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From submission of the AI-generated design documents through Client W's identification of errors and direction to revise
affectedparties: Client W
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Public
affectedparties: Regulatory Authorities
concept category: State
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 7
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T06:09:02.921474+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 7
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T06:09:02.921474+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: When Client W reviewed the design documents, they found misaligned dimensions and key safety features (including those necessary for compliance with local regulations) were omitted.
stateclass: Non-Compliant AI-Generated Design State
subject: AI-assisted design documents prepared by Engineer A containing misaligned dimensions and omitted safety features required by local regulations
terminatedby: Directed revision to meet professional and regulatory standards; not yet completed in the facts presented
textreferences: Failure to detect misaligned dimensions and omitted safety features further indicates that Engineer A did not exercise sufficient diligence.
textreferences: The errors in the AI-generated design documents could have led to regulatory noncompliance and safety hazards, conflicting with the Fundamental Canon I.1.
textreferences: When Client W reviewed the design documents, they found misaligned dimensions and key safety features (including those necessary for compliance with local regulations) were omitted.
triggeringevent: Client W's review identifying misaligned dimensions and omission of key safety features including those required for regulatory compliance
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 7 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:27:07.719838
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Engineer A Peer Review Continuity Planning Capability Deficient
type: PeerReviewContinuityPlanningCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Peer Review Continuity Planning Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A failed to establish alternative peer review or mentorship arrangements following Engineer B's retirement, continuing to practice without the quality assurance oversight that had previously supported professional work product quality.
casecontext: Following Engineer B's retirement, Engineer A continued to deliver professional work product without establishing replacement quality assurance mechanisms, contributing to the inadequate review of AI-generated deliverables
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: Operating without alternative peer review or supervisory arrangements after Engineer B's retirement, resulting in Engineer A relying on AI-generated plans and specifications without proper oversight
discoveredincase: 7
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T06:19:50.248347+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 7
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T06:19:50.248347+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: Engineer A appears to be operating in a compromised manner – namely, without the help of Engineer B – such that Engineer A relied on the AI-generated plans and specifications without proper oversight.
textreferences: Engineer A appears to be operating in a compromised manner – namely, without the help of Engineer B – such that Engineer A relied on the AI-generated plans and specifications without proper oversight.
textreferences: Engineer A, as the engineer in Responsible Charge of the project, is required to provide an experienced-based quality assurance review, engaging in critical discussions, mentorship, and professional development—elements that AI cannot replicate.
wasattributedto: Case 7 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:27:07.736124
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Engineer A Peer Review Continuity Planning Capability Instance
type: PeerReviewContinuityPlanningCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Peer Review Continuity Planning Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A demonstrated deficient peer review continuity planning capability, failing to establish alternative quality assurance arrangements following Engineer B's retirement and instead substituting AI tools without adequate oversight
casecontext: Arose following Engineer B's retirement, when Engineer A faced the need to deliver professional work product without the mentorship and quality assurance review that had previously been available
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.86
demonstratedthrough: Following Engineer B's retirement, Engineer A did not seek alternative peer review or supervisory arrangements but instead opted to use AI software as a substitute, without recognizing that this did not fulfill the quality assurance function previously provided by Engineer B
discoveredincase: 7
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T06:14:17.054833+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 7
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T06:14:17.054833+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: Previously, Engineer A had relied on guidance and quality assurance reviews by their mentor and supervisor, Engineer B, to refine report drafts.
textreferences: But Engineer B recently retired and was no longer available to Engineer A in a work capacity.
textreferences: Faced with the need to deliver both the report and the engineering design documents without the review by and mentorship from Engineer B, Engineer A opted to use open-sourced artificial intelligence (AI) software
textreferences: Previously, Engineer A had relied on guidance and quality assurance reviews by their mentor and supervisor, Engineer B, to refine report drafts.
wasattributedto: Case 7 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:27:07.725929
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Engineer A Public Safety Risk from Design Errors
type: PublicSafetyatRisk
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From submission of defective design documents through identification and directed revision by Client W
affectedparties: Client W
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Public
affectedparties: Regulatory Authorities
concept category: State
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 7
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T06:09:02.921474+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 7
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T06:09:02.921474+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: The errors in the AI-generated design documents could have led to regulatory noncompliance and safety hazards, conflicting with the Fundamental Canon I.1, 'hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public'.
stateclass: Public Safety at Risk
subject: Risk to public safety arising from omitted safety features and misaligned dimensions in AI-generated design documents submitted by Engineer A
terminatedby: Successful revision of design documents to include required safety features and correct dimensions
textreferences: Engineer A's oversight of engineering plans was inadequate, raising ethical concerns.
textreferences: The errors in the AI-generated design documents could have led to regulatory noncompliance and safety hazards, conflicting with the Fundamental Canon I.1, 'hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public'.
textreferences: When Client W reviewed the design documents, they found misaligned dimensions and key safety features (including those necessary for compliance with local regulations) were omitted.
triggeringevent: Omission of key safety features and misaligned dimensions in AI-generated design documents that could lead to regulatory noncompliance and safety hazards
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 7 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:27:07.720450
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Engineer A Regulatory Compliance Obligation
type: RegulatoryComplianceState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: Throughout the engagement; ongoing professional obligation
affectedparties: Client W
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Regulatory authorities
concept category: State
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 7
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T06:07:52.916021+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 7
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T06:07:52.916021+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: applied their seal consistent with state law
stateclass: Regulatory Compliance State
subject: Engineer A's obligation to comply with state law regarding professional sealing and applicable local regulations for engineering design
textreferences: applied their seal consistent with state law
textreferences: ensuring that all elements satisfied the necessary professional and regulatory standards
textreferences: omission of key safety features required by local regulations
triggeringevent: Engineer A applied their professional seal to work product and submitted design documents subject to local regulatory requirements
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 7 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:27:07.716699
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Engineer A Regulatory Compliance Verification Capability Deficient
type: RegulatoryComplianceVerificationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Regulatory Compliance Verification Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A failed to verify that AI-generated engineering design documents complied with applicable local regulations, resulting in omission of key safety features required for regulatory compliance.
casecontext: Engineer A's high-level review of AI-generated design documents failed to identify omitted safety features required by local regulations, raising concerns under Fundamental Canon I.1 regarding public safety
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstratedthrough: Submission of AI-generated design documents that omitted key safety features necessary for compliance with local regulations, identified by Client W upon review
discoveredincase: 7
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T06:19:50.248347+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 7
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T06:19:50.248347+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: When Client W reviewed the design documents, they found misaligned dimensions and key safety features (including those necessary for compliance with local regulations) were omitted.
textreferences: The errors in the AI-generated design documents could have led to regulatory noncompliance and safety hazards, conflicting with the Fundamental Canon I.1, 'hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public'.
textreferences: When Client W reviewed the design documents, they found misaligned dimensions and key safety features (including those necessary for compliance with local regulations) were omitted.
wasattributedto: Case 7 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:27:07.736298
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Engineer A Regulatory Compliance Verification Capability Instance
type: RegulatoryComplianceVerificationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Regulatory Compliance Verification Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A demonstrated deficient regulatory compliance verification capability with respect to the AI-generated engineering design documents, failing to verify that the plans incorporated all safety features required by local regulations
casecontext: Applied during review of AI-generated engineering design documents for groundwater infrastructure modifications prior to submission to Client W
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.87
demonstratedthrough: Engineer A's cursory review of AI-generated design documents failed to detect the omission of key safety features required by local regulations, which were identified by Client W and required revision of the plans
discoveredincase: 7
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T06:14:17.054833+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 7
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T06:14:17.054833+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: Client W, however, noticed several issues with the AI-generated design documents, including misaligned dimensions and an omission of key safety features required by local regulations.
textreferences: Client W raised concerns about the accuracy and reliability of the engineering design and instructed Engineer A to revise the plans, ensuring that all elements satisfied the necessary professional and regulatory standards.
textreferences: Client W, however, noticed several issues with the AI-generated design documents, including misaligned dimensions and an omission of key safety features required by local regulations.
wasattributedto: Case 7 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:27:07.726393
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Engineer A Responsible Charge Active Engagement Capability Deficient
type: ResponsibleChargeActiveEngagementCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Responsible Charge Active Engagement Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A possessed the underlying technical competence for responsible charge but failed to exercise the active engagement dimension of responsible charge over AI-generated design documents, conducting only a high-level review rather than substantive direction and control from conception to completion.
casecontext: Engineer A bore statutory responsible charge over AI-generated groundwater infrastructure design documents but did not maintain active engagement in the design process, violating Code section III.8.a and NSPE Position Statement No. 10-1778
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstratedthrough: Failure to detect misaligned dimensions and omitted safety features in AI-generated design documents; reliance on post-hoc high-level review rather than active engagement in design development process
discoveredincase: 7
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T06:19:50.248347+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 7
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T06:19:50.248347+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: Engineer A did not maintain responsible charge in violation of licensure law which violates Code section III.8.a.
textreferences: Engineer A did not maintain responsible charge in violation of licensure law which violates Code section III.8.a.
textreferences: Engineer A elected to only conduct a high-level review and adjusted certain elements to align with site-specific conditions.
textreferences: Reviewing drawings or documents after preparation without involvement in the design and development process does not satisfy the definition of Responsible Charge.
wasattributedto: Case 7 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:27:07.734399
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Engineer A Responsible Charge Active Review Capability Instance
type: ProfessionalCompetence
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Professional Competence
capabilitystatement: Engineer A demonstrated inconsistent responsible charge review competence: adequate for the environmental report but deficient for the engineering design documents, where only a cursory review was conducted despite bearing statutory responsible charge
casecontext: Applied during review of both the environmental report and the engineering design documents prior to submission to Client W under Engineer A's professional seal
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.82
demonstratedthrough: Engineer A conducted a thorough review of the AI-generated report but only a cursory review of the AI-generated design documents, resulting in undetected errors in the design documents that were identified by Client W
discoveredincase: 7
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T06:14:17.054833+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 7
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T06:14:17.054833+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: Engineer A conducted a thorough review of the report, cross-checking key facts against professional journal articles
textreferences: Engineer A completed a cursory review of the AI-generated plans and adjusted certain elements to align with site-specific conditions.
textreferences: Engineer A conducted a thorough review of the report, cross-checking key facts against professional journal articles
textreferences: applied their seal consistent with state law
wasattributedto: Case 7 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:27:07.727133
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Engineer A Self-Assessed Technical Writing Limitation
type: OutsideAreaofCompetence
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: Persistent throughout the engagement; predates the current project
affectedparties: Client W
affectedparties: Engineer A
concept category: State
confidence: 0.75
discoveredincase: 7
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T06:07:52.916021+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 7
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T06:07:52.916021+00:00
importance: medium
sourcetext: Engineer A is known for their strong technical expertise but is, personally, less confident in their technical writing
stateclass: Outside Area of Competence
subject: Engineer A's personal confidence and capability in technical writing
textreferences: Engineer A is known for their strong technical expertise but is, personally, less confident in their technical writing
textreferences: Previously, Engineer A had relied on guidance and quality assurance reviews by their mentor and supervisor, Engineer B, to refine report drafts
triggeringevent: Engineer A's personal recognition of lower confidence in technical writing, previously addressed through Engineer B's mentorship
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 7 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:27:07.715836
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Engineer A Technical Writing and Report Authorship Capability Instance
type: TechnicalWritingandReportAuthorshipCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Technical Writing and Report Authorship Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A demonstrated limited independent technical writing and report authorship capability, self-identifying as less confident in technical writing and relying on AI software to generate initial report drafts rather than producing independent written work product
casecontext: Arose in the context of preparing the environmental report on the organic contaminant without the mentorship support of Engineer B, leading to AI-assisted drafting as a substitute for independent technical writing
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.84
demonstratedthrough: Engineer A's self-identified weakness in technical writing led to reliance on AI software for report drafting; the resulting report exhibited inconsistent authorial voice noted by Client W, suggesting the AI-generated sections were distinguishable from Engineer A's own writing
discoveredincase: 7
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T06:14:17.054833+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 7
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T06:14:17.054833+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: Engineer A is known for their strong technical expertise but is, personally, less confident in their technical writing.
textreferences: Engineer A is known for their strong technical expertise but is, personally, less confident in their technical writing.
textreferences: The Client commented that the report read as if written by two different authors but was otherwise satisfactory.
wasattributedto: Case 7 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:27:07.726654
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Engineer A Technology As Tool Boundary Judgment Capability Deficient
type: Technology-as-ToolBoundaryJudgmentCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Technology-as-Tool Boundary Judgment Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A failed to maintain the boundary between using AI as a supplementary tool and allowing AI to substitute for independent professional engineering judgment, particularly in the design document context where AI output was accepted without comprehensive critical evaluation.
casecontext: Engineer A used AI-assisted drafting tools for groundwater infrastructure design but did not maintain sufficient critical engagement with AI output to prevent the tool from functioning as a substitute for professional judgment, contrary to BER precedent in Cases 90-6 and 98-3
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.86
demonstratedthrough: Reliance on AI-generated design documents with only high-level review, allowing AI output to substitute for independent engineering judgment in design development, resulting in undetected errors that compromised public safety
discoveredincase: 7
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T06:19:50.248347+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 7
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T06:19:50.248347+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: Technology has an important place in the practice of engineering, but it must never be a replacement of a substitute for engineering judgment.
textreferences: By relying on AI-assisted tools without a comprehensive verification process of its output, Engineer A risked violating this requirement.
textreferences: Engineer A appears to be operating in a compromised manner – namely, without the help of Engineer B – such that Engineer A relied on the AI-generated plans and specifications without proper oversight.
textreferences: Technology has an important place in the practice of engineering, but it must never be a replacement of a substitute for engineering judgment.
wasattributedto: Case 7 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:27:07.735122
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Engineer A Undisclosed AI Attribution Gap
type: UndisclosedAIContributionState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From submission of the report without citations through the period of Client W's review and questioning
affectedparties: Client W
affectedparties: Engineer A
concept category: State
confidence: 0.87
discoveredincase: 7
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T06:09:02.921474+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 7
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T06:09:02.921474+00:00
importance: medium
sourcetext: The facts also do not indicate the AI-generated report included citations of pertinent documents of technical authority.
stateclass: Undisclosed AI Contribution State
subject: Engineer A's failure to include citations of technical authority and attribution for AI-generated content in the report
terminatedby: Not terminated in the facts presented
textreferences: Absent this professional level of care, diligence, and documentation, Engineer A's use of the AI language processing software would be less than ethical.
textreferences: Per Code section III.9, engineers are required to 'give credit for engineering work to those to whom credit is due,' so Engineer A's ethical use of the AI software would need to include appropriate citations.
textreferences: The facts also do not indicate the AI-generated report included citations of pertinent documents of technical authority.
triggeringevent: Submission of AI-generated report lacking citations of pertinent documents of technical authority and attribution for AI's substantial contribution
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 7 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:27:07.719196
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Engineer A Undisclosed AI Design Document Use
type: UndisclosedAIToolUseState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From submission of AI-generated design documents through identification of deficiencies by Client W; disclosure of AI use has not been made
affectedparties: Client W
affectedparties: Engineer A
concept category: State
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 7
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T06:07:52.916021+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 7
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T06:07:52.916021+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Again, Engineer A did not cite the AI-assisted drafting tools they used to generate the engineering design documents
stateclass: Undisclosed AI Tool Use State
subject: Engineer A's submission of AI-generated engineering design documents to Client W
textreferences: Again, Engineer A did not cite the AI-assisted drafting tools they used to generate the engineering design documents
textreferences: Client W noticed several issues with the AI-generated design documents
triggeringevent: Engineer A submitted AI-assisted design documents to Client W without citing AI-assisted drafting tools
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 7 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:27:07.715514
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Engineer A Undisclosed AI Report Contribution
type: UndisclosedAIToolUseState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From submission of the AI-assisted report through the period when Client W questioned inconsistencies, with no disclosure made
affectedparties: Client W
affectedparties: Engineer A
concept category: State
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 7
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T06:09:02.921474+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 7
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T06:09:02.921474+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: While Engineer A reviewed the content, the lack of disclosure raises concerns about transparency.
stateclass: Undisclosed AI Tool Use State
subject: Engineer A's use of AI language processing software to draft the groundwater monitoring report without disclosure to Client W
terminatedby: Not terminated in the facts presented; no disclosure was made
textreferences: AI, while not a human contributor, fundamentally shaped the report and design documents, warranting disclosure under Code section III.9.
textreferences: Given that Client W identified issues in the engineering design and questioned inconsistencies in the report, proactive disclosure could have prevented misunderstandings and strengthened trust.
textreferences: While Engineer A reviewed the content, the lack of disclosure raises concerns about transparency.
triggeringevent: Engineer A using AI language processing software to draft the report and submitting it without disclosing AI's role or including citations
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 7 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:27:07.719027
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Engineer A Undisclosed AI Report Use
type: UndisclosedAIToolUseState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From submission of draft report to Client W through the period of the case analysis; no disclosure has been made
affectedparties: Client W
affectedparties: Engineer A
concept category: State
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 7
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T06:07:52.916021+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 7
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T06:07:52.916021+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer A did not cite their use of AI-software or its large language models, and submitted the draft report to Client W for review
stateclass: Undisclosed AI Tool Use State
subject: Engineer A's submission of AI-generated draft report to Client W
textreferences: Client commented that the report read as if written by two different authors
textreferences: Engineer A did not cite their use of AI-software or its large language models, and submitted the draft report to Client W for review
triggeringevent: Engineer A submitted the AI-generated draft report to Client W without citing AI software or large language model use
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 7 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:27:07.715313
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Engineer A Unfamiliar AI Tool Deployment
type: UnfamiliarToolDeploymentState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Engineer A's initial use of the AI software through submission of both the report and design documents
affectedparties: Client W
affectedparties: Engineer A
concept category: State
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 7
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T06:07:52.916021+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 7
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T06:07:52.916021+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: The AI drafting software was new to the market and Engineer A had no previous experience with the tool
stateclass: Unfamiliar Tool Deployment State
subject: Engineer A's use of newly released open-source AI software with no prior experience
textreferences: Not being familiar with the full functionality of the AI software, including the accuracy and originality of AI-generated text
textreferences: The AI drafting software was new to the market and Engineer A had no previous experience with the tool
triggeringevent: Engineer A selected and deployed AI drafting software that was new to the market and with which Engineer A had no previous experience
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 7 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:27:07.715670
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Engineer A's cursory review and adjustment of design documents before Client W's review of design documents
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:27:07.738091
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Engineer A's prior reliance on Engineer B for QA before Engineer A's use of AI software for drafting
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:27:07.737924
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Engineer A's review and minor edits to report before submission of draft report to Client W
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:27:07.738030
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Engineer A's use of open-source AI (uploading Client W's data) during Engineer A's engagement with Client W
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:27:07.738273
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Engineer B Mentor Engineer
type: MentorEngineer
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'status': 'Retired', 'availability': 'No longer available in work capacity', 'function': 'Mentor, supervisor, quality assurance reviewer'}
caseinvolvement: Served as mentor and supervisor to Engineer A, providing guidance and quality assurance reviews of report drafts; recently retired and no longer available, creating a professional support gap that contributed to Engineer A's reliance on AI tools
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 7
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T06:07:34.529100+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 7
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T06:07:34.529100+00:00
importance: medium
relationships: {'type': 'mentor', 'target': 'Engineer A'}
relationships: {'type': 'supervisor', 'target': 'Engineer A'}
rolecategory: professional_peer
roleclass: Mentor Engineer
sourcetext: Engineer A had relied on guidance and quality assurance reviews by their mentor and supervisor, Engineer B, to refine report drafts
textreferences: Engineer A had relied on guidance and quality assurance reviews by their mentor and supervisor, Engineer B, to refine report drafts
textreferences: Engineer B recently retired and was no longer available to Engineer A in a work capacity
textreferences: without the review by and mentorship from Engineer B
wasattributedto: Case 7 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:27:07.714960
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Engineer B Peer Review Continuity Planning Capability Instance
type: PeerReviewContinuityPlanningCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Peer Review Continuity Planning Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer B, as mentor and supervisor, possessed advanced peer review continuity planning capability but did not exercise it to establish succession arrangements before retirement, leaving Engineer A without adequate quality assurance support
casecontext: Engineer B served as mentor and supervisor providing quality assurance reviews; retirement without succession planning left Engineer A without adequate professional oversight
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.8
demonstratedthrough: Engineer B's retirement without establishing alternative oversight or mentorship arrangements for Engineer A contributed to the quality assurance gap that led to Engineer A's reliance on AI tools without adequate review
discoveredincase: 7
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T06:14:17.054833+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 7
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T06:14:17.054833+00:00
importance: medium
possessedby: Engineer B
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Previously, Engineer A had relied on guidance and quality assurance reviews by their mentor and supervisor, Engineer B, to refine report drafts.
textreferences: But Engineer B recently retired and was no longer available to Engineer A in a work capacity.
textreferences: Previously, Engineer A had relied on guidance and quality assurance reviews by their mentor and supervisor, Engineer B, to refine report drafts.
wasattributedto: Case 7 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:27:07.726159
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Engineer B Professional Peer
type: ProfessionalPeerRole
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'role_type': 'Senior oversight engineer', 'status': 'Absent from project during AI tool use'}
caseinvolvement: Senior engineer whose absence from the project left Engineer A without proper oversight and mentorship support, contributing to Engineer A operating in a compromised manner and relying excessively on AI-generated outputs without adequate verification.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.83
discoveredincase: 7
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T06:08:43.823389+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 7
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T06:08:43.823389+00:00
importance: medium
relationships: {'type': 'peer_mentor', 'target': 'Engineer A AI-Assisted Engineering Practitioner'}
rolecategory: professional_peer
roleclass: Professional Peer Role
sourcetext: Engineer A appears to be operating in a compromised manner – namely, without the help of Engineer B – such that Engineer A relied on the AI-generated plans and specifications without proper oversight
textreferences: Engineer A appears to be operating in a compromised manner – namely, without the help of Engineer B – such that Engineer A relied on the AI-generated plans and specifications without proper oversight
textreferences: Engineer A, as the engineer in Responsible Charge of the project, is required to provide an experienced-based quality assurance review, engaging in critical discussions, mentorship, and professional development—elements that AI cannot replicate
wasattributedto: Case 7 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:27:07.718576
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Engineer B Responsible Charge Active Engagement Capability Expert
type: ResponsibleChargeActiveEngagementCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Responsible Charge Active Engagement Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer B possessed expert-level responsible charge active engagement capability, demonstrated through provision of experienced-based quality assurance review, critical discussions, and mentorship to Engineer A — capabilities that AI tools cannot replicate and whose absence contributed to Engineer A's ethical failures.
casecontext: Engineer B's retirement removed the experienced-based quality assurance review that had supported Engineer A's professional practice, highlighting the irreplaceable nature of human responsible charge engagement
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.83
demonstratedthrough: Provision of mentorship, supervisory review, and quality assurance oversight to Engineer A prior to retirement; absence of this capability following retirement contributed to Engineer A operating in a compromised manner
discoveredincase: 7
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T06:19:50.248347+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 7
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T06:19:50.248347+00:00
importance: medium
possessedby: Engineer B
proficiencylevel: expert
sourcetext: Engineer A, as the engineer in Responsible Charge of the project, is required to provide an experienced-based quality assurance review, engaging in critical discussions, mentorship, and professional development—elements that AI cannot replicate.
textreferences: Engineer A appears to be operating in a compromised manner – namely, without the help of Engineer B – such that Engineer A relied on the AI-generated plans and specifications without proper oversight.
textreferences: Engineer A, as the engineer in Responsible Charge of the project, is required to provide an experienced-based quality assurance review, engaging in critical discussions, mentorship, and professional development—elements that AI cannot replicate.
wasattributedto: Case 7 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:27:07.737037
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Engineer B Retirement Occurs
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Event
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:27:07.737420
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Engineer B Retirement Occurs → Design Document Defects Discovered
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:27:07.737801
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Engineer B's retirement before Engineer A's engagement with Client W (AI use)
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:27:07.737865
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Engineering Judgment Non-Substitution Obligation Violated By Engineer A In AI Design Reliance
type: EngineeringJudgmentNon-SubstitutionObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A relied on AI-generated plans and specifications without proper oversight or comprehensive independent verification, effectively substituting AI output for engineering judgment, in violation of NSPE I.2 and II.2.b.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 7
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T06:17:54.068481+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 7
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T06:17:54.068481+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Engineering Judgment Non-Substitution Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to ensure that the AI-assisted drafting tool was used as a supplement to — and not a substitute for — independent professional engineering judgment, including outlining solution guidelines and constraints, critically challenging AI outputs, and independently satisfying themselves that the proposed design met professional and regulatory standards before acceptance.
sourcetext: the BER stated that technology must not replace or be used as a substitute for engineering judgement.
temporalscope: Throughout the preparation and review of AI-generated design documents
textreferences: Engineer A appears to be operating in a compromised manner – namely, without the help of Engineer B – such that Engineer A relied on the AI-generated plans and specifications without proper oversight.
textreferences: Much like directing an engineering intern to solve a problem, responsible use of AI requires an engineer to outline solution guidelines and constraints. Recommendations from the program or intern should not be blindly accepted, they should be considered and challenged and the resulting outputs should be understood.
textreferences: These are steps that, in this case, Engineer A chose not to follow.
textreferences: the BER stated that technology must not replace or be used as a substitute for engineering judgement.
wasattributedto: Case 7 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:27:07.731218
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Fact-Grounded Technical Opinion Obligation Partially Met By Engineer A In Environmental Report
type: Fact-GroundedTechnicalOpinionObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A cross-checked key facts in the AI-generated report against professional journal articles and verified phrasing, but relied substantially on AI synthesis of information rather than Engineer A's own independent professional analysis, and lacked full understanding of the AI tool's accuracy.
compliancestatus: partial
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.82
discoveredincase: 7
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T06:12:52.067436+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 7
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T06:12:52.067436+00:00
importance: medium
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Fact-Grounded Technical Opinion Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to ensure that the environmental report submitted to Client W was founded upon established facts and completed professional analysis, and that all content was grounded in Engineer A's own professional judgment rather than unverified AI-generated synthesis.
sourcetext: Engineer A gathered the relevant information provided by Client W and relied on the AI software to synthesize the information and generate an initial draft of the necessary report.
temporalscope: During preparation and review of the environmental report for Client W
textreferences: Engineer A gathered the relevant information provided by Client W and relied on the AI software to synthesize the information and generate an initial draft of the necessary report.
textreferences: Not being familiar with the full functionality of the AI software, including the accuracy and originality of AI-generated text, Engineer A conducted a thorough review of the report, cross-checking key facts against professional journal articles and verifying the phrasing by running search engine queries to ensure the content did not match any existing language.
wasattributedto: Case 7 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:27:07.724284
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

I.1.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:49:08.779529
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

I.2.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:49:08.779587
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

I.5.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:49:08.779620
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

II.1.c.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:49:08.779652
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

II.2.a.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:49:08.779683
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

II.2.b.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:49:08.779736
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

III.3.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:49:08.780105
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

III.8.a.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:49:08.780141
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

III.9.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:49:08.780172
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Input Confidential Data into Public AI
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:27:07.737162
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Input Confidential Data into Public AI → Confidential Data Exposed to AI
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:27:07.737677
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Intellectual Authorship Integrity Obligation Breached By Engineer A In Report Submission
type: IntellectualAuthorshipIntegrityObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A submitted an AI-generated report draft with only minor wording adjustments under a professional seal without disclosing AI authorship, leading Client W to observe that the report appeared to be written by two different authors.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.89
discoveredincase: 7
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T06:12:52.067436+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 7
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T06:12:52.067436+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Intellectual Authorship Integrity Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to accurately represent the authorship and intellectual provenance of the environmental report by disclosing that the substantive content was AI-generated, rather than presenting it as Engineer A's own original professional analysis.
sourcetext: Engineer A also made minor adjustments to some of the wording to personalize the content.
temporalscope: At the time of submission of the draft report to Client W
textreferences: Client W noted that the section analyzing the groundwater monitoring data would benefit from minor edits for grammar and clarity, but found the introduction discussing the contaminant's manufacture, use, and characteristics to be exceptionally polished. The Client commented that the report read as if written by two different authors
textreferences: Engineer A also made minor adjustments to some of the wording to personalize the content.
textreferences: Engineer A did not cite their use of AI-software or its large language models, and submitted the draft report to Client W for review
wasattributedto: Case 7 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:27:07.723568
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Intellectual Authorship Integrity Obligation Violated By Engineer A In Report Submission
type: IntellectualAuthorshipIntegrityObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A submitted an AI-generated report draft with only minor wording adjustments as if it were Engineer A's own professional work product, without disclosing AI's material contribution to the authorship of the report.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.87
discoveredincase: 7
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T06:17:54.068481+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 7
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T06:17:54.068481+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Intellectual Authorship Integrity Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to accurately represent the authorship and intellectual provenance of the environmental report and to refrain from presenting AI-generated content as Engineer A's own original professional analysis without appropriate attribution, particularly when submitting the report under a professional seal.
sourcetext: AI, while not a human contributor, fundamentally shaped the report and design documents, warranting disclosure under Code section III.9, '[e]ngineers shall give credit for engineering work to those to whom credit is due, and will recognize the proprietary interests of others.'
temporalscope: At the time of preparing and submitting the AI-drafted environmental report to Client W
textreferences: AI, while not a human contributor, fundamentally shaped the report and design documents, warranting disclosure under Code section III.9, '[e]ngineers shall give credit for engineering work to those to whom credit is due, and will recognize the proprietary interests of others.'
textreferences: BER Case 98-3 emphasized that engineers must acknowledge significant contributions by others.
textreferences: the lack of disclosure raises concerns about transparency.
wasattributedto: Case 7 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:27:07.732327
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Intellectual Honesty In Authorship Invoked By Engineer A Report
type: IntellectualHonesty
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Comprehensive environmental report on organic contaminant
balancingwith: AI Tool Transparency and Disclosure
balancingwith: Professional Dignity
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A submitted an AI-generated report draft with only minor wording adjustments as if it were Engineer A's own professional work product, without disclosing the AI's substantial authorial contribution, implicitly misrepresenting the intellectual origins of the document
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 7
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T06:11:15.672802+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 7
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T06:11:15.672802+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Intellectual honesty required Engineer A to accurately represent the authorship of the report; making minor adjustments to AI-generated text and submitting it under the engineer's seal without disclosure constitutes an implicit misrepresentation of authorship
invokedby: Engineer A Environmental Engineering Consultant
principleclass: Intellectual Honesty
sourcetext: Engineer A also made minor adjustments to some of the wording to personalize the content.
tensionresolution: The intellectual honesty obligation was not satisfied by minor personalization of AI content; the principle required disclosure of the AI's authorial role
textreferences: Engineer A also made minor adjustments to some of the wording to personalize the content.
textreferences: Engineer A did not cite their use of AI-software or its large language models, and submitted the draft report to Client W for review
textreferences: The Client commented that the report read as if written by two different authors but was otherwise satisfactory.
wasattributedto: Case 7 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:27:07.721720
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Intellectual Integrity in Authorship Applied to AI Report Drafting
type: IntellectualIntegrityinAuthorship
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: AI-generated environmental groundwater monitoring report delivered to Client W
balancingwith: AI Tool Transparency and Disclosure
balancingwith: Attribution and Citation Integrity in AI-Assisted Work
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A used AI language processing software to draft the environmental report without disclosing AI's material contribution, creating an implicit representation that the report was Engineer A's independent professional work product
confidence: 0.85
discoveredincase: 7
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T06:16:08.451188+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 7
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T06:16:08.451188+00:00
importance: medium
interpretation: Where AI fundamentally shaped the content and structure of a professional report, failing to disclose that contribution creates a misleading impression about the intellectual origins of the work, even if the factual content is accurate
invokedby: Engineer A AI-Assisted Engineering Practitioner
principleclass: Intellectual Integrity in Authorship
sourcetext: AI, while not a human contributor, fundamentally shaped the report and design documents, warranting disclosure under Code section III.9.
tensionresolution: The BER found that use of AI to assist with writing does not inherently constitute deception where the engineer conducted thorough review, but disclosure remains a best practice obligation when AI materially shapes the work product
textreferences: AI, while not a human contributor, fundamentally shaped the report and design documents, warranting disclosure under Code section III.9.
textreferences: Further, the use of AI to assist with writing does not inherently constitute deception. Engineer A did not misrepresent their qualifications or technical expertise, nor did the AI-generated text contain inaccuracies.
textreferences: The use of AI in engineering practice raises ethical considerations, particularly concerning competency, direction and control, respect for client privacy, and accurate and appropriate attribution.
wasattributedto: Case 7 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:27:07.730299
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Local Regulatory Safety Requirements for Groundwater Infrastructure
type: RegulatoryComplianceRequirement
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.87
createdby: Local regulatory authority
discoveredincase: 7
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: Local Regulations Specifying Safety Features for Groundwater Infrastructure Design
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T06:07:19.549822+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 7
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T06:07:19.549822+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Regulatory Compliance Requirement
sourcetext: omission of key safety features required by local regulations
textreferences: ensuring that all elements satisfied the necessary professional and regulatory standards
textreferences: omission of key safety features required by local regulations
usedby: Client W during review of engineering design documents; Engineer A obligated to comply
usedincontext: Defines mandatory safety features that the AI-generated engineering design documents failed to include, triggering Client W's concerns and revision instructions
version: Current applicable local regulations
wasattributedto: Case 7 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:27:07.713854
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Mentorship Continuity Obligation Invoked By Engineer A Following Engineer B Retirement
type: MentorshipContinuityandSuccessionPlanning
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Quality assurance process for environmental report and design documents
balancingwith: Client Loyalty
balancingwith: Professional Competence
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: When Engineer B retired and became unavailable, Engineer A did not seek an alternative mentor, peer reviewer, or supervisory arrangement, but instead adopted AI tools as a substitute for the quality assurance that mentorship had previously provided
confidence: 0.85
discoveredincase: 7
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T06:11:15.672802+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 7
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T06:11:15.672802+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The mentorship continuity principle required Engineer A to reconstitute equivalent oversight before proceeding with complex professional work; substituting an unfamiliar AI tool for an experienced human mentor did not satisfy this obligation
invokedby: Engineer A Environmental Engineering Consultant
principleclass: Mentorship Continuity and Succession Planning
sourcetext: But Engineer B recently retired and was no longer available to Engineer A in a work capacity.
tensionresolution: The obligation to maintain adequate oversight was not satisfied by AI tool adoption; the principle required Engineer A to seek human peer review or consultation as a substitute for Engineer B's mentorship
textreferences: But Engineer B recently retired and was no longer available to Engineer A in a work capacity.
textreferences: Faced with the need to deliver both the report and the engineering design documents without the review by and mentorship from Engineer B, Engineer A opted to use open-sourced artificial intelligence (AI) software
textreferences: Previously, Engineer A had relied on guidance and quality assurance reviews by their mentor and supervisor, Engineer B, to refine report drafts.
wasattributedto: Case 7 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:27:07.722021
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Mentorship Continuity and Succession Planning Implicated in AI Over-Reliance
type: MentorshipContinuityandSuccessionPlanning
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: AI-assisted design documents
appliedto: AI-generated environmental report
appliedto: Quality assurance process following Engineer B's retirement
balancingwith: Diligent Verification of AI-Generated Technical Outputs
balancingwith: Responsible Charge Engagement
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A proceeded with complex AI-assisted engineering work without securing equivalent oversight to replace Engineer B's mentorship and quality assurance review after Engineer B's retirement, operating in a 'compromised manner' that contributed to inadequate verification of AI-generated outputs
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 7
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T06:16:08.451188+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 7
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T06:16:08.451188+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The absence of mentorship support does not reduce the professional standard of care; Engineer A was required to identify and secure alternative oversight mechanisms before proceeding with work that previously depended on Engineer B's review
invokedby: Engineer A Engineer in Responsible Charge
principleclass: Mentorship Continuity and Succession Planning
sourcetext: Engineer A appears to be operating in a compromised manner – namely, without the help of Engineer B – such that Engineer A relied on the AI-generated plans and specifications without proper oversight.
tensionresolution: The principle was not satisfied; Engineer A proceeded without adequate substitute oversight, compounding the risks of AI tool reliance with the absence of experienced peer review
textreferences: Engineer A, as the engineer in Responsible Charge of the project, is required to provide an experienced-based quality assurance review, engaging in critical discussions, mentorship, and professional development—elements that AI cannot replicate.
textreferences: the facts also note Engineer A appears to be operating in a compromised manner – namely, without the help of Engineer B – such that Engineer A relied on the AI-generated plans and specifications without proper oversight.
wasattributedto: Case 7 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:27:07.730457
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Mentorship Succession and Peer Review Continuity Obligation Breached By Engineer A Following Engineer B Retirement
type: MentorshipSuccessionandPeerReviewContinuityObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: When Engineer B retired and became unavailable, Engineer A did not seek an alternative mentor or peer reviewer but instead opted to use open-source AI software with which Engineer A had no prior experience, resulting in deficient design documents.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.86
discoveredincase: 7
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T06:12:52.067436+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 7
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T06:12:52.067436+00:00
importance: medium
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Mentorship Succession and Peer Review Continuity Obligation
obligationstatement: Following Engineer B's retirement, Engineer A was obligated to establish alternative peer review, supervisory, or mentorship arrangements to maintain adequate quality assurance for professional deliverables, rather than substituting an unfamiliar AI tool without established competence.
sourcetext: Previously, Engineer A had relied on guidance and quality assurance reviews by their mentor and supervisor, Engineer B, to refine report drafts. But Engineer B recently retired and was no longer available to Engineer A in a work capacity.
temporalscope: Upon Engineer B's retirement and prior to undertaking the Client W engagement deliverables
textreferences: Faced with the need to deliver both the report and the engineering design documents without the review by and mentorship from Engineer B, Engineer A opted to use open-sourced artificial intelligence (AI) software to create an initial draft of the necessary report and to use AI-assisted drafting tools to generate preliminary design documents.
textreferences: Previously, Engineer A had relied on guidance and quality assurance reviews by their mentor and supervisor, Engineer B, to refine report drafts. But Engineer B recently retired and was no longer available to Engineer A in a work capacity.
wasattributedto: Case 7 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:27:07.723709
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Mentorship Succession and Peer Review Continuity Obligation Violated By Engineer A Following Engineer B Retirement
type: MentorshipSuccessionandPeerReviewContinuityObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer B retired and was no longer available to provide mentorship and quality assurance review. Engineer A did not seek an alternative mentor or peer reviewer but instead proceeded with AI-assisted work without equivalent oversight, contributing to inadequate review of design documents.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.89
discoveredincase: 7
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T06:17:54.068481+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 7
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T06:17:54.068481+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Mentorship Succession and Peer Review Continuity Obligation
obligationstatement: When Engineer B retired and became unavailable as mentor and quality assurance reviewer, Engineer A was obligated to establish alternative peer review, supervisory, or mentorship arrangements before proceeding with complex AI-assisted engineering work, rather than substituting unvalidated AI tools without adequate oversight.
sourcetext: Engineer A appears to be operating in a compromised manner – namely, without the help of Engineer B – such that Engineer A relied on the AI-generated plans and specifications without proper oversight.
temporalscope: Upon Engineer B's retirement and before proceeding with AI-assisted engineering work for Client W
textreferences: Engineer A appears to be operating in a compromised manner – namely, without the help of Engineer B – such that Engineer A relied on the AI-generated plans and specifications without proper oversight.
textreferences: Engineer A, as the engineer in Responsible Charge of the project, is required to provide an experienced-based quality assurance review, engaging in critical discussions, mentorship, and professional development—elements that AI cannot replicate.
wasattributedto: Case 7 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:27:07.732176
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

NSPE-Code-of-Ethics
type: ProfessionalCode
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.99
createdby: National Society of Professional Engineers
discoveredincase: 7
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T06:08:18.965003+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 7
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T06:08:18.965003+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Professional Code
sourcetext: Fundamental Canon I.2 states that engineers 'perform services only in areas of their competence'
textreferences: Code section II.2.a states that engineers must 'undertake assignments only when qualified by education or experience in the specific technical fields involved'
textreferences: Code section II.2.b, '[e]ngineers shall not affix their signatures to any plans or documents . . . not prepared under their direction and control'
textreferences: Code section III.8.a
textreferences: Fundamental Canon I.1, 'hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public'
textreferences: Fundamental Canon I.2 states that engineers 'perform services only in areas of their competence'
textreferences: Fundamental Canon I.5 requires an Engineer to 'avoid deceptive acts'
textreferences: Per Code section II.1.c, confidential information can only be shared with prior consent of the Client
textreferences: Per Code section III.9, engineers are required to 'give credit for engineering work to those to whom credit is due'
usedby: BER in analyzing Engineer A's ethical obligations
usedincontext: Primary normative authority throughout the case, cited for Fundamental Canons and specific Code sections governing competency, direction and control, deception, confidentiality, credit attribution, and responsible charge
version: Current
wasattributedto: Case 7 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:27:07.714022
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

NSPE Code of Ethics
type: ProfessionalCode
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.95
createdby: National Society of Professional Engineers
discoveredincase: 7
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T06:07:19.549822+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 7
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T06:07:19.549822+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Professional Code
sourcetext: Engineer A, an environmental engineer with several years of experience and holding a professional engineering license
textreferences: Engineer A, an environmental engineer with several years of experience and holding a professional engineering license
textreferences: applied their seal consistent with state law
textreferences: ensuring that all elements satisfied the necessary professional and regulatory standards
usedby: Engineer A (implicitly as license holder and professional engineer)
usedincontext: Primary normative authority governing Engineer A's obligations regarding competence, public safety, honesty, and professional seal use when employing AI-assisted tools to produce engineering deliverables
version: Current
wasattributedto: Case 7 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:27:07.713539
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Non-Deception Constraint Engineer A Report Authorship Representation
type: Non-DeceptionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Client W observed that the report 'read as if written by two different authors,' indicating that the AI-generated introduction was stylistically distinct; Engineer A's failure to disclose AI authorship created a deceptive impression of uniform professional authorship.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.9
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Non-Deception (Constraint)
constraintstatement: Engineer A was constrained by the non-deception principle from submitting an AI-generated report in a manner that created a false impression of independent professional authorship, particularly given that the stylistic discontinuity between AI-generated and human-authored sections was perceptible to Client W.
discoveredincase: 7
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T06:14:18.405742+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 7
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T06:14:18.405742+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics — Honesty provisions; Non-Deception ethical constraint
sourcetext: Engineer A did not cite their use of AI-software or its large language models, and submitted the draft report to Client W for review
temporalscope: At the time of report submission to Client W
textreferences: Engineer A did not cite their use of AI-software or its large language models, and submitted the draft report to Client W for review
textreferences: The Client commented that the report read as if written by two different authors but was otherwise satisfactory.
wasattributedto: Case 7 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:27:07.728624
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Open-Source AI Drafting Software
type: DecisionTool
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.78
createdby: Open-source AI software developers
discoveredincase: 7
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: Open-Source Artificial Intelligence Software for Report and Design Document Generation
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T06:07:19.549822+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 7
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T06:07:19.549822+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Decision Tool
sourcetext: Engineer A opted to use open-sourced artificial intelligence (AI) software to create an initial draft of the necessary report and to use AI-assisted drafting tools to generate preliminary design documents
textreferences: Engineer A opted to use open-sourced artificial intelligence (AI) software to create an initial draft of the necessary report and to use AI-assisted drafting tools to generate preliminary design documents
textreferences: The AI drafting software was also open-sourced
textreferences: The AI drafting software was new to the market and Engineer A had no previous experience with the tool
usedby: Engineer A for both report drafting and engineering design document generation
usedincontext: Used by Engineer A to generate initial draft of the contaminant report and preliminary engineering design documents, raising ethical questions about competence, disclosure, and professional responsibility
version: New to market at time of use
wasattributedto: Case 7 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:27:07.714342
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Peer Review Absence Compensation Constraint Engineer A Post-Engineer B Retirement
type: PeerReviewAbsenceCompensationConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A had relied on Engineer B for quality assurance reviews of report drafts; following Engineer B's retirement, Engineer A opted to use AI tools as a substitute rather than establishing alternative peer review arrangements, contributing to the quality deficiencies in both deliverables.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.86
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Peer Review Absence Compensation Constraint
constraintstatement: Following Engineer B's retirement, Engineer A was constrained from continuing professional practice at the same scope and complexity without establishing alternative peer review or quality assurance arrangements to compensate for the loss of Engineer B's mentorship and supervisory review.
discoveredincase: 7
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T06:14:18.405742+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 7
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T06:14:18.405742+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics — Competence provisions; professional responsibility for work product quality
sourcetext: Previously, Engineer A had relied on guidance and quality assurance reviews by their mentor and supervisor, Engineer B, to refine report drafts.
temporalscope: From the time of Engineer B's retirement through the preparation and submission of the report and design documents
textreferences: But Engineer B recently retired and was no longer available to Engineer A in a work capacity.
textreferences: Faced with the need to deliver both the report and the engineering design documents without the review by and mentorship from Engineer B, Engineer A opted to use open-sourced artificial intelligence (AI) software
textreferences: Previously, Engineer A had relied on guidance and quality assurance reviews by their mentor and supervisor, Engineer B, to refine report drafts.
wasattributedto: Case 7 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:27:07.728334
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Peer Review Absence Compensation Constraint Engineer A Post Engineer B Retirement
type: PeerReviewAbsenceCompensationConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A was operating without the mentorship and quality assurance review previously provided by Engineer B, and proceeded to use unfamiliar AI-assisted drafting tools without establishing alternative oversight mechanisms, resulting in non-compliant design documents.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.91
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Peer Review Absence Compensation Constraint
constraintstatement: Following Engineer B's retirement, Engineer A was constrained to establish alternative peer review or supervisory arrangements before undertaking AI-assisted design work of equivalent complexity and risk, prohibiting continuation of professional practice at the same scope without compensating quality controls — a constraint violated by proceeding with AI-assisted design without such arrangements.
discoveredincase: 7
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T06:19:39.889621+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 7
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T06:19:39.889621+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Fundamental Canon I.1; NSPE Position Statement No. 10-1778 on Responsible Charge
sourcetext: the facts also note Engineer A appears to be operating in a compromised manner – namely, without the help of Engineer B – such that Engineer A relied on the AI-generated plans and specifications without proper oversight.
temporalscope: Following Engineer B's retirement and throughout Engineer A's subsequent professional practice
textreferences: Engineer A, as the engineer in Responsible Charge of the project, is required to provide an experienced-based quality assurance review, engaging in critical discussions, mentorship, and professional development—elements that AI cannot replicate.
textreferences: the facts also note Engineer A appears to be operating in a compromised manner – namely, without the help of Engineer B – such that Engineer A relied on the AI-generated plans and specifications without proper oversight.
wasattributedto: Case 7 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:27:07.733902
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Proactive AI Disclosure to Client Obligation Violated By Engineer A Toward Client W Design Documents
type: ProactiveAIDisclosuretoClientObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A submitted AI-assisted design documents to Client W without disclosing the use of AI-assisted drafting tools, despite those tools having materially shaped the design documents.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.86
discoveredincase: 7
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T06:17:54.068481+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 7
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T06:17:54.068481+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Proactive AI Disclosure to Client Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to proactively disclose to Client W that AI-assisted drafting tools substantially contributed to the engineering design documents, prior to or upon delivery of those documents.
sourcetext: There are currently no universal guidelines mandating AI disclosure in engineering work, but best practices suggest informing clients when AI substantially contributes to a work product.
temporalscope: At the time of delivering the AI-assisted design documents to Client W
textreferences: AI, while not a human contributor, fundamentally shaped the report and design documents, warranting disclosure under Code section III.9
textreferences: Given that Client W identified issues in the engineering design and questioned inconsistencies in the report, proactive disclosure could have prevented misunderstandings and strengthened trust.
textreferences: There are currently no universal guidelines mandating AI disclosure in engineering work, but best practices suggest informing clients when AI substantially contributes to a work product.
wasattributedto: Case 7 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:27:07.731524
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Proactive AI Disclosure to Client Obligation Violated By Engineer A Toward Client W Report
type: ProactiveAIDisclosuretoClientObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A submitted an AI-drafted environmental report to Client W without disclosing that AI software had generated the initial draft, despite the AI having materially shaped the report's content.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.87
discoveredincase: 7
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T06:17:54.068481+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 7
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T06:17:54.068481+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Proactive AI Disclosure to Client Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to proactively disclose to Client W that AI language processing software substantially contributed to the environmental groundwater monitoring report, prior to or upon delivery of that report.
sourcetext: While Engineer A reviewed the content, the lack of disclosure raises concerns about transparency.
temporalscope: At the time of delivering the AI-assisted environmental report to Client W
textreferences: AI, while not a human contributor, fundamentally shaped the report and design documents, warranting disclosure under Code section III.9
textreferences: Given that Client W identified issues in the engineering design and questioned inconsistencies in the report, proactive disclosure could have prevented misunderstandings and strengthened trust.
textreferences: While Engineer A reviewed the content, the lack of disclosure raises concerns about transparency.
wasattributedto: Case 7 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:27:07.731357
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Proactive Client Trust Transparency Constraint Engineer A Design Documents
type: ProactiveClientTrustTransparencyConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Client W discovered misaligned dimensions and omitted safety features in the AI-generated design documents; proactive disclosure of AI tool use and its limitations could have prompted more rigorous joint review and prevented the submission of non-compliant documents.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.82
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Proactive Client Trust Transparency Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was constrained by best practices and emerging professional norms to proactively disclose to Client W that AI-assisted drafting tools substantially contributed to the engineering design documents, to enable informed client evaluation and prevent misunderstandings about the provenance and reliability of the design work.
discoveredincase: 7
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T06:19:39.889621+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 7
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T06:19:39.889621+00:00
importance: medium
severity: medium
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Fundamental Canon I.5; Emerging AI disclosure best practices
sourcetext: Given that Client W identified issues in the engineering design and questioned inconsistencies in the report, proactive disclosure could have prevented misunderstandings and strengthened trust.
temporalscope: Prior to or upon delivery of AI-generated engineering design documents to Client W
textreferences: Given that Client W identified issues in the engineering design and questioned inconsistencies in the report, proactive disclosure could have prevented misunderstandings and strengthened trust.
textreferences: best practices suggest informing clients when AI substantially contributes to a work product.
wasattributedto: Case 7 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:27:07.733609
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Proactive Client Trust Transparency Constraint Engineer A Report
type: ProactiveClientTrustTransparencyConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Client W identified inconsistencies in the report and questioned its provenance; proactive disclosure of AI use could have prevented these misunderstandings and strengthened the professional relationship.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.83
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Proactive Client Trust Transparency Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was constrained by best practices and emerging professional norms to proactively disclose to Client W that AI language processing software substantially contributed to the environmental report, even absent universal mandatory guidelines, to prevent misunderstandings and maintain client trust.
discoveredincase: 7
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T06:19:39.889621+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 7
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T06:19:39.889621+00:00
importance: medium
severity: medium
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Fundamental Canon I.5; Emerging AI disclosure best practices
sourcetext: Given that Client W identified issues in the engineering design and questioned inconsistencies in the report, proactive disclosure could have prevented misunderstandings and strengthened trust.
temporalscope: Prior to or upon delivery of AI-generated environmental report to Client W
textreferences: Given that Client W identified issues in the engineering design and questioned inconsistencies in the report, proactive disclosure could have prevented misunderstandings and strengthened trust.
textreferences: There are currently no universal guidelines mandating AI disclosure in engineering work, but best practices suggest informing clients when AI substantially contributes to a work product.
textreferences: While Engineer A reviewed the content, the lack of disclosure raises concerns about transparency.
wasattributedto: Case 7 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:27:07.733443
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Professional Accountability Invoked By Engineer A Sealing AI-Generated Documents
type: ProfessionalAccountability
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: AI-drafted environmental report
appliedto: AI-generated engineering design documents
balancingwith: AI Tool Transparency and Disclosure
balancingwith: Responsible Charge Engagement
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A applied their professional seal to both the AI-drafted report and AI-generated design documents, accepting professional accountability for those products, but without having exercised the level of review and verification that such accountability requires
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 7
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T06:11:15.672802+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 7
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T06:11:15.672802+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Applying the professional seal is an act of professional accountability — a representation that the engineer has exercised professional judgment over the work; this representation was undermined by the inadequate review of design documents and the non-disclosure of AI authorship
invokedby: Engineer A Engineer in Responsible Charge
principleclass: Professional Accountability
sourcetext: applied their seal consistent with state law
tensionresolution: The accountability principle was formally invoked through sealing but substantively undermined by inadequate review; the principle requires that the seal represent genuine professional engagement
textreferences: Client W, however, noticed several issues with the AI-generated design documents, including misaligned dimensions and an omission of key safety features required by local regulations.
textreferences: Engineer A did not cite their use of AI-software or its large language models, and submitted the draft report to Client W for review, including language to clearly identify that the supplied report was a draft, but applied their seal consistent with state law.
wasattributedto: Case 7 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:27:07.722476
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Professional Competence Invoked By Engineer A In AI Tool Selection
type: ProfessionalCompetence
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineering design document preparation
appliedto: Environmental report preparation
balancingwith: Client Loyalty
balancingwith: Mentorship Continuity and Succession Planning
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A's decision to use AI tools to compensate for the absence of mentor review, without adequate competence in those tools, reflects a failure to maintain the professional competence required for the work undertaken
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 7
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T06:11:15.672802+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 7
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T06:11:15.672802+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Professional competence extends to the tools an engineer employs; using an unfamiliar AI tool as a substitute for established quality assurance processes without adequate validation does not satisfy the competence standard
invokedby: Engineer A AI-Assisted Engineering Practitioner
principleclass: Professional Competence
sourcetext: Faced with the need to deliver both the report and the engineering design documents without the review by and mentorship from Engineer B, Engineer A opted to use open-sourced artificial intelligence (AI) software to create an initial draft of the necessary report and to use AI-assisted drafting tools to generate preliminary design documents.
tensionresolution: The competence obligation required Engineer A to either develop adequate tool competence, seek alternative quality assurance, or decline the work; the chosen path of proceeding with an unfamiliar tool and cursory review did not satisfy the principle
textreferences: Engineer A is known for their strong technical expertise but is, personally, less confident in their technical writing.
textreferences: Faced with the need to deliver both the report and the engineering design documents without the review by and mentorship from Engineer B, Engineer A opted to use open-sourced artificial intelligence (AI) software
textreferences: The AI drafting software was new to the market and Engineer A had no previous experience with the tool.
wasattributedto: Case 7 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:27:07.721875
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Professional Competence Satisfied for Report Writing But Questioned for AI Tool Verification
type: ProfessionalCompetence
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: AI-assisted drafting tool new to the market
appliedto: Environmental groundwater monitoring report
balancingwith: Competence Assurance Under Novel Tool Adoption
balancingwith: Responsible Charge Engagement
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A possessed substantive environmental engineering competence sufficient to analyze groundwater data and assess contaminant risks, but failed to demonstrate the tool-specific competence required to adequately verify AI-generated design outputs from a tool new to the market
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 7
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T06:16:08.451188+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 7
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T06:16:08.451188+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Professional competence in the subject matter domain does not automatically confer competence in verifying AI tool outputs; engineers must demonstrate both domain competence and tool-specific verification competence
invokedby: Engineer A AI-Assisted Engineering Practitioner
invokedby: Engineer A Environmental Engineering Consultant
principleclass: Professional Competence
sourcetext: it is the BER's view that under the facts, unlike the situation of BER Case 98-3, Engineer A is not incompetent. The facts specifically note Engineer A has 'several years of experience' and 'strong technical expertise.'
tensionresolution: BER distinguished Engineer A's case from BER Case 98-3 incompetence scenario, finding domain competence present but tool verification competence insufficient
textreferences: Fundamental Canon I.2 states that engineers 'perform services only in areas of their competence' and Code section II.2.a states that engineers must 'undertake assignments only when qualified by education or experience in the specific technical fields involved.'
textreferences: Here, Engineer A, as an experienced environmental engineer, was competent to analyze groundwater monitoring data and assess contaminant risks.
textreferences: it is the BER's view that under the facts, unlike the situation of BER Case 98-3, Engineer A is not incompetent. The facts specifically note Engineer A has 'several years of experience' and 'strong technical expertise.'
wasattributedto: Case 7 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:27:07.730623
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Professional Journal Articles on Emerging Contaminants
type: ReferenceMaterial
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.85
createdby: Scientific and engineering research community
discoveredincase: 7
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: Peer-Reviewed Professional Journal Articles on Organic Compound Contaminants
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T06:07:19.549822+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 7
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T06:07:19.549822+00:00
importance: medium
resourceclass: Reference Material
sourcetext: Engineer A conducted a thorough review of the report, cross-checking key facts against professional journal articles
textreferences: Engineer A conducted a thorough review of the report, cross-checking key facts against professional journal articles
usedby: Engineer A during quality review of AI-generated report
usedincontext: Used by Engineer A to cross-check key facts in the AI-generated report draft, serving as a verification resource for technical accuracy of the contaminant characterization content
version: Current literature
wasattributedto: Case 7 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:27:07.714190
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Public Safety Risk from Design Omissions
type: PublicSafetyatRisk
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From identification of safety feature omissions by Client W through successful correction and verification of design documents
affectedparties: Client W
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Public
concept category: State
confidence: 0.87
discoveredincase: 7
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T06:07:52.916021+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 7
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T06:07:52.916021+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: an omission of key safety features required by local regulations
stateclass: Public Safety at Risk
subject: Omission of key safety features required by local regulations in AI-generated engineering design documents
terminatedby: Successful revision of design documents to include all required safety features
textreferences: Client W raised concerns about the accuracy and reliability of the engineering design
textreferences: an omission of key safety features required by local regulations
triggeringevent: AI-generated design documents were found to omit key safety features required by local regulations
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 7 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:27:07.716299
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Public Welfare Paramount Invoked By Omission Of Safety Features In Design Documents
type: PublicWelfareParamount
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Client W Engineering Client Reviewer
appliedto: Engineering design documents for groundwater infrastructure modifications
balancingwith: Client Loyalty
balancingwith: Responsible Charge Engagement
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The omission of key safety features required by local regulations from the AI-generated design documents for groundwater infrastructure created a risk to public welfare that Engineer A's inadequate review failed to prevent
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 7
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T06:11:15.672802+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 7
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T06:11:15.672802+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Public welfare paramount required Engineer A to ensure that design documents for groundwater infrastructure — a system with direct public health implications — complied with all applicable safety regulations; the cursory review that allowed safety feature omissions to pass undetected violated this principle
invokedby: Engineer A Engineer in Responsible Charge
principleclass: Public Welfare Paramount
sourcetext: Client W, however, noticed several issues with the AI-generated design documents, including misaligned dimensions and an omission of key safety features required by local regulations.
tensionresolution: Public welfare obligations were not adequately served; the principle required Engineer A to ensure regulatory compliance before submission, not to rely on client review to catch safety omissions
textreferences: Client W raised concerns about the accuracy and reliability of the engineering design and instructed Engineer A to revise the plans, ensuring that all elements satisfied the necessary professional and regulatory standards.
textreferences: Client W, however, noticed several issues with the AI-generated design documents, including misaligned dimensions and an omission of key safety features required by local regulations.
wasattributedto: Case 7 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:27:07.722168
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Public Welfare Paramount Invoked Regarding AI Design Document Errors
type: PublicWelfareParamount
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: AI-generated groundwater infrastructure design documents
appliedto: Omitted safety features required for regulatory compliance
balancingwith: Competence Assurance Under Novel Tool Adoption
balancingwith: Responsible Charge Engagement
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A's failure to conduct comprehensive review of AI-generated design documents resulted in misaligned dimensions and omitted safety features that could have caused regulatory noncompliance and safety hazards to the public
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 7
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T06:16:08.451188+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 7
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T06:16:08.451188+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Public welfare paramount requires that engineers not allow AI tool convenience or efficiency to compromise the technical adequacy of safety-critical design documents affecting public health and infrastructure
invokedby: Engineer A Engineer in Responsible Charge
principleclass: Public Welfare Paramount
sourcetext: The errors in the AI-generated design documents could have led to regulatory noncompliance and safety hazards, conflicting with the Fundamental Canon I.1, 'hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public'.
tensionresolution: Public welfare obligation was violated when Engineer A's high-level review failed to detect safety-critical omissions; the principle requires comprehensive verification regardless of tool used
textreferences: The errors in the AI-generated design documents could have led to regulatory noncompliance and safety hazards, conflicting with the Fundamental Canon I.1, 'hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public'.
textreferences: When Client W reviewed the design documents, they found misaligned dimensions and key safety features (including those necessary for compliance with local regulations) were omitted.
wasattributedto: Case 7 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:27:07.718731
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_1
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:49:08.784032
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_10
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:49:08.784362
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_11
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:49:08.784395
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_12
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:49:08.784424
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_13
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:49:08.784451
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_14
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:49:08.784480
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_15
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:49:08.784508
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_16
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:49:08.784536
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_17
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:49:08.784563
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_18
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:49:08.784590
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_19
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:49:08.784637
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_2
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:49:08.784062
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_20
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:49:08.784684
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_21
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:49:08.784714
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_3
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:49:08.784106
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_4
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:49:08.784154
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_5
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:49:08.784185
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_6
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:49:08.784213
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_7
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:49:08.784242
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_8
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:49:08.784288
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_9
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:49:08.784318
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Question_1
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 1
question text: Was Engineer A’s use of AI to create the report text ethical, given that Engineer A thoroughly checked the report?
question type: board_explicit
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:49:08.779859
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Question_101
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 101
question text: By uploading Client W's confidential site data and groundwater monitoring information into an open-source AI platform without obtaining prior consent, did Engineer A independently violate the client confidentiality obligation under Code provision II.1.c, and does this violation stand as a separate ethical breach from any question about AI disclosure or report quality?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:49:08.780578
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Question_102
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 102
question text: Given that Engineer B's retirement removed the primary quality assurance mechanism Engineer A had relied upon, did Engineer A have an independent ethical obligation to arrange an alternative peer review process before undertaking a complex, dual-scope engagement involving an unfamiliar AI tool, rather than substituting AI-generated output for that professional oversight?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:49:08.780663
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Question_103
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 103
question text: When Client W observed that the report read as if written by two different authors, did Engineer A incur an immediate ethical obligation to proactively disclose the AI's role in drafting the more polished sections, or was silence in that moment itself a deceptive act under Code provisions I.5 and III.3?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:49:08.780715
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Question_104
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 104
question text: Does Engineer A's failure to include citations to the professional journal articles used to cross-check AI-generated content constitute a violation of the obligation to give credit for engineering work under Code provision III.9, and does it additionally undermine the evidentiary foundation of a technical report that may inform regulatory or remediation decisions?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:49:08.780788
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Question_2
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 2
question text: Was Engineer A’s use of AI-assisted drafting tools to create the engineering design documents ethical, given that Engineer A reviewed the design at a high level?
question type: board_explicit
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:49:08.779914
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Question_201
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 201
question text: Does the principle of Professional Competence Satisfied for Report Writing conflict with the principle of Intellectual Honesty in Authorship when Engineer A's thorough factual verification of AI-generated text is used to justify sealing a report whose prose was substantially composed by a non-human system, potentially misrepresenting the nature and origin of the professional work product to Client W?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:49:08.780861
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Question_202
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 202
question text: Does the principle of Responsible Charge Engagement conflict with the principle of Competence Assurance Under Novel Tool Adoption when an engineer applies their professional seal to AI-generated design documents after only a cursory review, given that the seal legally certifies personal responsible charge over work whose generative process the engineer does not fully understand?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:49:08.780914
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Question_203
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 203
question text: Does the principle of Client Data Confidentiality in AI Tool Use conflict with the principle of Mentorship Continuity and Succession Planning when an engineer, deprived of a trusted peer reviewer, turns to an open-source AI platform as a substitute quality assurance mechanism, thereby necessarily exposing confidential client data to a third-party system in order to compensate for the loss of professional oversight?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:49:08.780966
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Question_204
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 204
question text: Does the principle of Public Welfare Paramount conflict with the principle of AI Tool Transparency and Disclosure Applied to Client W Relationship when the Board concludes there is no universal ethical obligation to disclose AI use, yet the case demonstrates that undisclosed AI-generated design documents containing safety-critical omissions were submitted to a client and could have reached construction without correction had Client W not independently identified the defects?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:49:08.781018
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Question_3
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 3
question text: If the use of AI was acceptable, did Engineer A have an ethical obligation to disclose the use of AI in any form to the Client?
question type: board_explicit
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:49:08.779966
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Question_301
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 301
question text: From a deontological perspective, did Engineer A fulfill their duty of candor toward Client W by submitting AI-generated work products without disclosure, regardless of whether the final outputs were accurate?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:49:08.781068
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Question_302
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 302
question text: From a deontological perspective, did Engineer A breach their categorical duty to maintain Responsible Charge by sealing engineering design documents that contained safety omissions and dimensional errors they had only cursorily reviewed?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:49:08.781119
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Question_303
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 303
question text: From a consequentialist perspective, did the harm produced by Engineer A's cursory review of AI-generated design documents — resulting in misaligned dimensions and omitted safety features — outweigh any efficiency benefits gained from using AI-assisted drafting tools, and does this outcome retroactively render the decision to use those tools unethical?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:49:08.781188
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Question_304
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 304
question text: From a virtue ethics perspective, did Engineer A demonstrate the professional integrity and intellectual honesty expected of a licensed engineer by personalizing AI-generated report text with only minor wording adjustments and presenting it under their professional seal without attribution, even if the content was factually verified?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:49:08.781241
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Question_305
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 305
question text: From a virtue ethics perspective, did Engineer A exhibit the prudence and professional humility expected of a competent engineer by choosing to deploy a novel, unfamiliar AI drafting tool — with no prior experience — as a substitute for the mentorship and peer review previously provided by Engineer B, rather than seeking alternative qualified oversight?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:49:08.781294
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Question_306
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 306
question text: From a consequentialist perspective, did Engineer A's decision to input Client W's confidential site data into open-source AI software — without obtaining prior consent — create a foreseeable risk of harm to Client W's proprietary interests that outweighs the drafting efficiency gained, and should that risk calculus have been apparent to a competent engineer before acting?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:49:08.781348
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Question_401
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 401
question text: If Engineer A had disclosed their intended use of open-source AI software to Client W before beginning work, and Client W had withheld consent to upload confidential site data to a public AI platform, would Engineer A have been obligated to decline the use of AI tools entirely or to seek a privacy-compliant alternative, and how would that have affected the deliverables?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:49:08.781419
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Question_402
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 402
question text: If Engineer A had conducted a rigorous, line-by-line technical review of the AI-generated design documents — equivalent to the thorough review applied to the report — rather than a cursory high-level check, would the safety omissions and dimensional errors have been caught before submission to Client W, and would that level of review have been sufficient to satisfy the Responsible Charge standard?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:49:08.781473
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Question_403
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 403
question text: If Engineer B had not retired and had continued to provide quality assurance review of Engineer A's work products, would Engineer A have been less likely to over-rely on AI tools, and does the absence of mentorship create a systemic professional vulnerability that the NSPE Code of Ethics should address through explicit guidance on peer review succession planning?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:49:08.781541
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Question_404
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 404
question text: If Engineer A had explicitly cited the use of AI software in the report — including identifying which sections were AI-generated and which were independently authored — would Client W's observation that the report 'read as if written by two different authors' have raised or resolved concerns about the reliability and professional accountability of the work product?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:49:08.781591
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Regulatory Compliance Verification Obligation Breached By Engineer A In Design Document Submission
type: RegulatoryComplianceVerificationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A submitted AI-generated design documents that omitted key safety features required by local regulations, which were identified by Client W rather than by Engineer A's review.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 7
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T06:12:52.067436+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 7
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T06:12:52.067436+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Regulatory Compliance Verification Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to verify that the AI-generated engineering design documents complied with all applicable local regulations, including required safety features, before submitting those documents to Client W.
sourcetext: Client W, however, noticed several issues with the AI-generated design documents, including misaligned dimensions and an omission of key safety features required by local regulations.
temporalscope: Prior to submission of engineering design documents to Client W
textreferences: Client W raised concerns about the accuracy and reliability of the engineering design and instructed Engineer A to revise the plans, ensuring that all elements satisfied the necessary professional and regulatory standards.
textreferences: Client W, however, noticed several issues with the AI-generated design documents, including misaligned dimensions and an omission of key safety features required by local regulations.
wasattributedto: Case 7 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:27:07.723884
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Regulatory Compliance Verification Obligation Violated By Engineer A In Design Documents
type: RegulatoryComplianceVerificationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A submitted AI-generated design documents to Client W that omitted key safety features required by local regulations, indicating failure to verify regulatory compliance before sealing and delivering the documents.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 7
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T06:17:54.068481+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 7
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T06:17:54.068481+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Regulatory Compliance Verification Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to verify that the AI-generated engineering design documents complied with applicable local regulations — including safety feature requirements — before submitting those documents to Client W under a professional seal.
sourcetext: When Client W reviewed the design documents, they found misaligned dimensions and key safety features (including those necessary for compliance with local regulations) were omitted.
temporalscope: Prior to sealing and delivering AI-generated design documents to Client W
textreferences: The errors in the AI-generated design documents could have led to regulatory noncompliance and safety hazards, conflicting with the Fundamental Canon I.1, 'hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public'.
textreferences: When Client W reviewed the design documents, they found misaligned dimensions and key safety features (including those necessary for compliance with local regulations) were omitted.
wasattributedto: Case 7 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:27:07.732010
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Regulatory Constraint Engineer A Local Safety Requirements Design Documents
type: RegulatoryConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: AI-generated design documents failed to include key safety features required by local regulations; Client W identified the non-compliance and required Engineer A to revise the plans to meet professional and regulatory standards.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.92
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Regulatory Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was constrained by local regulatory requirements to ensure that engineering design documents for groundwater infrastructure modifications included all mandatory safety features specified by applicable local regulations, binding Engineer A regardless of the method used to generate the documents.
discoveredincase: 7
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T06:14:18.405742+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 7
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T06:14:18.405742+00:00
importance: critical
severity: critical
source: Local Regulatory Safety Requirements for Groundwater Infrastructure; applicable local regulations
sourcetext: an omission of key safety features required by local regulations
temporalscope: Throughout the preparation and submission of engineering design documents
textreferences: Client W raised concerns about the accuracy and reliability of the engineering design and instructed Engineer A to revise the plans, ensuring that all elements satisfied the necessary professional and regulatory standards.
textreferences: an omission of key safety features required by local regulations
wasattributedto: Case 7 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:27:07.728906
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Report Stylistic Inconsistency Detected
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Event
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:27:07.737609
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_1
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:49:08.784743
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_10
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:49:08.784992
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_11
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:49:08.785020
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_12
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:49:08.785080
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_13
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:49:08.785111
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_14
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:49:08.785157
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_15
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:49:08.785215
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_16
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:49:08.785248
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_17
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:49:08.785278
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_18
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:49:08.785307
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_19
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:49:08.785335
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_2
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:49:08.784771
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_20
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:49:08.785364
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_21
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:49:08.785415
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_22
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:49:08.785445
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_23
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:49:08.785497
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_24
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:49:08.785547
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_25
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:49:08.785598
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_26
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:49:08.785629
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_27
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:49:08.785679
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_28
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:49:08.785728
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_3
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:49:08.784798
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_4
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:49:08.784826
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_5
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:49:08.784854
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_6
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:49:08.784882
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_7
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:49:08.784909
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_8
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:49:08.784936
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_9
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:49:08.784964
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Responsible Charge Active Review Obligation Breached By Engineer A Over Design Documents
type: ResponsibleChargeActiveReviewObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A conducted only a cursory review of AI-generated design documents and failed to identify misaligned dimensions and omitted safety features that were subsequently identified by Client W.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 7
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T06:12:52.067436+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 7
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T06:12:52.067436+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Responsible Charge Active Review Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A, bearing statutory responsible charge over the AI-generated engineering design documents, was obligated to conduct an active and substantive review of those documents sufficient to identify misaligned dimensions and omitted regulatory safety features before submitting them to Client W.
sourcetext: Engineer A completed a cursory review of the AI-generated plans and adjusted certain elements to align with site-specific conditions.
temporalscope: Prior to submission of engineering design documents to Client W
textreferences: Client W raised concerns about the accuracy and reliability of the engineering design and instructed Engineer A to revise the plans, ensuring that all elements satisfied the necessary professional and regulatory standards.
textreferences: Client W, however, noticed several issues with the AI-generated design documents, including misaligned dimensions and an omission of key safety features required by local regulations.
textreferences: Engineer A completed a cursory review of the AI-generated plans and adjusted certain elements to align with site-specific conditions.
wasattributedto: Case 7 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:27:07.723223
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Responsible Charge Active Review Obligation Partially Met By Engineer A Over Environmental Report
type: ResponsibleChargeActiveReviewObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A conducted a thorough factual cross-check of the AI-generated report but the review did not fully address the stylistic inconsistency that was apparent to Client W, and Engineer A lacked full understanding of the AI tool's capabilities.
compliancestatus: partial
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.83
discoveredincase: 7
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T06:12:52.067436+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 7
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T06:12:52.067436+00:00
importance: medium
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Responsible Charge Active Review Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A, bearing statutory responsible charge over the AI-drafted environmental report, was obligated to conduct an active and substantive review of that report sufficient to ensure its professional adequacy and accuracy before applying a professional seal and submitting it to Client W.
sourcetext: Engineer A conducted a thorough review of the report, cross-checking key facts against professional journal articles and verifying the phrasing by running search engine queries
temporalscope: Prior to submission of the draft report to Client W
textreferences: Client W noted that the section analyzing the groundwater monitoring data would benefit from minor edits for grammar and clarity, but found the introduction discussing the contaminant's manufacture, use, and characteristics to be exceptionally polished.
textreferences: Engineer A conducted a thorough review of the report, cross-checking key facts against professional journal articles and verifying the phrasing by running search engine queries
textreferences: Engineer A did not cite their use of AI-software or its large language models, and submitted the draft report to Client W for review, including language to clearly identify that the supplied report was a draft, but applied their seal consistent with state law.
wasattributedto: Case 7 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:27:07.723362
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Responsible Charge Active Review Obligation Violated By Engineer A Over Design Documents
type: ResponsibleChargeActiveReviewObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A bore statutory responsible charge over AI-generated design documents but conducted only a high-level review, failing to identify misaligned dimensions and omitted safety features required by local regulations, in violation of NSPE III.8.a and II.2.b.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 7
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T06:17:54.068481+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 7
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T06:17:54.068481+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Responsible Charge Active Review Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A, as the engineer in responsible charge of the groundwater infrastructure design project, was obligated to conduct an active, substantive, and technically adequate review of the AI-generated design documents sufficient to identify misaligned dimensions, omitted safety features, and regulatory non-compliance before applying a professional seal.
sourcetext: Engineer A did not maintain responsible charge in violation of licensure law which violates Code section III.8.a.
temporalscope: Prior to sealing and delivering AI-generated design documents to Client W
textreferences: Engineer A did not maintain responsible charge in violation of licensure law which violates Code section III.8.a.
textreferences: Engineer A's oversight of engineering plans was inadequate, raising ethical concerns.
textreferences: NSPE defines 'Responsible Charge' in NSPE Position Statement No. 10-1778 as 'being actively engaged in the engineering process, from conception to completion.'
textreferences: Reviewing drawings or documents after preparation without involvement in the design and development process does not satisfy the definition of Responsible Charge.
wasattributedto: Case 7 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:27:07.731684
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Responsible Charge Engagement Invoked By Engineer A Over Design Documents
type: ResponsibleChargeEngagement
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: AI-generated engineering design documents for groundwater infrastructure modifications
balancingwith: Client Loyalty
balancingwith: Competence Assurance Under Novel Tool Adoption
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A bore statutory responsible charge over AI-generated design documents but conducted only a cursory review, failing to identify misaligned dimensions and omitted safety features that Client W subsequently discovered
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 7
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T06:11:15.672802+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 7
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T06:11:15.672802+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Responsible charge in this context required Engineer A to review the AI-generated plans with sufficient depth to catch dimensional errors and regulatory non-compliances; a cursory review of outputs from an unfamiliar tool did not satisfy this obligation
invokedby: Engineer A Engineer in Responsible Charge
principleclass: Responsible Charge Engagement
sourcetext: Engineer A completed a cursory review of the AI-generated plans and adjusted certain elements to align with site-specific conditions.
tensionresolution: The obligation of responsible charge was not satisfied by the cursory review; the principle required more thorough independent verification given the novelty of the AI tool and the safety significance of the omitted features
textreferences: Client W raised concerns about the accuracy and reliability of the engineering design and instructed Engineer A to revise the plans, ensuring that all elements satisfied the necessary professional and regulatory standards.
textreferences: Client W, however, noticed several issues with the AI-generated design documents, including misaligned dimensions and an omission of key safety features required by local regulations.
textreferences: Engineer A completed a cursory review of the AI-generated plans and adjusted certain elements to align with site-specific conditions.
wasattributedto: Case 7 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:27:07.720920
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Responsible Charge Engagement Invoked By Engineer A Over Environmental Report
type: ResponsibleChargeEngagement
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: AI-drafted comprehensive environmental report on organic contaminant
balancingwith: AI Tool Transparency and Disclosure
balancingwith: Intellectual Integrity in Authorship
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A applied their professional seal to an AI-drafted environmental report after conducting a cross-checking review of facts and phrasing, but without fully understanding the AI tool's capabilities regarding accuracy and originality
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 7
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T06:11:15.672802+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 7
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T06:11:15.672802+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The responsible charge obligation required Engineer A to ensure the report reflected genuine professional judgment; the review conducted was more thorough for the report than for the design documents, though the failure to disclose AI involvement remained problematic
invokedby: Engineer A Engineer in Responsible Charge
principleclass: Responsible Charge Engagement
sourcetext: Engineer A did not cite their use of AI-software or its large language models, and submitted the draft report to Client W for review, including language to clearly identify that the supplied report was a draft, but applied their seal consistent with state law.
tensionresolution: Engineer A's review of the report was more substantive than for the design documents, but the seal representation remained potentially misleading given undisclosed AI authorship
textreferences: Engineer A conducted a thorough review of the report, cross-checking key facts against professional journal articles and verifying the phrasing by running search engine queries to ensure the content did not match any existing language.
textreferences: Engineer A did not cite their use of AI-software or its large language models, and submitted the draft report to Client W for review, including language to clearly identify that the supplied report was a draft, but applied their seal consistent with state law.
wasattributedto: Case 7 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:27:07.721066
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Responsible Charge Engagement Violated Through AI Over-Reliance
type: ResponsibleChargeEngagement
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: AI-assisted groundwater infrastructure design documents
appliedto: AI-generated environmental groundwater monitoring report
balancingwith: Competence Assurance Under Novel Tool Adoption
balancingwith: Diligent Verification of AI-Generated Technical Outputs
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A failed to maintain active, substantive engagement in the development of AI-generated design documents, conducting only a high-level review rather than the comprehensive verification required by responsible charge, resulting in undetected technical errors
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 7
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T06:16:08.451188+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 7
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T06:16:08.451188+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Responsible charge requires that engineers treat AI-generated outputs with the same critical engagement as human-generated work — outlining solution guidelines, challenging recommendations, and verifying outputs against professional standards before acceptance
invokedby: Engineer A Engineer in Responsible Charge
principleclass: Responsible Charge Engagement
sourcetext: Engineer A did not maintain responsible charge in violation of licensure law which violates Code section III.8.a.
tensionresolution: Responsible charge was not satisfied by high-level review; the principle requires active engagement equivalent to what would be applied to work by an engineering intern or support staff
textreferences: Engineer A did not maintain responsible charge in violation of licensure law which violates Code section III.8.a.
textreferences: Engineer A, as the engineer in Responsible Charge of the project, is required to provide an experienced-based quality assurance review, engaging in critical discussions, mentorship, and professional development—elements that AI cannot replicate.
textreferences: Much like directing an engineering intern to solve a problem, responsible use of AI requires an engineer to outline solution guidelines and constraints. Recommendations from the program or intern should not be blindly accepted, they should be considered and challenged and the resulting outputs should be understood.
textreferences: NSPE defines 'Responsible Charge' in NSPE Position Statement No. 10-1778 as 'being actively engaged in the engineering process, from conception to completion.'
textreferences: Reviewing drawings or documents after preparation without involvement in the design and development process does not satisfy the definition of Responsible Charge.
wasattributedto: Case 7 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:27:07.729274
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Responsible Charge Verification Constraint Engineer A Design Documents
type: ResponsibleChargeVerificationConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A conducted only a cursory review of AI-generated design documents before submission; the documents contained misaligned dimensions and omitted safety features required by local regulations, demonstrating that responsible charge was not adequately exercised.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.93
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Responsible Charge Verification Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was constrained from sealing and submitting the AI-generated engineering design documents without having conducted a substantive, active review sufficient to establish genuine responsible charge; the cursory review performed did not satisfy this constraint.
discoveredincase: 7
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T06:14:18.405742+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 7
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T06:14:18.405742+00:00
importance: critical
severity: critical
source: State Professional Engineering Seal Law; NSPE Code of Ethics; BER-Case-90-6
sourcetext: Engineer A completed a cursory review of the AI-generated plans and adjusted certain elements to align with site-specific conditions.
temporalscope: Prior to and at the time of design document submission to Client W
textreferences: Client W noticed several issues with the AI-generated design documents, including misaligned dimensions and an omission of key safety features required by local regulations.
textreferences: Client W raised concerns about the accuracy and reliability of the engineering design and instructed Engineer A to revise the plans
textreferences: Engineer A completed a cursory review of the AI-generated plans and adjusted certain elements to align with site-specific conditions.
wasattributedto: Case 7 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:27:07.728040
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Safety Constraint Engineer A AI-Generated Design Document Omissions
type: SafetyConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: AI-generated design documents submitted by Engineer A omitted key safety features required by local regulations, creating public safety risk from groundwater infrastructure modifications; Client W identified the omissions and required revision.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.93
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Safety Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was constrained from submitting engineering design documents that omitted key safety features required by local regulations, regardless of whether those omissions originated from AI-generated drafts; the safety constraint required independent verification that all mandatory safety elements were present before submission.
discoveredincase: 7
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T06:14:18.405742+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 7
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T06:14:18.405742+00:00
importance: critical
severity: critical
source: Local Regulatory Safety Requirements for Groundwater Infrastructure; NSPE Code of Ethics — Public safety paramount canon
sourcetext: Client W noticed several issues with the AI-generated design documents, including misaligned dimensions and an omission of key safety features required by local regulations.
temporalscope: Prior to and at the time of design document submission to Client W
textreferences: Client W noticed several issues with the AI-generated design documents, including misaligned dimensions and an omission of key safety features required by local regulations.
textreferences: Client W raised concerns about the accuracy and reliability of the engineering design and instructed Engineer A to revise the plans, ensuring that all elements satisfied the necessary professional and regulatory standards.
wasattributedto: Case 7 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:27:07.728766
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Safety Constraint Engineer A AI Design Omissions
type: SafetyConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: AI-generated design documents submitted by Engineer A omitted key safety features required by local regulations and contained misaligned dimensions, creating potential safety hazards and regulatory noncompliance that conflicted with the paramount obligation to public safety.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.94
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Safety Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was constrained by the foundational engineering obligation to hold paramount public safety, health, and welfare, prohibiting submission of engineering design documents containing omitted safety features and misaligned dimensions that could create safety hazards and regulatory noncompliance.
discoveredincase: 7
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T06:19:39.889621+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 7
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T06:19:39.889621+00:00
importance: high
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Fundamental Canon I.1
sourcetext: The errors in the AI-generated design documents could have led to regulatory noncompliance and safety hazards, conflicting with the Fundamental Canon I.1, 'hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public'.
temporalscope: During preparation and submission of AI-generated engineering design documents to Client W
textreferences: The errors in the AI-generated design documents could have led to regulatory noncompliance and safety hazards, conflicting with the Fundamental Canon I.1, 'hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public'.
textreferences: failure to detect misaligned dimensions and omitted safety features further indicates that Engineer A did not exercise sufficient diligence.
wasattributedto: Case 7 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:27:07.734039
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Safety Obligation Implicated By Engineer A Omission Of Safety Features In Design Documents
type: SafetyObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A's cursory review of AI-generated design documents failed to identify the omission of key safety features required by local regulations, creating a risk to public safety associated with groundwater infrastructure.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 7
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T06:12:52.067436+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 7
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T06:12:52.067436+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Safety Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public in the preparation of engineering design documents for groundwater infrastructure, including ensuring that all required safety features were included and that the design complied with applicable safety regulations.
sourcetext: Client W, however, noticed several issues with the AI-generated design documents, including misaligned dimensions and an omission of key safety features required by local regulations.
temporalscope: Throughout the preparation and review of engineering design documents for Client W
textreferences: Client W raised concerns about the accuracy and reliability of the engineering design and instructed Engineer A to revise the plans, ensuring that all elements satisfied the necessary professional and regulatory standards.
textreferences: Client W, however, noticed several issues with the AI-generated design documents, including misaligned dimensions and an omission of key safety features required by local regulations.
wasattributedto: Case 7 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:27:07.724155
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Scope of Practice Constraint Engineer A AI Tool Competence
type: ScopeofPracticeConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A, while competent as an environmental engineer, lacked prior experience with the newly marketed AI-assisted drafting tool and deployed it without sufficient familiarization, resulting in non-compliant design documents that Engineer A failed to detect through only high-level review.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.88
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Scope of Practice (Constraint)
constraintstatement: Engineer A was constrained to perform engineering services only within areas of demonstrated competence, requiring that use of a newly marketed AI-assisted drafting tool be preceded by sufficient familiarization with the tool's capabilities and limitations to ensure professional-grade outputs — a constraint partially violated by deploying an unfamiliar tool without adequate prior verification of its reliability.
discoveredincase: 7
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T06:19:39.889621+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 7
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T06:19:39.889621+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Fundamental Canon I.2; Code Section II.2.a
sourcetext: Fundamental Canon I.2 states that engineers 'perform services only in areas of their competence' and Code section II.2.a states that engineers must 'undertake assignments only when qualified by education or experience in the specific technical fields involved.'
temporalscope: During selection and deployment of the newly marketed AI-assisted drafting tool
textreferences: Fundamental Canon I.2 states that engineers 'perform services only in areas of their competence' and Code section II.2.a states that engineers must 'undertake assignments only when qualified by education or experience in the specific technical fields involved.'
textreferences: it is the BER's view that under the facts, unlike the situation of BER Case 98-3, Engineer A is not incompetent. The facts specifically note Engineer A has 'several years of experience' and 'strong technical expertise.' But the facts also note Engineer A appears to be operating in a compromised manner.
wasattributedto: Case 7 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:27:07.734193
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Scope of Practice Constraint Engineer A AI Tool Reliance Beyond Competence
type: ScopeofPracticeConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A used a novel AI drafting tool without prior experience and conducted only a cursory review of AI-generated design documents, operating beyond the scope of practice defined by demonstrated competence to verify AI outputs in this domain.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.85
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Scope of Practice (Constraint)
constraintstatement: Engineer A was constrained from relying on AI-generated outputs in areas where Engineer A lacked the competence to independently verify those outputs, as professional scope of practice requires that engineers practice only within areas of demonstrated competence, including competence to evaluate AI-generated work product.
discoveredincase: 7
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T06:14:18.405742+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 7
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T06:14:18.405742+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics — Scope of practice and competence provisions; BER-Case-98-3
sourcetext: The AI drafting software was new to the market and Engineer A had no previous experience with the tool.
temporalscope: Throughout the preparation of both the environmental report and engineering design documents using AI tools
textreferences: Client W noticed several issues with the AI-generated design documents, including misaligned dimensions and an omission of key safety features required by local regulations.
textreferences: Engineer A completed a cursory review of the AI-generated plans and adjusted certain elements to align with site-specific conditions.
textreferences: The AI drafting software was new to the market and Engineer A had no previous experience with the tool.
wasattributedto: Case 7 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:27:07.729052
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

State Professional Engineering Seal Law
type: LegalResource
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.88
createdby: State professional licensing authority
discoveredincase: 7
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: State Statute Governing Professional Engineering Seal Application
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T06:07:19.549822+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 7
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T06:07:19.549822+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Legal Resource
sourcetext: applied their seal consistent with state law
textreferences: applied their seal consistent with state law
usedby: Engineer A when sealing the draft report and design documents
usedincontext: Governs the conditions under which Engineer A may apply their professional seal to reports and design documents, including those generated with AI assistance
version: Current applicable state law
wasattributedto: Case 7 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:27:07.713714
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Submitted Report Without AI Disclosure
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:27:07.737281
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Submitted Report Without AI Disclosure → Professional Seal Affixed to AI-Assisted Work Without Transparency
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:27:07.737832
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Submitted Report Without AI Disclosure → Report Stylistic Inconsistency Detected
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:27:07.737740
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Technology Non-Substitution Constraint Engineer A Design Phase
type: TechnologyNon-SubstitutionforEngineeringJudgmentConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A relied on AI-assisted drafting tool outputs without establishing solution guidelines, challenging outputs, or conducting comprehensive verification, effectively substituting AI judgment for independent professional engineering judgment.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.92
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Technology Non-Substitution for Engineering Judgment Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was constrained from using the AI-assisted drafting tool as a substitute for independent engineering judgment in the design phase, requiring that all AI-generated design outputs be evaluated against Engineer A's own professional standards before acceptance — a constraint violated by passively accepting AI outputs with only high-level review.
discoveredincase: 7
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T06:19:39.889621+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 7
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T06:19:39.889621+00:00
importance: high
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Fundamental Canon I.2; BER Case 98-3; BER Case 90-6
sourcetext: technology must not replace or be used as a substitute for engineering judgement
temporalscope: During preparation of AI-generated engineering design documents
textreferences: Only after the engineer in Responsible Charge has satisfied themselves that the proposed solution is in accordance with their own and professional standards should the design/report be accepted.
textreferences: These are steps that, in this case, Engineer A chose not to follow.
textreferences: technology must not replace or be used as a substitute for engineering judgement
wasattributedto: Case 7 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:27:07.732787
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Transparency Principle Invoked By Engineer A Toward Client W
type: Transparency
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Client W Environmental Engineering Client
balancingwith: AI Tool Transparency and Disclosure
balancingwith: Professional Dignity
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A's failure to disclose AI tool use to Client W in both the report and design document submissions undermined the transparency that the professional-client relationship requires, preventing Client W from making informed judgments about the reliability and provenance of the deliverables
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 7
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T06:11:15.672802+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 7
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T06:11:15.672802+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Transparency in the professional-client relationship required Engineer A to disclose material information about how the work products were generated, including the use of novel AI tools, so that Client W could exercise informed oversight
invokedby: Engineer A Environmental Engineering Consultant
principleclass: Transparency
sourcetext: Engineer A did not cite their use of AI-software or its large language models, and submitted the draft report to Client W for review
tensionresolution: The transparency obligation was not satisfied; no competing principle justified non-disclosure of AI tool use to the client
textreferences: Again, Engineer A did not cite the AI-assisted drafting tools they used to generate the engineering design documents.
textreferences: Engineer A did not cite their use of AI-software or its large language models, and submitted the draft report to Client W for review
textreferences: The Client commented that the report read as if written by two different authors but was otherwise satisfactory.
wasattributedto: Case 7 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:27:07.722331
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Used AI for Design Document Generation
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:27:07.737321
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

input of Client W's data into AI software before receipt of AI-generated first draft of report
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:27:07.737954
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

report drafting and submission before design document drafting and submission
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:27:07.738149
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

site groundwater monitoring (over a year) before preparation of the report and design documents
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:27:07.737894
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

submission of draft report before Client W's review of report
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T06:27:07.738120
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction