ProEthica Case 7 Ontology
type: Ontology
created: 2026-01-18T23:06:16.529864+00:00
imports: cases
imports: intermediate

A1
type: Argument
type: NamedIndividual
argument type: pro
decision point id: DP1
generated at time: 2026-01-18T23:06:16.542818+00:00
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

A10
type: Argument
type: NamedIndividual
argument type: con
decision point id: DP3
generated at time: 2026-01-18T23:06:16.543238+00:00
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

A11
type: Argument
type: NamedIndividual
argument type: pro
decision point id: DP3
generated at time: 2026-01-18T23:06:16.543295+00:00
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

A12
type: Argument
type: NamedIndividual
argument type: con
decision point id: DP3
generated at time: 2026-01-18T23:06:16.543361+00:00
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

A13
type: Argument
type: NamedIndividual
argument type: pro
decision point id: DP4
generated at time: 2026-01-18T23:06:16.543400+00:00
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

A14
type: Argument
type: NamedIndividual
argument type: con
decision point id: DP4
generated at time: 2026-01-18T23:06:16.543461+00:00
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

A15
type: Argument
type: NamedIndividual
argument type: pro
decision point id: DP4
generated at time: 2026-01-18T23:06:16.543503+00:00
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

A16
type: Argument
type: NamedIndividual
argument type: con
decision point id: DP4
generated at time: 2026-01-18T23:06:16.543551+00:00
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

A2
type: Argument
type: NamedIndividual
argument type: con
decision point id: DP1
generated at time: 2026-01-18T23:06:16.542868+00:00
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

A3
type: Argument
type: NamedIndividual
argument type: pro
decision point id: DP1
generated at time: 2026-01-18T23:06:16.542915+00:00
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

A4
type: Argument
type: NamedIndividual
argument type: con
decision point id: DP1
generated at time: 2026-01-18T23:06:16.542956+00:00
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

A5
type: Argument
type: NamedIndividual
argument type: pro
decision point id: DP2
generated at time: 2026-01-18T23:06:16.543023+00:00
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

A6
type: Argument
type: NamedIndividual
argument type: con
decision point id: DP2
generated at time: 2026-01-18T23:06:16.543067+00:00
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

A7
type: Argument
type: NamedIndividual
argument type: pro
decision point id: DP2
generated at time: 2026-01-18T23:06:16.543111+00:00
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

A8
type: Argument
type: NamedIndividual
argument type: con
decision point id: DP2
generated at time: 2026-01-18T23:06:16.543157+00:00
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

A9
type: Argument
type: NamedIndividual
argument type: pro
decision point id: DP3
generated at time: 2026-01-18T23:06:16.543198+00:00
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

AI_Assisted_Design_Drafting_Tools
type: AISoftwareTool
type: NamedIndividual
confidencescore: 0.95
createdby: Unspecified software developer
generatedattime: 2026-01-05T18:48:36.176849
hasdocumenttitle: AI-assisted drafting tools for engineering design
sourcetext: use AI-assisted drafting tools to generate preliminary design documents
usedby: Engineer A
usedincontext: Generated preliminary design plans and technical specifications
generated at time: 2026-01-18T23:06:16.531428+00:00
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

AI_Assisted_Drafting_Tool
type: AISoftwareTool
type: NamedIndividual
confidencescore: 0.85
createdby: Unspecified Software Developer
generatedattime: 2026-01-05T18:50:30.860231
hasdocumenttitle: AI-Assisted Drafting Tool
hasversion: New to market
sourcetext: Engineer A also prepared draft design documents with a AI-assisted drafting tool that was new to the market
usedby: Engineer A
usedincontext: Used to prepare draft design documents
generated at time: 2026-01-18T23:06:16.533248+00:00
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

AI_Attribution_Requirement
type: AttributionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A failed to cite AI software use in both report and design documents
confidencescore: 0.95
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintsource: Professional standards for tool disclosure
constraintstatement: Must disclose use of AI software and large language models in professional work products
enforcementmechanism: Professional ethics requirements
generatedattime: 2026-01-05T18:52:22.276856
severity: critical
sourcetext: Engineer A did not cite their use of AI-software or its large language models
temporalscope: When submitting work products
wasgeneratedby: ProEthica Dual Constraints Extraction
generated at time: 2026-01-18T23:06:16.538662+00:00
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

AI_Language_Processing_Software
type: AISoftwareTool
type: NamedIndividual
confidencescore: 0.85
createdby: Unspecified AI Developer
generatedattime: 2026-01-05T18:50:30.860231
hasdocumenttitle: AI Language Processing Software (Open-source)
hasversion: Open-source interface
sourcetext: Engineer A used AI language processing software to draft the report
usedby: Engineer A
usedincontext: Used to draft environmental assessment report
generated at time: 2026-01-18T23:06:16.533161+00:00
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

AI_Tool_Experience_Limitation
type: ToolFamiliarityConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A's unfamiliarity with AI software accuracy and originality features led to inadequate quality control
confidencescore: 0.9
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintsource: Engineer A's lack of experience with new AI drafting software
constraintstatement: Cannot fully utilize AI software capabilities due to lack of previous experience with the tool
enforcementmechanism: Self-limiting based on knowledge gaps
generatedattime: 2026-01-05T18:52:22.276856
severity: major
sourcetext: Not being familiar with the full functionality of the AI software, including the accuracy and originality of AI-generated text
temporalscope: During report and design document preparation
wasgeneratedby: ProEthica Dual Constraints Extraction
generated at time: 2026-01-18T23:06:16.535306+00:00
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

AI_Tool_Verification_Constraint
type: TechnologySubstitutionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A only conducted high-level review of AI-generated design documents, missing critical errors
confidencescore: 0.95
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintsource: NSPE Code section II.2.b and BER Case 98-3
constraintstatement: Cannot rely on AI-generated technical work without comprehensive verification process equivalent to human-created work review
enforcementmechanism: Professional licensure requirements and ethical code enforcement
generatedattime: 2026-01-05T18:55:18.056468
severity: critical
sourcetext: AI-generated technical work requires at least the same level of scrutiny as human-created work
temporalscope: Whenever AI tools are used for engineering work
wasgeneratedby: ProEthica Dual Constraints Extraction
generated at time: 2026-01-18T23:06:16.538435+00:00
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

BER_Case_90-6
type: BERCasePrecedent
type: NamedIndividual
confidencescore: 0.95
createdat: Approximately 1990
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
generatedattime: 2026-01-05T18:50:30.860231
hasdocumenttitle: BER Case 90-6: Engineer's Use of Computer Assisted Drafting and Design Tools
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
usedby: Board of Ethical Review
usedincontext: Referenced as precedent for evaluating ethical use of technology in engineering
generated at time: 2026-01-18T23:06:16.532888+00:00
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

BER Case 90-6 before Current AI case discussion
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-01-18T23:06:16.540319+00:00
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

BER_Case_98-3
type: BERCasePrecedent
type: NamedIndividual
confidencescore: 0.95
createdat: 1998
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
generatedattime: 2026-01-05T18:50:30.860231
hasdocumenttitle: BER Case 98-3: Engineering Competency and Use of CD-ROM Design Software
sourcetext: BER Case 98-3 discussed a solicitation by mail for engineers to use new technology
usedby: Board of Ethical Review
usedincontext: Referenced to evaluate competency issues with technology use
generated at time: 2026-01-18T23:06:16.532964+00:00
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

BER_Technology_Advocacy
type: TechnologyIntegrationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilitystatement: Advocate for appropriate introduction of new technologies in engineering
casecontext: BER's historical perspective on CAD, CADD, and AI adoption
confidence: 1.0
demonstratedthrough: 35-year history of technology guidance
enablesobligations: Guide professional use of emerging technologies
generatedattime: 2026-01-05T18:56:04.765002
possessedby: Board of Ethical Review
proficiencylevel: expert
sourcetext: The Board of Ethical Review (BER) has a long history of open and welcome advocacy for the introduction of new technologies
temporalaspect: Ongoing institutional capability
generated at time: 2026-01-18T23:06:16.539838+00:00
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Board of Ethical Review (BER)
type: ProfessionalPeerRole
type: NamedIndividual
caseinvolvement: Reviewing body evaluating the ethical implications of Engineer A's use of AI tools in engineering practice
generatedattime: 2026-01-05T18:48:58.743476
hasactiveobligation: Evaluate use of new technologies in engineering
hasactiveobligation: Provide guidance on professional standards
hasactiveobligation: Review ethical considerations in engineering practice
hasfunction: ethics review board
hashistory: long history of open and welcome advocacy for the introduction of new technologies in engineering work
sourcetext: The Board of Ethical Review (BER) has a long history of open and welcome advocacy for the introduction of new technologies
wasattributedto: Case 7 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-01-18T23:06:16.532161+00:00
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Case 7 Timeline
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-01-18T23:06:16.540343+00:00
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

CausalLink_Confidential Data Upload
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-01-18T23:06:16.541887+00:00
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

CausalLink_Cursory Design Review
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-01-18T23:06:16.541817+00:00
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

CausalLink_Non-disclosure AI Usage
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-01-18T23:06:16.541851+00:00
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

CausalLink_Professional Seal Application
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-01-18T23:06:16.541919+00:00
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

CausalLink_Thorough Report Review
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-01-18T23:06:16.530246+00:00
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

CausalLink_Use AI Software Decision
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-01-18T23:06:16.541785+00:00
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

ClientW_PublicDomainExposure_AIInterface
type: PublicDomainExposureState
type: NamedIndividual
affectsobligation: Maintain client confidentiality per Code section II.1.c
affectsobligation: Obtain prior consent before sharing
caseinvolvement: Violated confidentiality requirements without obtaining Client W's permission
confidencescore: 0.95
generatedattime: 2026-01-05T18:49:50.748240
hasrelatedparty: Engineer A
hassubject: Client W
hasurgencylevel: critical
initiatedat: When Engineer A used AI for report writing
initiatedby: Engineer A uploading client information to AI open-source interface
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
terminatedat: Permanent state
terminatedby: Cannot be terminated - information already exposed
generated at time: 2026-01-18T23:06:16.532450+00:00
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Client W
type: StakeholderRole
type: NamedIndividual
caseinvolvement: Retained Engineer A for environmental analysis and raised concerns about AI-generated design accuracy
generatedattime: 2026-01-05T18:46:59.158495
hasactiveobligation: Ensure regulatory compliance
hasactiveobligation: Provide feedback on deliverables
hasactiveobligation: Review draft reports
hasrole: Client requiring environmental engineering services
sourcetext: was retained by Client W to prepare a comprehensive report addressing the manufacture, use, and characteristics
wasattributedto: Case 7 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-01-18T23:06:16.531997+00:00
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Client_W_Confidentiality_Boundary
type: PublicDomainDisclosureConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A uploaded client data to AI interface without permission
confidencescore: 0.9
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintsource: Code section II.1.c
constraintstatement: Cannot upload Client W's confidential information to open-source AI interfaces without prior consent
enforcementmechanism: Professional ethics code and potential legal action
generatedattime: 2026-01-05T18:55:18.056468
severity: critical
sourcetext: confidential information can only be shared with prior consent of the Client
temporalscope: Throughout project engagement with Client W
wasgeneratedby: ProEthica Dual Constraints Extraction
generated at time: 2026-01-18T23:06:16.538542+00:00
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Client_W_Information_Package
type: Resource
type: NamedIndividual
confidencescore: 0.85
createdby: Client W
generatedattime: 2026-01-05T18:48:36.176849
hasdocumenttitle: Relevant information provided by Client W
sourcetext: Engineer A gathered the relevant information provided by Client W
usedby: Engineer A
usedincontext: Input into AI software for report and design generation
generated at time: 2026-01-18T23:06:16.531800+00:00
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Competence_AICase_Canon
type: CompetencePrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer A's use of AI for environmental engineering work
balancedwith: Efficiency needs
balancedwith: Innovation adoption
generatedattime: 2026-01-05T18:53:53.108261
hascaserelevance: Establishes that Engineer A had domain competence but may have lacked competence in AI tool oversight
hasconcreteexpression: perform services only in areas of their competence
hasinterpretation: Competence extends to proper use and oversight of AI tools, not just technical domain knowledge
hastensionresolution: Competence requirement satisfied when engineer has expertise and properly reviews AI output
invokedby: BER
sourcetext: Fundamental Canon I.2 states that engineers 'perform services only in areas of their competence'
wasgeneratedby: ProEthica Dual Principles Extraction
generated at time: 2026-01-18T23:06:16.536696+00:00
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Competence_AIUsage_Facts
type: CompetencePrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Use of AI software for report generation and design documents
balancedwith: Efficiency needs due to loss of mentor
generatedattime: 2026-01-05T18:51:06.631129
hascaserelevance: Central to evaluating whether Engineer A met professional standards
hasconcreteexpression: Not being familiar with the full functionality of the AI software, including the accuracy and originality of AI-generated text
hasinterpretation: Professional competence requires understanding tools being used, which Engineer A lacked
hastensionresolution: Engineer A attempted thorough review but still had gaps in understanding
invokedby: Narrator describing Engineer A's situation
sourcetext: Not being familiar with the full functionality of the AI software, including the accuracy and originality of AI-generated text
wasgeneratedby: ProEthica Dual Principles Extraction
generated at time: 2026-01-18T23:06:16.533452+00:00
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Competence_TechnicalWriting_Facts
type: CompetencePrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Decision to use AI for report writing
balancedwith: Client expectations
balancedwith: Professional autonomy
generatedattime: 2026-01-05T18:51:06.631129
hascaserelevance: Contextualizes why Engineer A turned to AI assistance
hasconcreteexpression: Engineer A is known for their strong technical expertise but is, personally, less confident in their technical writing
hasinterpretation: Recognition of personal limitations in writing competence led to seeking assistance
hastensionresolution: Previously resolved through mentorship, now attempted through AI
invokedby: Narrator describing Engineer A's capabilities
sourcetext: Engineer A is known for their strong technical expertise but is, personally, less confident in their technical writing
wasgeneratedby: ProEthica Dual Principles Extraction
generated at time: 2026-01-18T23:06:16.533816+00:00
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Conclusion_1
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
conclusion text: Engineer A's use of AI in report writing was partly ethical, and partly unethical.
conclusion type: board_explicit
generated at time: 2026-01-18T23:06:16.541335+00:00
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Conclusion_101
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
conclusion text: Beyond the Board's finding that Engineer A's AI use was 'partly ethical, and partly unethical,' the case reveals a critical gap in professional development frameworks for emerging technologies. Engineer A's situation—losing mentorship support precisely when facing unfamiliar AI tools—highlights how traditional competence maintenance structures may be inadequate for rapid technological change. The Board's conclusion implicitly recognizes that competence is not binary but contextual, requiring engineers to develop adaptive learning strategies rather than relying solely on established mentorship patterns.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-01-18T23:06:16.541429+00:00
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Conclusion_102
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
conclusion text: The Board's conclusion that disclosure is not required 'unless such disclosure is required under Engineer A's contract' establishes a contractual rather than ethical baseline for AI transparency. However, this approach may inadequately address the evolving nature of informed consent in professional services. When AI tools fundamentally alter the nature of professional work products—potentially affecting accuracy, originality, and liability—the traditional contract-based disclosure framework may need supplementation with professional judgment-based disclosure standards.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-01-18T23:06:16.541509+00:00
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Conclusion_2
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
conclusion text: The use of AI-assisted drafting tools by Engineer A was not unethical per se.
conclusion type: board_explicit
generated at time: 2026-01-18T23:06:16.530218+00:00
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Conclusion_201
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
conclusion text: Addressing the implicit question about alternative mentorship arrangements (Q101), Engineer A had several ethically preferable options before resorting to unfamiliar AI tools. These included: seeking temporary mentorship from other qualified professionals, requesting project timeline extensions to allow for skill development, or declining the project while referring Client W to more suitable practitioners. The choice to proceed with AI tools without adequate preparation represents a failure to exhaust reasonable alternatives for maintaining competence, particularly given the public safety implications of groundwater infrastructure design.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-01-18T23:06:16.541577+00:00
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Conclusion_202
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
conclusion text: From a virtue ethics perspective (Q303), Engineer A's actions reveal a deficiency in the professional virtue of prudence—the practical wisdom to recognize one's limitations and act accordingly. While the desire to serve Client W demonstrates commitment, the decision to use unfamiliar AI tools to compensate for acknowledged weaknesses shows insufficient regard for the potential consequences to public welfare. A virtuous engineer would have prioritized competence development or sought appropriate collaboration rather than relying on technological substitutes for professional judgment and skill.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-01-18T23:06:16.541628+00:00
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Conclusion_3
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
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
generated at time: 2026-01-18T23:06:16.541383+00:00
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Conclusion_301
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
conclusion text: The case reveals an unresolved tension between the Competence_AICase_Canon and Confidentiality_AICase_Upload principles (Q201). Engineer A faced an impossible choice: either maintain client confidentiality by avoiding AI tools that require data upload, or pursue competence enhancement through AI assistance at the cost of potentially compromising confidential information. The Board's analysis suggests this tension was inadequately resolved, as Engineer A proceeded with data upload without explicit client consent, prioritizing perceived competence over confidentiality protection.
conclusion type: principle_synthesis
generated at time: 2026-01-18T23:06:16.541671+00:00
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Conclusion_302
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
conclusion text: The interaction between ResponsibleCharge_AICase_Violation and Transparency_AICase_Attribution principles demonstrates a fundamental challenge in AI-assisted professional practice. Engineer A's failure to adequately disclose AI contributions while maintaining responsible charge creates a paradox: claiming professional responsibility for work products while obscuring the actual sources of professional judgment. This case suggests that responsible charge in the AI era may require enhanced transparency standards to maintain the integrity of professional accountability.
conclusion type: principle_synthesis
generated at time: 2026-01-18T23:06:16.541720+00:00
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Confidential Data Upload
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-01-18T23:06:16.540005+00:00
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Confidential Data Upload → Quality Discrepancy Discovery
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-01-18T23:06:16.540196+00:00
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Confidentiality_AICase_Upload
type: ConfidentialityPrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer A uploading client data to open-source AI interface
balancedwith: Efficiency of AI use
balancedwith: Technical capabilities
generatedattime: 2026-01-05T18:53:53.108261
hascaserelevance: Identifies a clear ethical violation in Engineer A's use of AI
hasconcreteexpression: confidential information can only be shared with prior consent of the Client
hasinterpretation: Using client data in public AI systems violates confidentiality without explicit permission
hastensionresolution: Confidentiality cannot be compromised for technological convenience
invokedby: BER
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
wasgeneratedby: ProEthica Dual Principles Extraction
generated at time: 2026-01-18T23:06:16.536932+00:00
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Cursory Design Review
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-01-18T23:06:16.539948+00:00
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Cursory Design Review → Technical Error Detection
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-01-18T23:06:16.540108+00:00
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

DP1
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP1
focus: Engineer A must decide whether to disclose AI tool usage to Client W
generated at time: 2026-01-18T23:06:16.530291+00:00
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

DP2
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP2
focus: Engineer A must verify AI-generated outputs and ensure regulatory compliance
generated at time: 2026-01-18T23:06:16.542665+00:00
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

DP3
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP3
focus: Engineer A must ensure competence in AI tool usage and quality assurance
generated at time: 2026-01-18T23:06:16.542718+00:00
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

DP4
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP4
focus: Engineer A must provide proper supervision transition when AI tools are involved
generated at time: 2026-01-18T23:06:16.542768+00:00
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

EngineerA_AIFirstUse_OpenSourceAI
type: AIToolFirst-UseState
type: NamedIndividual
affectsobligation: Proper attribution of AI use
affectsobligation: Understanding tool accuracy
affectsobligation: Verifying AI-generated content
caseinvolvement: Resulted in incomplete understanding of AI functionality and failure to cite AI use
confidencescore: 0.9
generatedattime: 2026-01-05T18:47:55.015233
hasrelatedparty: Client W
hassubject: Engineer A
hasurgencylevel: high
initiatedat: When starting work on Client W's report
initiatedby: Decision to use open-sourced AI software for report drafting
sourcetext: The AI drafting software was new to the market and Engineer A had no previous experience with the tool
terminatedat: Ongoing through project
terminatedby: Not terminated in case narrative
generated at time: 2026-01-18T23:06:16.530642+00:00
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

EngineerA_AIToolEvaluation
type: AIToolEvaluationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilitystatement: Assess and validate AI-generated content through cross-checking and verification
casecontext: First experience with AI drafting software requiring validation methods
confidence: 0.85
demonstratedthrough: Thorough review, cross-checking against journal articles, search engine queries
enablesobligations: Quality assurance and accuracy verification obligations
generatedattime: 2026-01-05T18:53:05.461186
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: conducted a thorough review of the report, cross-checking key facts against professional journal articles
temporalaspect: Newly developed during project execution
generated at time: 2026-01-18T23:06:16.536268+00:00
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

EngineerA_AIToolReliance_ReportWriting
type: AIToolRelianceState
type: NamedIndividual
affectsobligation: Maintain direction and control
affectsobligation: Provide proper attribution
caseinvolvement: Required thorough review to maintain ethical compliance
confidencescore: 0.85
generatedattime: 2026-01-05T18:49:50.748240
hasrelatedparty: Client W
hassubject: Engineer A
hasurgencylevel: medium
initiatedat: Beginning of report preparation
initiatedby: Decision to use AI language processing software for report writing
sourcetext: Engineer A performed a thorough review, cross-checked key facts against professional sources, and made adjustments to the text
terminatedat: After Engineer A's review process
terminatedby: Completion of thorough review and cross-checking
generated at time: 2026-01-18T23:06:16.532695+00:00
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

EngineerA_AI_Disclosure_ClientW
type: AIDisclosureObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Failed to disclose AI use, leading to client questions about inconsistencies
compliancestatus: unmet
confidencescore: 0.85
derivedfrom: Best practices and transparency principles
enforcementcontext: Professional ethics and client relations
generatedattime: 2026-01-05T18:54:38.842265
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationstatement: Inform Client W when AI substantially contributes to work product
sourcetext: best practices suggest informing clients when AI substantially contributes to a work product
temporalscope: Before or during work product delivery
wasgeneratedby: ProEthica Dual Obligations Extraction
generated at time: 2026-01-18T23:06:16.538106+00:00
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

EngineerA_AI_Verification
type: AIOutputVerificationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilitystatement: Verify and cross-check AI-generated report content against professional sources
casecontext: Successfully verified report but failed with design documents
confidence: 0.9
demonstratedthrough: Thorough review process for report writing
enablesobligations: Maintain direction and control per Code section II.2.b
generatedattime: 2026-01-05T18:56:04.765002
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: Engineer A performed a thorough review, cross-checked key facts against professional sources
temporalaspect: During report preparation phase
generated at time: 2026-01-18T23:06:16.539227+00:00
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

EngineerA_AI_Verification_Designs
type: AIOutputVerificationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Only conducted high-level review, missing critical errors
compliancestatus: unmet
confidencescore: 0.9
derivedfrom: Professional diligence standards
enforcementcontext: Professional standards enforcement
generatedattime: 2026-01-05T18:54:38.842265
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationstatement: Conduct comprehensive verification of AI-generated designs equal to human-created work standards
sourcetext: By relying on AI-assisted tools without a comprehensive verification process of its output, Engineer A risked violating
temporalscope: Before signing and sealing documents
wasgeneratedby: ProEthica Dual Obligations Extraction
generated at time: 2026-01-18T23:06:16.538210+00:00
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

EngineerA_Attribution
type: AttributionandCitationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilitystatement: Provide proper citations and acknowledge AI contributions
casecontext: Failed to include citations or disclose AI use
confidence: 0.85
demonstratedthrough: Absence of citations in AI-generated report
enablesobligations: Give credit per Code section III.9
generatedattime: 2026-01-05T18:56:04.765002
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: engineers are required to 'give credit for engineering work to those to whom credit is due'
temporalaspect: When preparing technical documents
generated at time: 2026-01-18T23:06:16.539593+00:00
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

EngineerA_Attribution_AI_Design
type: AttributionObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Failed to cite AI tools in design document generation
compliancestatus: unmet
confidencescore: 0.95
derivedfrom: Professional transparency requirements
enforcementcontext: Client requirements and professional standards
generatedattime: 2026-01-05T18:51:46.401098
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationstatement: Must cite use of AI-assisted drafting tools in engineering design documents
sourcetext: Engineer A did not cite the AI-assisted drafting tools they used to generate the engineering design documents
temporalscope: At time of design document submission
wasgeneratedby: ProEthica Dual Obligations Extraction
generated at time: 2026-01-18T23:06:16.534557+00:00
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

EngineerA_Attribution_AI_Report
type: AttributionObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A failed to cite AI software use in draft report
compliancestatus: unmet
confidencescore: 0.95
derivedfrom: Professional integrity and transparency standards
enforcementcontext: Client review and professional standards
generatedattime: 2026-01-05T18:51:46.401098
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationstatement: Must cite use of AI software and large language models in report generation
sourcetext: Engineer A did not cite their use of AI-software or its large language models
temporalscope: At time of report submission
wasgeneratedby: ProEthica Dual Obligations Extraction
generated at time: 2026-01-18T23:06:16.534451+00:00
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

EngineerA_Attribution_AI_Sources
type: AttributionObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Failed to include citations and acknowledge AI contribution
compliancestatus: unmet
confidencescore: 0.95
derivedfrom: NSPE Code III.9
enforcementcontext: Professional standards review
generatedattime: 2026-01-05T18:54:38.842265
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationstatement: Give credit for engineering work including AI contributions and cite technical authorities
sourcetext: facts do not indicate the AI-generated report included citations of pertinent documents of technical authority
temporalscope: In final report submission
wasgeneratedby: ProEthica Dual Obligations Extraction
generated at time: 2026-01-18T23:06:16.537700+00:00
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

EngineerA_Competence_AI_Tools
type: CompetenceObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A was competent in environmental engineering and performed thorough review
compliancestatus: met
confidencescore: 0.95
derivedfrom: NSPE Code II.2.a
enforcementcontext: BER review of professional conduct
generatedattime: 2026-01-05T18:54:38.842265
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationstatement: Perform services only in areas of competence including proper use of AI tools
sourcetext: Engineer A, as an experienced environmental engineer, was competent to analyze groundwater monitoring data
temporalscope: During groundwater monitoring project
wasgeneratedby: ProEthica Dual Obligations Extraction
generated at time: 2026-01-18T23:06:16.537437+00:00
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

EngineerA_CompromisedOversight_WithoutEngineerB
type: CompromisedOversightState
type: NamedIndividual
affectsobligation: Exercise professional judgment
affectsobligation: Maintain responsible charge
affectsobligation: Provide adequate supervision and control
caseinvolvement: Led to over-reliance on AI tools without proper verification
confidencescore: 0.9
generatedattime: 2026-01-05T18:49:50.748240
hasrelatedparty: Client W
hasrelatedparty: Engineer B
hassubject: Engineer A
hasurgencylevel: high
initiatedat: When Engineer A began working without Engineer B
initiatedby: Engineer B's absence from the project
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
terminatedat: Ongoing at case conclusion
terminatedby: Not terminated in the case
generated at time: 2026-01-18T23:06:16.532298+00:00
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

EngineerA_Confidentiality_ClientW
type: ConfidentialityObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A uploaded client information to open-source AI interface without permission
compliancestatus: unmet
confidencescore: 1.0
derivedfrom: NSPE Code II.1.c
enforcementcontext: BER ethical review
generatedattime: 2026-01-05T18:54:38.842265
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationstatement: Must not share Client W's confidential information without prior consent
sourcetext: Engineer A uploaded Client W's information into the AI open-source interface...tantamount to placing...in the public domain
temporalscope: When using AI interface
wasgeneratedby: ProEthica Dual Obligations Extraction
generated at time: 2026-01-18T23:06:16.537584+00:00
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

EngineerA_Data_Privacy
type: DataPrivacyProtectionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilitystatement: Protect client confidential information when using AI tools
casecontext: Uploaded client information to open-source AI without permission
confidence: 0.95
demonstratedthrough: Failed to obtain consent before uploading to AI
enablesobligations: Compliance with Code section II.1.c on confidential information
generatedattime: 2026-01-05T18:56:04.765002
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
temporalaspect: When using AI tools with client data
generated at time: 2026-01-18T23:06:16.539444+00:00
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

EngineerA_DraftSubmission_ClientWReport
type: DraftSubmissionState
type: NamedIndividual
affectsobligation: Appropriate use of professional seal
affectsobligation: Clear document status communication
affectsobligation: Professional standards for draft documents
caseinvolvement: Created potential confusion about document completeness despite draft labeling
confidencescore: 0.85
generatedattime: 2026-01-05T18:47:55.015233
hasrelatedparty: Client W
hassubject: Engineer A
hasurgencylevel: medium
initiatedat: Upon initial report submission
initiatedby: Submission of draft report with seal to Client W
sourcetext: 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
terminatedat: When Client W provided feedback
terminatedby: Client review and feedback
generated at time: 2026-01-18T23:06:16.530960+00:00
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

EngineerA_Environmental_Analysis
type: TechnicalCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilitystatement: Analyze groundwater monitoring data and assess contaminant risks
casecontext: Engineer A was competent to analyze groundwater monitoring data
confidence: 1.0
demonstratedthrough: Years of experience as environmental engineer
enablesobligations: Perform services only in areas of competence per Canon I.2
generatedattime: 2026-01-05T18:56:04.765002
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: expert
sourcetext: Engineer A, as an experienced environmental engineer, was competent to analyze groundwater monitoring data and assess contaminant risks
temporalaspect: Throughout project duration
generated at time: 2026-01-18T23:06:16.539133+00:00
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

EngineerA_GroundwaterAnalysis
type: GroundwaterMonitoringAnalysisCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilitystatement: Analyze groundwater monitoring data from environmental sites
casecontext: Applied to analyze data for emerging contaminant report
confidence: 0.95
demonstratedthrough: Over a year of site observation and monitoring
enablesobligations: Environmental assessment and reporting obligations
generatedattime: 2026-01-05T18:53:05.461186
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: perform an analysis of groundwater monitoring data from a site Engineer A had been observing for over a year
temporalaspect: Demonstrated over more than one year period
generated at time: 2026-01-18T23:06:16.535883+00:00
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

EngineerA_InadequateReview_AIDesignDocuments
type: InadequateReviewState
type: NamedIndividual
affectsobligation: Ensure safety features included
affectsobligation: Maintain direction and control per Code section II.2.b
affectsobligation: Verify regulatory compliance
caseinvolvement: Resulted in misaligned dimensions and omitted safety features being submitted to client
confidencescore: 0.9
generatedattime: 2026-01-05T18:49:50.748240
hasrelatedparty: Client W
hassubject: Engineer A
hasurgencylevel: high
initiatedat: When reviewing AI-assisted drafting tool output
initiatedby: Decision to only conduct high-level review of AI-generated designs
sourcetext: Engineer A elected to only conduct a high-level review and adjusted certain elements to align with site-specific conditions
terminatedat: When Client W reviewed the design documents
terminatedby: Client W's discovery of errors
generated at time: 2026-01-18T23:06:16.532565+00:00
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

EngineerA_InsufficientAttribution_AIContent
type: InsufficientAttributionState
type: NamedIndividual
affectsobligation: Honest representation of work origin
affectsobligation: Proper attribution of sources
affectsobligation: Transparency in work methods
caseinvolvement: Client W unaware of AI involvement in document creation
confidencescore: 0.95
generatedattime: 2026-01-05T18:47:55.015233
hasrelatedparty: Client W
hassubject: Engineer A
hasurgencylevel: high
initiatedat: When submitting documents to Client W
initiatedby: Failure to cite AI software use in report and design documents
sourcetext: Engineer A did not cite their use of AI-software or its large language models... Engineer A did not cite the AI-assisted drafting tools
terminatedat: Ongoing
terminatedby: Not terminated in case narrative
generated at time: 2026-01-18T23:06:16.531114+00:00
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

EngineerA_InsufficientAttribution_AIContributions
type: InsufficientAttributionState
type: NamedIndividual
affectsobligation: Give credit per Code section III.9
affectsobligation: Maintain transparency
affectsobligation: Recognize proprietary interests
caseinvolvement: Failed to disclose AI's substantial contribution to work products
confidencescore: 0.9
generatedattime: 2026-01-05T18:49:50.748240
hasrelatedparty: Client W
hassubject: Engineer A
hasurgencylevel: medium
initiatedat: When submitting AI-assisted work products
initiatedby: Failure to cite AI contributions and technical sources
sourcetext: the facts do not indicate the AI-generated report included citations of pertinent documents of technical authority
terminatedat: Ongoing at case conclusion
terminatedby: Not terminated in the case
generated at time: 2026-01-18T23:06:16.532812+00:00
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

EngineerA_MentorLoss_EngineerB_Retirement
type: MentorLossState
type: NamedIndividual
affectsobligation: Quality assurance review of reports
affectsobligation: Technical writing confidence
affectsobligation: Work product refinement
caseinvolvement: Led Engineer A to seek AI tools as alternative support for report writing
confidencescore: 0.95
generatedattime: 2026-01-05T18:47:55.015233
hasrelatedparty: Client W
hasrelatedparty: Engineer B
hassubject: Engineer A
hasurgencylevel: medium
initiatedat: Before the Client W project began
initiatedby: Engineer B's retirement
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
terminatedat: Ongoing
terminatedby: Not terminated in case narrative
generated at time: 2026-01-18T23:06:16.530436+00:00
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

EngineerA_NonCompliant_DesignDocuments
type: Non-CompliantState
type: NamedIndividual
affectsobligation: Ensure design accuracy
affectsobligation: Include required safety features
affectsobligation: Meet regulatory standards
caseinvolvement: Required immediate revision to meet professional and regulatory standards
confidencescore: 0.95
generatedattime: 2026-01-05T18:47:55.015233
hasrelatedparty: Client W
hasrelatedparty: Engineer A
hassubject: Engineer A's design documents
hasurgencylevel: high
initiatedat: When Client W reviewed the design documents
initiatedby: Discovery of misaligned dimensions and missing safety features
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
terminatedat: Pending revision completion
terminatedby: Revision instructions from Client W
generated at time: 2026-01-18T23:06:16.531245+00:00
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

EngineerA_QualityAssurance_Review
type: QualityAssuranceObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Failed to provide adequate QA review of AI-generated content
compliancestatus: unmet
confidencescore: 0.95
derivedfrom: Professional standards of practice
enforcementcontext: Professional review and licensure requirements
generatedattime: 2026-01-05T18:54:38.842265
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationstatement: Provide experienced-based quality assurance review of all work products
sourcetext: Engineer A, as the engineer in Responsible Charge...is required to provide an experienced-based quality assurance review
temporalscope: Before finalizing engineering documents
wasgeneratedby: ProEthica Dual Obligations Extraction
generated at time: 2026-01-18T23:06:16.538315+00:00
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

EngineerA_Quality_Assurance
type: QualityAssuranceObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Failed to establish alternative QA after mentor retired
compliancestatus: unmet
confidencescore: 0.85
derivedfrom: Professional standards of practice
enforcementcontext: Client expectations and professional standards
generatedattime: 2026-01-05T18:51:46.401098
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationstatement: Must implement appropriate review processes for all deliverables
sourcetext: Client W noticed several issues with the AI-generated design documents, including misaligned dimensions
temporalscope: Throughout project delivery
wasgeneratedby: ProEthica Dual Obligations Extraction
generated at time: 2026-01-18T23:06:16.534795+00:00
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

EngineerA_RegulatoryCompliance
type: RegulatoryComplianceCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilitystatement: Ensure designs meet local regulations and safety standards
casecontext: Failed to ensure AI-generated designs met all regulatory requirements
confidence: 0.9
demonstratedthrough: Attempted compliance but failed to identify key safety features
enablesobligations: Safety and regulatory compliance obligations
generatedattime: 2026-01-05T18:53:05.461186
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: omission of key safety features required by local regulations
temporalaspect: Demonstrated inadequately during design document preparation
generated at time: 2026-01-18T23:06:16.536368+00:00
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

EngineerA_Regulatory_Compliance
type: RegulatoryComplianceVerificationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Submitted designs missing required safety features
compliancestatus: unmet
confidencescore: 0.85
derivedfrom: Local regulations and professional standards
enforcementcontext: Regulatory review and client requirements
generatedattime: 2026-01-05T18:51:46.401098
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationstatement: Must verify designs meet all local regulatory requirements
sourcetext: omission of key safety features required by local regulations
temporalscope: Before design submission
wasgeneratedby: ProEthica Dual Obligations Extraction
generated at time: 2026-01-18T23:06:16.535185+00:00
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

EngineerA_ResponsibleCharge_Design
type: ResponsibleChargeObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Only conducted high-level review without proper oversight
compliancestatus: unmet
confidencescore: 1.0
derivedfrom: NSPE Position Statement No. 10-1778
enforcementcontext: Licensure law enforcement
generatedattime: 2026-01-05T18:54:38.842265
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationstatement: Maintain active engagement and personal decision-making from conception to completion
sourcetext: Engineer A did not maintain responsible charge in violation of licensure law which violates Code section III.8.a
temporalscope: Throughout design document preparation
wasgeneratedby: ProEthica Dual Obligations Extraction
generated at time: 2026-01-18T23:06:16.537820+00:00
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

EngineerA_Responsible_Charge
type: ResponsibleChargeCapability
type: ResponsibleChargeObligation
type: NamedIndividual
capabilitystatement: Maintain active engagement and supervisory control from conception to completion
casecontext: Applied seal to AI-generated work with limited personal involvement
casecontext: Failed to maintain responsible charge over AI-generated designs
compliancestatus: unclear
confidence: 0.95
confidencescore: 0.8
demonstratedthrough: Required but inadequately demonstrated
derivedfrom: State licensing requirements
enablesobligations: Compliance with licensure law and Code section III.8.a
enforcementcontext: State law and professional board
generatedattime: 2026-01-05T18:51:46.401098
generatedattime: 2026-01-05T18:56:04.765002
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationstatement: Must maintain personal decision-making authority throughout engineering process
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: Engineer A did not maintain responsible charge in violation of licensure law which violates Code section III.8.a
sourcetext: applied their seal consistent with state law
temporalaspect: Throughout entire project lifecycle
temporalscope: Throughout project lifecycle
wasgeneratedby: ProEthica Dual Obligations Extraction
generated at time: 2026-01-18T23:06:16.534954+00:00
generated at time: 2026-01-18T23:06:16.539336+00:00
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

EngineerA_Safety_PublicWelfare
type: SafetyObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Errors in AI-generated design could have led to safety hazards
compliancestatus: unmet
confidencescore: 0.95
derivedfrom: NSPE Fundamental Canon I.1
enforcementcontext: Professional ethics enforcement
generatedattime: 2026-01-05T18:54:38.842265
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationstatement: Hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public
sourcetext: errors in the AI-generated design documents could have led to regulatory noncompliance and safety hazards
temporalscope: In all engineering work
wasgeneratedby: ProEthica Dual Obligations Extraction
generated at time: 2026-01-18T23:06:16.537943+00:00
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

EngineerA_TechnicalExpertise
type: TechnicalCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilitystatement: Strong technical expertise in environmental engineering
casecontext: Recognized strength enabling client retention
confidence: 0.95
demonstratedthrough: Several years of experience and professional engineering license
enablesobligations: Technical analysis and engineering design obligations
generatedattime: 2026-01-05T18:53:05.461186
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: expert
sourcetext: Engineer A, an environmental engineer with several years of experience and holding a professional engineering license
temporalaspect: Developed over several years of practice
generated at time: 2026-01-18T23:06:16.535988+00:00
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

EngineerA_TechnicalWriting
type: TechnicalWritingCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilitystatement: Produce technical reports and documentation
casecontext: Self-identified area of lower confidence requiring support
confidence: 0.9
demonstratedthrough: Previous reliance on mentor guidance and quality assurance reviews
enablesobligations: Professional reporting and documentation obligations
generatedattime: 2026-01-05T18:53:05.461186
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: Engineer A is known for their strong technical expertise but is, personally, less confident in their technical writing
temporalaspect: Ongoing development, previously supported by mentorship
generated at time: 2026-01-18T23:06:16.536137+00:00
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

EngineerA_TechnicalWritingInsecurity
type: TechnicalWritingInsecurityState
type: NamedIndividual
affectsobligation: Professional communication standards
affectsobligation: Report quality
affectsobligation: Self-sufficiency in deliverables
caseinvolvement: Motivated reliance on AI tools and previous dependence on Engineer B's reviews
confidencescore: 0.95
generatedattime: 2026-01-05T18:47:55.015233
hasrelatedparty: Client W
hasrelatedparty: Engineer B
hassubject: Engineer A
hasurgencylevel: medium
initiatedat: Pre-existing condition
initiatedby: Long-standing personal assessment of writing skills
sourcetext: Engineer A is known for their strong technical expertise but is, personally, less confident in their technical writing
terminatedat: Ongoing
terminatedby: Not terminated in case narrative
generated at time: 2026-01-18T23:06:16.530816+00:00
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

EngineerA_Technology_Verification
type: TechnologyVerificationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Only conducted cursory review of AI-generated design plans
compliancestatus: unmet
confidencescore: 0.9
derivedfrom: Professional competence standards
enforcementcontext: Client quality requirements
generatedattime: 2026-01-05T18:51:46.401098
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationstatement: Must thoroughly verify AI-generated outputs before professional use
sourcetext: Engineer A completed a cursory review of the AI-generated plans
temporalscope: Before submission of deliverables
wasgeneratedby: ProEthica Dual Obligations Extraction
generated at time: 2026-01-18T23:06:16.534679+00:00
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

EngineerA_Tool_Familiarity
type: ToolFamiliarityObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Used unfamiliar AI software for critical client deliverables
compliancestatus: unmet
confidencescore: 0.9
derivedfrom: Professional competence requirements
enforcementcontext: Professional standards and client expectations
generatedattime: 2026-01-05T18:51:46.401098
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationstatement: Must become familiar with AI software functionality before professional use
sourcetext: The AI drafting software was new to the market and Engineer A had no previous experience with the tool
temporalscope: Before using tool for client deliverables
wasgeneratedby: ProEthica Dual Obligations Extraction
generated at time: 2026-01-18T23:06:16.535059+00:00
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

EngineerB_TechnicalWriting
type: TechnicalWritingCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilitystatement: Provide guidance and quality assurance for technical reports
casecontext: Previously supported Engineer A's report development
confidence: 0.95
demonstratedthrough: Years of mentorship and supervisory review
enablesobligations: Quality assurance and mentorship obligations
generatedattime: 2026-01-05T18:53:05.461186
possessedby: Engineer B
proficiencylevel: expert
sourcetext: relied on guidance and quality assurance reviews by their mentor and supervisor, Engineer B, to refine report drafts
temporalaspect: Previously available, now retired
generated at time: 2026-01-18T23:06:16.536461+00:00
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Engineer A
type: EnvironmentalEngineerRole
type: NamedIndividual
caseinvolvement: Primary engineer responsible for delivering report and design documents using AI assistance
generatedattime: 2026-01-05T18:46:59.158495
hasactiveobligation: Analyze groundwater monitoring data
hasactiveobligation: Develop engineering design documents
hasactiveobligation: Prepare comprehensive report on organic compound
hasethicaltension: Using AI software without disclosure while applying professional seal
hasexperience: several years of experience
haslicense: professional engineering license
hastitle: environmental engineer
hasweakness: less confident in their technical writing
sourcetext: Engineer A, an environmental engineer with several years of experience and holding a professional engineering license
wasattributedto: Case 7 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-01-18T23:06:16.531899+00:00
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Engineer A's reliance on Engineer B's guidance before Engineer B's retirement
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-01-18T23:06:16.540265+00:00
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Engineer B
type: EngineeringMentorRole
type: NamedIndividual
caseinvolvement: Former mentor no longer available to provide guidance
generatedattime: 2026-01-05T18:46:59.158495
hasactiveobligation: Previously provided guidance and quality assurance reviews
hasrole: mentor and supervisor
hasstatus: recently retired
sourcetext: their mentor and supervisor, Engineer B, to refine report drafts. But Engineer B recently retired
wasattributedto: Case 7 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-01-18T23:06:16.532075+00:00
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Engineer B retirement before Engineer A needing to deliver report and design documents
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-01-18T23:06:16.540237+00:00
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Engineering_Judgment_Preservation
type: TechnologySubstitutionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A relied on AI without adequate engineering judgment application
confidencescore: 1.0
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintsource: BER Case 98-3
constraintstatement: Technology must never replace or substitute for engineering judgment
enforcementmechanism: Professional standards and licensure requirements
generatedattime: 2026-01-05T18:55:18.056468
severity: critical
sourcetext: technology has an important place in the practice of engineering, but it must never be a replacement of a substitute for engineering judgment
temporalscope: Continuous throughout engineering practice
wasgeneratedby: ProEthica Dual Constraints Extraction
generated at time: 2026-01-18T23:06:16.538922+00:00
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

I.1.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-01-18T23:06:16.540372+00:00
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

I.2.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-01-18T23:06:16.540395+00:00
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

I.5.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-01-18T23:06:16.540421+00:00
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

II.1.c.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-01-18T23:06:16.540444+00:00
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

II.2.a.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-01-18T23:06:16.540472+00:00
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

II.2.b.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-01-18T23:06:16.540498+00:00
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

III.3.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-01-18T23:06:16.540528+00:00
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

III.8.a.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-01-18T23:06:16.540555+00:00
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

III.9.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-01-18T23:06:16.540602+00:00
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Integrity_AICase_Deception
type: IntegrityPrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer A's use of AI for report writing
balancedwith: Attribution needs
balancedwith: Transparency requirements
generatedattime: 2026-01-05T18:53:53.108261
hascaserelevance: Establishes that AI use itself is not deceptive
hasconcreteexpression: avoid deceptive acts
hasinterpretation: Using AI assistance is not inherently deceptive if work is accurate and properly reviewed
hastensionresolution: No deception if qualifications not misrepresented and content accurate
invokedby: BER
sourcetext: Fundamental Canon I.5 requires an Engineer to 'avoid deceptive acts,' which was not violated here
wasgeneratedby: ProEthica Dual Principles Extraction
generated at time: 2026-01-18T23:06:16.537276+00:00
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Integrity_SealApplication_Facts
type: IntegrityPrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Draft report submission
balancedwith: Legal compliance
balancedwith: Professional responsibility for AI-generated content
generatedattime: 2026-01-05T18:51:06.631129
hascaserelevance: Raises question of integrity in sealing partially AI-generated work
hasconcreteexpression: applied their seal consistent with state law
hasinterpretation: Professional seal represents personal accountability for work product
hastensionresolution: Engineer A sealed work despite not fully understanding AI contribution
invokedby: Engineer A's action
sourcetext: applied their seal consistent with state law
wasgeneratedby: ProEthica Dual Principles Extraction
generated at time: 2026-01-18T23:06:16.534335+00:00
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Local_Safety_Regulations
type: RegulatoryConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: AI-generated designs omitted required safety features
confidencescore: 0.95
constrainedentity: Engineering design documents
constraintsource: Local regulatory requirements
constraintstatement: Must include key safety features required by local regulations
enforcementmechanism: Regulatory compliance review
generatedattime: 2026-01-05T18:52:22.276856
severity: critical
sourcetext: omission of key safety features required by local regulations
temporalscope: During design document preparation
wasgeneratedby: ProEthica Dual Constraints Extraction
generated at time: 2026-01-18T23:06:16.535534+00:00
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Local_Safety_Regulations_Site
type: LocalSafetyRegulations
type: NamedIndividual
confidencescore: 0.85
createdby: Local regulatory authority
generatedattime: 2026-01-05T18:48:36.176849
hasdocumenttitle: Local regulations for groundwater infrastructure safety
sourcetext: omission of key safety features required by local regulations
usedby: Client W (for review)
usedincontext: Identified missing safety features in AI-generated design
generated at time: 2026-01-18T23:06:16.531612+00:00
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Mentor Loss Event
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-01-18T23:06:16.530111+00:00
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Mentor Loss Event → Quality Discrepancy Discovery
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-01-18T23:06:16.540140+00:00
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Mentor_Unavailability
type: MentorshipAvailabilityConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A had to find alternative methods (AI) to compensate for lost mentorship
confidencescore: 0.95
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintsource: Engineer B's retirement
constraintstatement: Cannot access Engineer B's guidance and quality assurance reviews due to retirement
enforcementmechanism: Physical unavailability of mentor
generatedattime: 2026-01-05T18:52:22.276856
severity: major
sourcetext: But Engineer B recently retired and was no longer available to Engineer A in a work capacity
temporalscope: After Engineer B's retirement
wasgeneratedby: ProEthica Dual Constraints Extraction
generated at time: 2026-01-18T23:06:16.535409+00:00
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

NSPE_Code_of_Ethics
type: LegalResource
type: NamedIndividual
confidencescore: 0.95
createdby: National Society of Professional Engineers
generatedattime: 2026-01-05T18:50:30.860231
hasdocumenttitle: NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers
sourcetext: Fundamental Canon I.2 states that engineers 'perform services only in areas of their competence'
usedby: Board of Ethical Review
usedincontext: Referenced throughout for ethical standards and requirements
generated at time: 2026-01-18T23:06:16.533351+00:00
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

NSPE_Position_Statement_10-1778
type: ProfessionalPositionStatement
type: NamedIndividual
confidencescore: 0.9
createdby: National Society of Professional Engineers
generatedattime: 2026-01-05T18:50:30.860231
hasdocumenttitle: NSPE Position Statement No. 10-1778: Definition of Responsible Charge
sourcetext: NSPE defines 'Responsible Charge' in NSPE Position Statement No. 10-1778
usedby: Board of Ethical Review
usedincontext: Defining 'Responsible Charge' for evaluating Engineer A's oversight
generated at time: 2026-01-18T23:06:16.533075+00:00
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Non-disclosure AI Usage
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-01-18T23:06:16.539978+00:00
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

OpenSource_AI_ReportDrafting_Software
type: AISoftwareTool
type: NamedIndividual
confidencescore: 0.95
createdby: Unspecified AI software developer
generatedattime: 2026-01-05T18:48:36.176849
hasdocumenttitle: Open-sourced AI software for report generation
hasversion: New to market version
sourcetext: Engineer A opted to use open-sourced artificial intelligence (AI) software to create an initial draft of the necessary report
usedby: Engineer A
usedincontext: Used to synthesize information and generate initial draft of contamination report
generated at time: 2026-01-18T23:06:16.531326+00:00
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

ProfessionalJudgment_AICase_Substitute
type: ProfessionalVirtuePrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer A's reliance on AI-generated plans without proper oversight
balancedwith: Efficiency gains
balancedwith: Innovation adoption
generatedattime: 2026-01-05T18:53:53.108261
hascaserelevance: Core principle violated when Engineer A conducted only high-level review
hasconcreteexpression: technology must not replace or be used as a substitute for engineering judgement
hasinterpretation: Professional judgment must guide and validate all technology outputs
hastensionresolution: Technology enhances but cannot replace professional judgment
invokedby: BER
sourcetext: the BER stated that technology must not replace or be used as a substitute for engineering judgement
wasgeneratedby: ProEthica Dual Principles Extraction
generated at time: 2026-01-18T23:06:16.537063+00:00
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Professional_Journal_Articles_Verification
type: ProfessionalJournalArticle
type: NamedIndividual
confidencescore: 0.85
createdby: Various academic and professional authors
generatedattime: 2026-01-05T18:48:36.176849
hasdocumenttitle: Professional journal articles (multiple, unspecified)
sourcetext: cross-checking key facts against professional journal articles
usedby: Engineer A
usedincontext: Cross-checking key facts in AI-generated report
generated at time: 2026-01-18T23:06:16.531514+00:00
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Professional Seal Application
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-01-18T23:06:16.540030+00:00
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Professional_Standard_Compliance
type: RegulatoryConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Client required revision to ensure compliance
confidencescore: 0.9
constrainedentity: Engineering design documents
constraintsource: Professional engineering standards
constraintstatement: Must satisfy necessary professional and regulatory standards
enforcementmechanism: Client review and regulatory oversight
generatedattime: 2026-01-05T18:52:22.276856
severity: critical
sourcetext: ensuring that all elements satisfied the necessary professional and regulatory standards
temporalscope: During document preparation and submission
wasgeneratedby: ProEthica Dual Constraints Extraction
generated at time: 2026-01-18T23:06:16.535786+00:00
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

PublicWelfare_AICase_Canon
type: PublicWelfarePrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: AI-generated design documents with safety omissions
balancedwith: Efficiency through AI use
balancedwith: Time savings
generatedattime: 2026-01-05T18:53:53.108261
hascaserelevance: Central to evaluating whether Engineer A's limited review of AI output was ethical
hasconcreteexpression: hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public
hasinterpretation: AI errors that could lead to safety hazards violate the paramount duty to public welfare
hastensionresolution: Public safety overrides efficiency gains from AI tools
invokedby: BER
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'
wasgeneratedby: ProEthica Dual Principles Extraction
generated at time: 2026-01-18T23:06:16.536560+00:00
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

PublicWelfare_SafetyOmission_Facts
type: PublicWelfarePrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: AI-generated engineering design documents
balancedwith: Efficiency through AI usage
balancedwith: Time constraints
generatedattime: 2026-01-05T18:51:06.631129
hascaserelevance: Demonstrates risk to public welfare from inadequate AI oversight
hasconcreteexpression: omission of key safety features required by local regulations
hasinterpretation: Public welfare requires ensuring safety features are included in designs
hastensionresolution: Client identified failures requiring revision to meet standards
invokedby: Client W's concerns
sourcetext: omission of key safety features required by local regulations
wasgeneratedby: ProEthica Dual Principles Extraction
generated at time: 2026-01-18T23:06:16.533724+00:00
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Quality Discrepancy Discovery
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-01-18T23:06:16.540055+00:00
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_1
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-01-18T23:06:16.541946+00:00
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_10
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-01-18T23:06:16.542218+00:00
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_11
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-01-18T23:06:16.542243+00:00
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_12
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-01-18T23:06:16.542267+00:00
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_13
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-01-18T23:06:16.542292+00:00
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_14
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-01-18T23:06:16.542315+00:00
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_15
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-01-18T23:06:16.542341+00:00
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_2
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-01-18T23:06:16.541979+00:00
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_3
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-01-18T23:06:16.542005+00:00
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_4
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-01-18T23:06:16.542029+00:00
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_5
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-01-18T23:06:16.542068+00:00
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_6
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-01-18T23:06:16.542105+00:00
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_7
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-01-18T23:06:16.542133+00:00
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_8
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-01-18T23:06:16.542162+00:00
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_9
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-01-18T23:06:16.542192+00:00
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Question_1
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
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: 2026-01-18T23:06:16.530167+00:00
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Question_101
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question text: Should Engineer A have sought alternative mentorship or quality assurance arrangements before proceeding with AI tools, given their acknowledged technical writing limitations?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-01-18T23:06:16.540776+00:00
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Question_102
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question text: What ethical obligations arise when an engineer uses unfamiliar technology tools in professional practice without adequate training or experience?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-01-18T23:06:16.540833+00:00
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Question_103
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question text: Does the open-source nature of the AI tools create additional ethical considerations regarding data security, intellectual property, and professional liability?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-01-18T23:06:16.540881+00:00
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Question_2
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
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: 2026-01-18T23:06:16.540680+00:00
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Question_201
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question text: How should Engineer A balance the Competence_AICase_Canon requirement against the Confidentiality_AICase_Upload obligation when AI tools require data input to function effectively?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-01-18T23:06:16.540920+00:00
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Question_202
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question text: Does the ResponsibleCharge_AICase_Violation principle conflict with the Transparency_AICase_Attribution principle when disclosure might undermine client confidence in professional judgment?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-01-18T23:06:16.540963+00:00
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Question_203
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question text: How does the ProfessionalJudgment_AICase_Substitute principle interact with the Competence_TechnicalWriting_Facts when an engineer's weakness in one area leads to AI dependency?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-01-18T23:06:16.541002+00:00
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Question_3
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
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: 2026-01-18T23:06:16.540728+00:00
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Question_301
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question text: From a deontological perspective, did Engineer A fulfill their categorical duty to maintain competence when using unfamiliar AI tools without adequate preparation?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-01-18T23:06:16.541063+00:00
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Question_302
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question text: From a consequentialist perspective, do the potential benefits of AI-assisted engineering work justify the risks to public welfare and professional integrity identified in this case?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-01-18T23:06:16.541115+00:00
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Question_303
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question text: From a virtue ethics perspective, did Engineer A demonstrate the professional virtues of prudence and integrity when choosing to rely on AI tools to compensate for acknowledged weaknesses?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-01-18T23:06:16.541157+00:00
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Question_401
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question text: Would the ethical analysis change if Engineer A had disclosed the AI usage upfront and obtained explicit client consent before proceeding?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-01-18T23:06:16.541196+00:00
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Question_402
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question text: What if Engineer A had declined the project due to the unavailability of Engineer B's mentorship and their own technical writing limitations?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-01-18T23:06:16.541246+00:00
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Question_403
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question text: How would the ethical assessment differ if Engineer A had used proprietary AI tools with established professional validation rather than open-source software?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-01-18T23:06:16.541293+00:00
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_1
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-01-18T23:06:16.542366+00:00
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_2
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-01-18T23:06:16.542405+00:00
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_3
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-01-18T23:06:16.542429+00:00
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_4
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-01-18T23:06:16.542465+00:00
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_5
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-01-18T23:06:16.542491+00:00
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_6
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-01-18T23:06:16.542543+00:00
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_7
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-01-18T23:06:16.542568+00:00
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_8
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-01-18T23:06:16.542595+00:00
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_9
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-01-18T23:06:16.542618+00:00
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

ResponsibleCharge_AICase_Violation
type: ResponsibleCharge
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer A's oversight of AI-generated engineering plans
balancedwith: AI capabilities
balancedwith: Time efficiency
generatedattime: 2026-01-05T18:53:53.108261
hascaserelevance: Engineer A failed to maintain responsible charge by not being actively engaged
hasconcreteexpression: being actively engaged in the engineering process, from conception to completion
hasinterpretation: Reviewing AI output without involvement in design process violates responsible charge
hastensionresolution: Active engagement required regardless of AI assistance
invokedby: BER
invokedby: NSPE Position Statement
sourcetext: Reviewing drawings or documents after preparation without involvement in the design and development process does not satisfy the definition of Responsible Charge
wasgeneratedby: ProEthica Dual Principles Extraction
generated at time: 2026-01-18T23:06:16.537173+00:00
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Responsible_Charge_Maintenance
type: ResponsibleChargeConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A failed to maintain responsible charge when relying on AI without proper oversight
confidencescore: 0.9
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintsource: NSPE Position Statement No. 10-1778
constraintstatement: Must be actively engaged in engineering process from conception to completion with personal decision-making authority
enforcementmechanism: Licensure law and professional standards
generatedattime: 2026-01-05T18:55:18.056468
severity: critical
sourcetext: being actively engaged in the engineering process, from conception to completion
temporalscope: Throughout entire project lifecycle
wasgeneratedby: ProEthica Dual Constraints Extraction
generated at time: 2026-01-18T23:06:16.539024+00:00
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Safety_Feature_Inclusion_Boundary
type: SafetyConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: AI-generated plans omitted key safety features required for compliance
confidencescore: 0.95
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintsource: Fundamental Canon I.1 and local regulations
constraintstatement: Cannot omit key safety features necessary for regulatory compliance in design documents
enforcementmechanism: Regulatory compliance checks and professional review
generatedattime: 2026-01-05T18:55:18.056468
severity: critical
sourcetext: key safety features (including those necessary for compliance with local regulations) were omitted
temporalscope: During design document preparation and review
wasgeneratedby: ProEthica Dual Constraints Extraction
generated at time: 2026-01-18T23:06:16.538780+00:00
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Site_Groundwater_Monitoring_Data_Year
type: GroundwaterMonitoringData
type: NamedIndividual
confidencescore: 0.9
createdat: Collected over one year period
createdby: Site monitoring system/Client W
generatedattime: 2026-01-05T18:48:36.176849
hasdocumenttitle: Groundwater monitoring data from observed site
sourcetext: groundwater monitoring data from a site Engineer A had been observing for over a year
usedby: Engineer A
usedincontext: Analysis for contamination report and infrastructure design
generated at time: 2026-01-18T23:06:16.531724+00:00
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Site observation overlaps Client W retention for report preparation
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-01-18T23:06:16.540292+00:00
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Technical Error Detection
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-01-18T23:06:16.540079+00:00
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Technical_Writing_Competence
type: CompetenceConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Led Engineer A to seek AI assistance for report writing
confidencescore: 0.85
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintsource: Engineer A's self-assessed capabilities
constraintstatement: Limited by personal lack of confidence in technical writing abilities
enforcementmechanism: Self-imposed limitation
generatedattime: 2026-01-05T18:52:22.276856
severity: minor
sourcetext: Engineer A is known for their strong technical expertise but is, personally, less confident in their technical writing
temporalscope: Throughout professional practice
wasgeneratedby: ProEthica Dual Constraints Extraction
generated at time: 2026-01-18T23:06:16.535649+00:00
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Thorough Report Review
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-01-18T23:06:16.539915+00:00
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Transparency_AICase_Attribution
type: TransparencyPrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: AI's substantial contribution to report and design documents
balancedwith: Client expectations
balancedwith: Professional autonomy
generatedattime: 2026-01-05T18:53:53.108261
hascaserelevance: Critical for maintaining trust when AI substantially contributes to work product
hasconcreteexpression: Engineers shall give credit for engineering work to those to whom credit is due
hasinterpretation: AI contributions should be disclosed even though AI is not human
hastensionresolution: Proactive disclosure strengthens trust despite no universal guidelines
invokedby: BER
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'
wasgeneratedby: ProEthica Dual Principles Extraction
generated at time: 2026-01-18T23:06:16.536813+00:00
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Transparency_NonDisclosure_Facts
type: TransparencyPrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Submission of draft report and design documents to Client W
balancedwith: Client confidence
balancedwith: Professional reputation concerns
generatedattime: 2026-01-05T18:51:06.631129
hascaserelevance: Key ethical violation regarding honest representation of work methods
hasconcreteexpression: Engineer A did not cite their use of AI-software or its large language models
hasinterpretation: Transparency would require disclosure of AI tool usage in work product creation
hastensionresolution: Engineer A chose non-disclosure, potentially violating transparency obligations
invokedby: Narrator describing Engineer A's actions
sourcetext: Engineer A did not cite their use of AI-software or its large language models
wasgeneratedby: ProEthica Dual Principles Extraction
generated at time: 2026-01-18T23:06:16.533621+00:00
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

Use AI Software Decision
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-01-18T23:06:16.539876+00:00
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

val_A1
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-01-18T23:06:16.543612+00:00
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

val_A10
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-01-18T23:06:16.543861+00:00
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

val_A11
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-01-18T23:06:16.543920+00:00
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

val_A12
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-01-18T23:06:16.543953+00:00
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

val_A13
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-01-18T23:06:16.543980+00:00
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

val_A14
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-01-18T23:06:16.544018+00:00
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

val_A15
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-01-18T23:06:16.544071+00:00
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

val_A16
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-01-18T23:06:16.544122+00:00
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

val_A2
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-01-18T23:06:16.543647+00:00
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

val_A3
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-01-18T23:06:16.543681+00:00
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

val_A4
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-01-18T23:06:16.543707+00:00
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

val_A5
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-01-18T23:06:16.543732+00:00
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

val_A6
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-01-18T23:06:16.543755+00:00
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

val_A7
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-01-18T23:06:16.543780+00:00
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

val_A8
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-01-18T23:06:16.543804+00:00
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction

val_A9
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-01-18T23:06:16.543837+00:00
was generated by: ProEthica Case 7 Extraction