ProEthica Case 85 Ontology
type: Ontology
created: 2026-06-05T09:45:58.076411
title: Incomplete Plans and Specifications – Engineer, Government, and Contractor Responsibilities
imports: cases
imports: intermediate

BER Case No. 82-5
type: NamedIndividual
comment: The Board cited this case to compare the ethical obligations of engineers regarding disclosure of unsatisfactory plans and unjustified expenditure of public funds, noting that the Code does not require disclosure in cases not involving public health and safety but that engineers have an ethical right to pursue the matter further.
was generated by: ProEthica Case 85 Extraction

Case 85 Timeline
type: NamedIndividual
type: TemporalEntity
action count: 6
event count: 9
total elements: 15
synthesis literal: hasTimepoints
synthesis literal: temporalConsistency
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 85 Extraction

CausalLink_Incomplete Documents Approval
type: NamedIndividual
analyzes action: Incomplete Documents Approval
comment: Approving documents without the competence or diligence to detect their incompleteness converts a correctable upstream error into an official authorization, triggering bid advertisement and ultimately causing Engineer C to submit a low bid on work that cannot be built as specified.
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 85 Extraction

CausalLink_Incomplete Work Submission
type: NamedIndividual
analyzes action: Incomplete Work Submission
comment: Submitting drawings that are not complete violates the obligation to deliver full professional work product, and because those incomplete documents flow directly into the approval and bid advertisement stages, the deficiency is multiplied across every subsequent party who relies on them in good faith.
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 85 Extraction

CausalLink_Low Bid Submission
type: NamedIndividual
analyzes action: Low Bid Submission
comment: Committing to a contract price without adequately assessing whether the design documents are sufficient to support construction leads directly to the unbuildability declaration at the pre-construction conference, at which point public funds have already been obligated and the project is in crisis.
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 85 Extraction

CausalLink_Non-Disclosure of Incompletene
type: NamedIndividual
comment: Staying silent about the incompleteness allows Engineer B to approve the documents without the information needed to catch the deficiency, which means the deception does not merely affect the immediate client relationship but actively enables federal funds to be committed to a project built on a flawed foundation.
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 85 Extraction

CausalLink_RFP Response Submission
type: NamedIndividual
analyzes action: RFP Response Submission
comment: By representing the firm as capable of performing the work, this action initiates the entire causal chain leading to contract award, meaning any gap between claimed and actual competence is not a minor misstatement but the root cause of all downstream professional and public harm.
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 85 Extraction

CausalLink_Reactive Incompleteness Acknow
type: NamedIndividual
comment: By waiting until the pre-construction conference to acknowledge the incomplete documents, Engineer A allowed a cascade of approvals, bid advertisements, and contract awards to proceed on a flawed foundation, meaning the violations of honest disclosure and complete specification obligations directly enabled wasted public funds, contractor harm, and project delay that earlier transparency could have prevented.
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 85 Extraction

Conclusion_1
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 1
conclusion number: 1
conclusion text: It was not ethical for Engineer A to submit drawings and specifications for review and approval that he knew were incomplete.
conclusion type: board_explicit
extraction reasoning: Parsed from imported case text (no LLM)
was generated by: ProEthica Case 85 Extraction

Conclusion_101
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 2 b
cites provision: II 5
answers question1: 101
answers question2: 202
answers question3: 301
cited provision1: II.5.
cited provision2: III.2.b.
conclusion number: 101
conclusion text: Beyond the Board's finding that Engineer A acted unethically in submitting incomplete drawings, Engineer A committed a compounded ethical violation by affixing his professional seal to documents he knew were deficient. The act of signing and sealing drawings carries an affirmative professional representation that the work product meets the standard of care and is fit for its intended purpose. By sealing incomplete drawings, Engineer A did not merely fail to disclose a deficiency — he actively misrepresented the completeness and adequacy of the documents to every downstream party who relied on that seal, including Engineer B, the local public agency, and ultimately the bidding contractors. This transforms what might otherwise be characterized as an omission into an affirmative deceptive act, implicating not only the duty of honest disclosure but also the prohibition against deceptive acts and the obligation to avoid sealing plans not in conformity with accepted engineering standards.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
synthesis literal: citationProvenance
was generated by: ProEthica Case 85 Extraction

Conclusion_102
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 1 b
cites provision: II 3 a
answers question1: 102
answers question2: 202
cited provision1: II.3.a.
cited provision2: III.1.b.
conclusion number: 102
conclusion text: The Board's conclusion regarding Engineer A's ethical failure does not fully address the heightened duty of disclosure that arose specifically because the local public agency lacked in-house technical capacity to review the drawings and specifications. When an engineer's client is demonstrably unable to independently detect deficiencies in the work product, the engineer's obligation of candor is not merely equivalent to the baseline standard — it is materially elevated. Engineer A was aware of this incapacity, and his silence in the face of it effectively denied the local public agency any meaningful opportunity to protect its own interests, to seek independent review, or to require corrections before the project advanced to federal approval and competitive bidding. This asymmetry of technical knowledge, combined with Engineer A's deliberate non-disclosure, constitutes a breach of the faithful agent duty that goes beyond the simple submission of incomplete work.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
was generated by: ProEthica Case 85 Extraction

Conclusion_103
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 3 a
cites provision: II 5
cites provision: I 1
answers question1: 101
answers question2: 203
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: II.3.a.
cited provision3: II.5.
conclusion number: 103
conclusion text: Engineer A's rationalization that federal funds — rather than local funds — would absorb cost overruns from his incomplete design represents a separate and independent ethical violation beyond the incompleteness of the drawings themselves. This reasoning reflects a fundamental misuse of public funds: Engineer A effectively treated federal grant money as a contingency reserve to underwrite his own professional shortfall, without the knowledge or consent of either the federal agency or the local public agency. This assumption also introduced a cost allocation bias that distorted his professional judgment, allowing him to rationalize proceeding with a deficient deliverable that he might otherwise have refused to submit. On a dam project — a structure whose failure poses direct risks to public safety — this rationalization is especially troubling, as it subordinated the paramount obligation to protect public welfare to a financial convenience that was not his to invoke.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
synthesis literal: citationProvenance
was generated by: ProEthica Case 85 Extraction

Conclusion_104
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 2 b
cites provision: II 3 a
answers question1: 103
answers question2: 204
cited provision1: II.3.a.
cited provision2: III.2.b.
conclusion number: 104
conclusion text: The Board's conclusion that Engineer B acted unethically in approving incomplete drawings does not fully examine the institutional dimension of that failure. Engineer B's approval did not merely constitute a personal lapse in professional judgment — it lent the formal imprimatur of federal authority to a materially deficient document set, thereby triggering the entire downstream sequence of competitive bidding, contract award, and pre-construction conflict. When a federal approving engineer lacks the technical competence to independently assess the adequacy of a submission, the ethical obligation is not to defer to the submitting engineer's seal but rather to escalate the review to a technically qualified authority or to condition approval on supplemental verification. Engineer B's failure to recognize the limits of his own competence, or to act on those limits by seeking escalation, compounded Engineer A's original violation by converting a deficient private submission into an officially sanctioned federal procurement.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
was generated by: ProEthica Case 85 Extraction

Conclusion_105
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 2 b
cites provision: I 1
answers question1: 103
answers question2: 204
answers question3: 403
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: III.2.b.
conclusion number: 105
conclusion text: Engineer B's ethical failure also raises a systemic question the Board did not address: the approval process itself appears to have been structurally inadequate for a dam project involving public safety. A federal review mechanism that permits a single engineer to approve complex dam design documents without independent verification protocols, peer review requirements, or competence thresholds specific to dam engineering creates conditions in which individual ethical failures become institutionally probable. While Engineer B bears personal ethical responsibility for the approval, the absence of systemic safeguards suggests that the federal agency's oversight framework itself may have been deficient. Engineers in institutional roles bear a professional obligation to advocate for review processes commensurate with the safety stakes of the projects they oversee, and Engineer B's acquiescence to an inadequate process — whether by silence or by action — represents a failure of professional responsibility that extends beyond the single approval decision.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
was generated by: ProEthica Case 85 Extraction

Conclusion_106
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 1 b
cites provision: II 3 a
answers question1: 3
answers question2: 104
answers question3: 304
answers question4: 404
cited provision1: II.3.a.
cited provision2: III.1.b.
conclusion number: 106
conclusion text: The Board's conclusion that Engineer C acted unethically in submitting a bid on a project he later characterized as unbuildable requires an important temporal nuance: the ethical analysis depends critically on when Engineer C formed his assessment of unbuildability. If Engineer C identified the unbuildable elements during his review of the bid documents — before submitting his bid — then his submission constituted an entry into a binding contractual relationship under conditions he privately believed to be materially defective, which implicates his duty of candor to the contracting parties and his obligation as an engineer to notify clients of project deficiencies. If, however, Engineer C's unbuildability assessment emerged only after more detailed post-award review, the ethical calculus shifts: his obligation would then be to notify the parties promptly upon forming that assessment, which he did at the pre-construction conference. The Board's conclusion is most clearly supported if Engineer C possessed or should have possessed the technical capacity to identify the deficiencies during the bidding phase, given his professional qualifications as both a contractor and an engineer.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
was generated by: ProEthica Case 85 Extraction

Conclusion_107
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 1 b
cites provision: II 3 a
cites provision: II 5
answers question1: 3
answers question2: 104
answers question3: 304
cited provision1: II.5.
cited provision2: III.1.b.
cited provision3: II.3.a.
conclusion number: 107
conclusion text: Engineer C's dual status as both a licensed engineer and the owner of the contracting firm creates a heightened ethical standard that the Board's conclusion does not fully develop. An ordinary contractor without engineering credentials might plausibly claim insufficient technical expertise to evaluate the buildability of dam design documents during the bidding phase. Engineer C, however, possessed the professional engineering knowledge to assess the adequacy of the drawings and specifications, and that capacity imposed on him an obligation that a non-engineer contractor would not bear. His professional engineering license did not become dormant upon his entry into the role of contractor — it continued to carry with it the ethical obligations of the engineering profession, including the duty to advise clients of project deficiencies and to avoid deceptive acts. By submitting a bid without disclosing known or reasonably discoverable unbuildability deficiencies, Engineer C effectively used his engineering competence to identify a competitive advantage while withholding the professional disclosure that same competence obligated him to make.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
synthesis literal: citationProvenance
was generated by: ProEthica Case 85 Extraction

Conclusion_2
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 2
conclusion number: 2
conclusion text: It was not ethical for Engineer B to approve a set of incomplete drawings on behalf of the Federal government for competitive bidding.
conclusion type: board_explicit
extraction reasoning: Parsed from imported case text (no LLM)
was generated by: ProEthica Case 85 Extraction

Conclusion_201
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 3 a
cites provision: II 5
answers question1: 101
answers question2: 203
cited provision1: II.3.a.
cited provision2: II.5.
conclusion number: 201
conclusion text: In response to Q101: Engineer A's assumption that federal funds would absorb cost overruns from his incomplete design constitutes a separate and independent ethical violation beyond the mere incompleteness of the drawings. By privately reasoning that the financial consequences of his deficient work would fall on federal rather than local coffers, Engineer A engaged in a form of cost allocation rationalization that misrepresented the true risk profile of the project to all stakeholders. This assumption was never disclosed to the local public agency, Engineer B, or any other party, meaning that the parties who bore fiduciary responsibility for public funds were denied the information necessary to make an informed decision about whether to proceed. The rationalization also reflects a troubling indifference to the public interest: federal funds are no less public funds, and the deliberate structuring of one's professional conduct around the expectation that a particular funding source will silently absorb the costs of one's own professional shortfall is itself a form of misrepresentation. Under Code Section II.3.a, engineers must be objective and truthful in professional reports and statements, and Engineer A's silence about both the incompleteness and his funding assumption violated that standard. Under Code Section II.5, engineers shall avoid deceptive acts, and the deliberate non-disclosure of a known deficiency paired with a private financial rationalization satisfies the definition of a deceptive act even in the absence of an affirmative false statement.
conclusion type: question_response
synthesis literal: citationProvenance
was generated by: ProEthica Case 85 Extraction

Conclusion_202
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 1 b
cites provision: II 3 a
cites provision: II 5
answers question1: 102
cited provision1: III.1.b.
cited provision2: II.5.
cited provision3: II.3.a.
conclusion number: 202
conclusion text: In response to Q102: Engineer A bore a heightened and affirmative duty of disclosure precisely because his client, the local public agency, lacked the in-house technical capacity to independently detect the deficiencies he knew existed. The asymmetry of technical knowledge between a licensed professional engineer and a non-technical client is not a passive background condition that reduces the engineer's obligations; it is an aggravating factor that intensifies them. When a client is structurally incapable of identifying a deficiency that the engineer knows exists, the engineer's silence is not merely non-disclosure — it is the functional equivalent of concealment. Code Section III.1.b requires engineers to advise their clients when they believe a project will not be successful, and the submission of drawings and specifications that Engineer A himself acknowledged were incomplete and that Engineer C later characterized as unbuildable clearly falls within the scope of a project that will not be successful in its submitted form. The local public agency's reliance on Engineer A was total and unchecked, which means Engineer A's failure to disclose was not a minor procedural omission but a fundamental breach of the fiduciary-like relationship that professional engineers owe to clients who cannot protect themselves through independent technical review.
conclusion type: question_response
synthesis literal: citationProvenance
was generated by: ProEthica Case 85 Extraction

Conclusion_203
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 2 b
cites provision: II 3 a
cites provision: I 1
answers question1: 103
answers question2: 204
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: III.2.b.
cited provision3: II.3.a.
conclusion number: 203
conclusion text: In response to Q103: Engineer B's review obligation did not begin only at the moment of formal submission; it encompassed a duty to assess whether the submission was substantively complete before lending federal approval to it. The act of approval by a federal engineering authority is not a ministerial stamp but a professional judgment that the documents meet the standard required for competitive bidding on a public project. Engineer B's approval of materially incomplete drawings effectively transferred federal legitimacy to a deficient document set, thereby enabling the project to proceed through bidding and contract award in a state that Engineer A himself later acknowledged was problematic. Code Section III.2.b prohibits engineers from completing, signing, or sealing plans and specifications not in conformity with applicable engineering standards, and while that provision is most directly applicable to Engineer A, it also informs the standard of care applicable to Engineer B as a reviewing authority. If Engineer B lacked the technical competence to identify the material incompleteness of the submission, Code Section I.1 required him to escalate the matter to higher federal authority or to seek supplemental technical review rather than approving documents whose adequacy he could not independently verify. Deference to Engineer A's professional seal does not relieve Engineer B of independent verification responsibility; it compounds the ethical failure by adding a second layer of professional endorsement to a document set that was known by its author to be deficient.
conclusion type: question_response
was generated by: ProEthica Case 85 Extraction

Conclusion_204
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 1 b
cites provision: II 5
cites provision: I 1
answers question1: 104
answers question2: 304
answers question3: 404
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: II.5.
cited provision3: III.1.b.
conclusion number: 204
conclusion text: In response to Q104: Engineer C's ethical obligation was not limited to notifying the contracting parties of the unbuildability deficiencies at the pre-construction conference. That notification, while better than silence, came after contract award and after Engineer C had already submitted a bid on documents he assessed as containing unbuildable elements. The more demanding ethical standard — and the one more consistent with Code Section II.5's prohibition on deceptive acts and Code Section III.1.b's duty to advise clients of project failure risks — would have required Engineer C to notify the local public agency and Engineer A of the apparent deficiencies before submitting his bid, or at minimum to condition his bid on resolution of those deficiencies. By submitting a low bid on a project whose documents he privately assessed as materially defective, Engineer C entered a binding contractual relationship under conditions he believed to be unbuildable, which is itself a form of deception toward the contracting parties who relied on the competitive bidding process to produce a reliable, executable contract. Furthermore, once Engineer C identified the unbuildability issues, his obligation as a licensed engineer extended beyond mere notification to refusing to proceed with construction until the drawings and specifications were corrected to a buildable standard, because proceeding on deficient dam design documents implicates the paramount obligation to protect public safety under Code Section I.1.
conclusion type: question_response
synthesis literal: citationProvenance
was generated by: ProEthica Case 85 Extraction

Conclusion_205
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 2 b
cites provision: II 3 a
cites provision: II 5
answers question1: 201
answers question2: 301
cited provision1: II.3.a.
cited provision2: II.5.
cited provision3: III.2.b.
conclusion number: 205
conclusion text: In response to Q201 and Q301: From a deontological perspective, Engineer A's deadline pressure does not constitute a morally sufficient justification for submitting incomplete drawings and specifications, and his duty of honest disclosure was not discharged by silence. The deontological framework evaluates the moral permissibility of an action based on whether it conforms to a universalizable duty, not on whether the actor believed the consequences would be manageable. Engineer A's duty as a faithful agent to meet a client's delivery deadline is a real but subordinate obligation; it cannot override his overriding duty under Code Section III.2.b not to sign or seal plans that are not in conformity with applicable engineering standards, nor his duty under Code Section II.3.a to be truthful in professional statements. When two duties conflict, the engineer's obligation is to disclose the conflict to the client — not to resolve it unilaterally by delivering a deficient product without disclosure. A universalizable rule permitting engineers to submit incomplete sealed drawings whenever deadline pressure exists would systematically undermine the reliability of professional seals and the integrity of public procurement processes. Engineer A's failure to disclose the incompleteness to the local public agency, Engineer B, or any other stakeholder was therefore not merely a procedural lapse but a categorical violation of his duty of honest disclosure.
conclusion type: question_response
synthesis literal: citationProvenance
was generated by: ProEthica Case 85 Extraction

Conclusion_206
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 2 b
cites provision: II 3 a
cites provision: I 1
answers question1: 303
answers question2: 403
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: II.3.a.
cited provision3: III.2.b.
conclusion number: 206
conclusion text: In response to Q303 and Q403: From a consequentialist perspective, Engineer B's approval of materially incomplete drawings produced a cascade of harms that substantially outweighed any benefit gained by expediting the project timeline. The approval enabled the project to proceed through competitive bidding and contract award in a state that Engineer A himself acknowledged was deficient, meaning that every subsequent step in the procurement process — bid preparation by contractors, contract award, and pre-construction planning — was conducted on a false premise of document adequacy. The concrete harms include: wasted public funds expended by bidders preparing bids on unbuildable documents; the risk of construction defects on a dam project with direct public safety implications under Code Section I.1; project delays and cost overruns attributable to the need for redesign after contract award; and erosion of public trust in federal engineering oversight as an effective safeguard against deficient design. Systemically, Engineer B's approval also signals to other design engineers that incomplete submissions can pass federal review, which creates a perverse incentive structure that degrades the quality of future submissions. The counterfactual in which Engineer B either rejected the submission or escalated to higher federal authority would have imposed a short-term delay but would have prevented all of these downstream harms, making it the clearly superior outcome under a consequentialist analysis.
conclusion type: question_response
was generated by: ProEthica Case 85 Extraction

Conclusion_207
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 1 b
cites provision: III 2 b
cites provision: I 1
answers question1: 401
answers question2: 402
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: III.2.b.
cited provision3: III.1.b.
conclusion number: 207
conclusion text: In response to Q401 and Q402: The public safety risk and financial harm to the project would very likely have been substantially reduced, if not avoided, had Engineer A disclosed the incompleteness of the drawings and specifications at the time of submission rather than waiting for Engineer C to raise the issue at the pre-construction conference. Early disclosure would have triggered one of two corrective pathways: either the local public agency and Engineer B would have required Engineer A to complete the drawings before approval, preventing the project from proceeding to competitive bidding on deficient documents, or the parties would have made an informed collective decision about how to proceed — a decision that would at minimum have been made with full knowledge of the risks. The alternative counterfactual — Engineer A refusing to submit by the deadline rather than delivering an incomplete product — would have been governed by his contractual obligations to the local public agency and his professional obligations under Code Section III.2.b. While a refusal to deliver might have exposed Engineer A to contractual liability for delay, that consequence does not override his professional obligation not to seal and submit non-conforming plans. The professional and ethical framework clearly contemplates that an engineer's duty to submit only complete and conforming documents takes precedence over schedule compliance, and that the appropriate response to irreconcilable deadline pressure is disclosure and renegotiation, not silent delivery of a deficient product.
conclusion type: question_response
was generated by: ProEthica Case 85 Extraction

Conclusion_208
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 1 b
cites provision: II 5
cites provision: I 1
answers question1: 404
answers question2: 304
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: II.5.
cited provision3: III.1.b.
conclusion number: 208
conclusion text: In response to Q404 and Q304: From a deontological perspective, Engineer C violated his duty of candor to the contracting parties by submitting a low bid on a project whose documents he assessed as containing unbuildable elements, and the timing of his disclosure — after contract award rather than before bid submission — is ethically significant rather than merely procedurally inconvenient. By waiting until the pre-construction conference to raise deficiencies he had identified during bid preparation, Engineer C allowed the competitive bidding process to run to completion on a false premise, depriving the local public agency of the opportunity to suspend bidding for redesign. Had Engineer C notified the local public agency and Engineer A of the apparent unbuildability before submitting his bid, the contracting parties would have had the information necessary to make a meaningful decision about whether to proceed, suspend, or redesign — and the competitive bidding process would have served its intended function of producing reliable, executable contracts. Engineer C's post-award disclosure, while better than permanent silence, did not cure the ethical deficiency of having entered a binding contractual relationship under conditions he privately believed to be materially defective. Code Section II.5's prohibition on deceptive acts applies to Engineer C in his capacity as a licensed engineer, and submitting a bid while privately assessing the project as unbuildable without major changes satisfies the functional definition of a deceptive act toward the contracting parties who relied on the integrity of the bidding process.
conclusion type: question_response
synthesis literal: citationProvenance
was generated by: ProEthica Case 85 Extraction

Conclusion_3
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 3
conclusion number: 3
conclusion text: It was not ethical for Engineer C, owner of the Hi-Lo Construction firm, to submit a bid on a construction contract that he later characterized as “unbuildable” without major changes.
conclusion type: board_explicit
extraction reasoning: Parsed from imported case text (no LLM)
was generated by: ProEthica Case 85 Extraction

Conclusion_301
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 2 b
cites provision: II 3 a
cites provision: I 1
answers question1: 201
answers question2: 301
answers question3: 402
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: II.3.a.
cited provision3: III.2.b.
conclusion number: 301
conclusion text: The tension between Engineer A's duty as a faithful agent to meet the client's delivery deadline and his overriding obligation to submit only complete, accurate, and professionally sealed drawings was never genuinely resolved — it was simply evaded. Engineer A treated the deadline as an absolute constraint and the completeness obligation as a negotiable one, when the ethical hierarchy demands the opposite. The NSPE code's requirement that engineers hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public, combined with the prohibition on completing, signing, or sealing plans not in conformity with accepted engineering standards, establishes that professional completeness is not subordinate to schedule compliance. A faithful agent duty cannot be fulfilled by delivering a deficient product on time; it is fulfilled only when the deliverable itself meets professional standards. Where those two obligations genuinely conflict, the engineer's recourse is disclosure and renegotiation of the deadline — not silent submission of incomplete work. This case teaches that schedule pressure, however real, does not constitute a recognized exception to the completeness and honesty obligations that attach to a professional seal.
conclusion type: principle_synthesis
was generated by: ProEthica Case 85 Extraction

Conclusion_302
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 3 a
cites provision: II 5
cites provision: I 1
answers question1: 202
answers question2: 203
answers question3: 302
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: II.3.a.
cited provision3: II.5.
conclusion number: 302
conclusion text: Engineer A's cost allocation rationalization — his private assumption that federal funds rather than local funds would absorb cost overruns — did not merely reflect poor financial judgment; it functioned as a principle-substitution mechanism that allowed him to suppress the honesty and public welfare principles that should have governed his conduct. By convincing himself that the financial consequences would fall on a deep-pocketed federal source rather than the local public agency, Engineer A effectively neutralized his own sense of obligation to disclose the deficiencies. This represents a compounded ethical failure: the rationalization itself violated the principle of cost allocation neutrality and the prohibition on deceptive acts, because it permitted Engineer A to proceed as though the incompleteness were inconsequential when he knew it was not. The case teaches that a professional's ethical obligations are not contingent on who bears the financial cost of a failure; the duty of honest disclosure and the duty to submit only complete work apply regardless of funding source. Allowing anticipated federal indemnification to substitute for professional completeness inverts the public welfare principle, since federal funds are themselves public funds, and their misuse harms the public interest no less than misuse of local funds.
conclusion type: principle_synthesis
synthesis literal: citationProvenance
was generated by: ProEthica Case 85 Extraction

Conclusion_303
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 1 b
cites provision: III 2 b
cites provision: II 3 a
cites provision: II 5
cites provision: I 1
answers question1: 202
answers question2: 204
answers question3: 303
answers question4: 403
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: II.3.a.
cited provision3: II.5.
cited provision4: III.1.b.
cited provision5: III.2.b.
conclusion number: 303
conclusion text: The interaction among Engineer A's professional competence principle, Engineer B's competence-limit recognition principle, and Engineer C's bid adequacy and deficiency notification principles reveals a systemic failure in which each actor's ethical shortfall was partially enabled by the others' failures, yet none is thereby relieved of independent responsibility. Engineer A's confidence in his own eventual ability to resolve the missing design details — a form of competence rationalization — led him to treat the incompleteness as a technical inconvenience rather than a professional and public safety violation. Engineer B's deference to Engineer A's professional seal, rather than exercising independent verification or escalating concerns about the submission's adequacy, lent federal legitimacy to a deficient document set and foreclosed the last institutional checkpoint before competitive bidding. Engineer C's decision to submit a low bid on documents he assessed as containing unbuildable elements, and to raise those concerns only after contract award at the pre-construction conference, allowed the procurement process to run to completion on a materially defective foundation. The case teaches that professional ethical obligations are not discharged by reliance on another engineer's seal or institutional role: each engineer in a multi-party project bears an independent, non-delegable duty to act on what he knows. The principle of honest disclosure and the principle of public welfare are not satisfied by collective silence followed by reactive acknowledgment; they require affirmative, timely action at the moment the deficiency is known, regardless of the actor's position in the project hierarchy.
conclusion type: principle_synthesis
synthesis literal: citationProvenance
was generated by: ProEthica Case 85 Extraction

DP1
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP1
decision question: Should Engineer A disclose the incompleteness of the dam design documents to the client and approving authority at the time of submission, or submit the documents without flagging the deficiency?
focus: Engineer A submitted incomplete dam design drawings and specifications under time pressure, without disclosing the deficiency to the client or approving authority at the time of submission.
option1: Formally notify the client and approving authority in writing that the submitted documents are incomplete, identify the missing elements, and specify conditions under which completion would occur.
option2: Submit the documents on schedule on the assumption that all parties understand the staged nature of the design due to the pending federal funding, without a formal written disclosure of incompleteness.
option3: Refuse to submit the documents until they meet minimum completeness standards, even if this means missing the deadline and potentially jeopardizing the funding timeline.
role label: Engineer
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 85 Extraction

DP2
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP2
decision question: Should Engineer A seal the incomplete dam design documents, or decline to seal until the documents meet the standard required for responsible charge?
focus: Engineer A sealed and submitted dam design documents that were materially incomplete, raising the question of whether sealing constituted a misrepresentation of responsible charge over a complete and adequate design.
option1: Withhold the professional seal until the design documents are sufficiently complete to support a responsible charge determination, communicating this position clearly to the client.
option2: Affix the seal accompanied by a written statement explicitly limiting its scope to the completed portions of the design and identifying elements not yet finalized.
option3: Seal and submit the documents to preserve the project timeline, relying on the approving authority's review process to identify any deficiencies before construction approval is granted.
role label: Engineer
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 85 Extraction

DP3
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP3
decision question: Should Engineer B escalate the review to a qualified engineer upon recognizing competence limitations, or proceed with approving the dam design documents as submitted?
focus: Engineer B, serving as the approving engineer, recognized or should have recognized limitations in competence to review Engineer A's dam design documents, yet approved documents that were materially incomplete rather than escalating to a qualified reviewer.
option1: Inform a supervisor of the competence limitation and request that a qualified engineer be assigned to review the dam design documents before any approval is granted.
option2: Approve the documents while formally documenting identified deficiencies and incompleteness in writing, placing the record in the project file and notifying the submitting engineer.
option3: Treat Engineer A's professional seal as sufficient evidence of responsible charge and approve the documents on the basis that the submitting engineer bears professional responsibility for completeness.
role label: Engineer
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 85 Extraction

DP4
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP4
decision question: Should Engineer A pursue external disclosure of the design deficiencies and public funds concerns after internal reporting was rejected, or treat the matter as resolved once internal channels were exhausted?
focus: Engineer A, having documented concerns about the adequacy of the dam design and the misuse of public funds, faced a decision about whether to pursue disclosure beyond the employer's rejection of internal reports, analogous to the defense industry whistleblower scenario.
option1: After internal reporting is rejected, escalate disclosure of the design deficiencies and public safety concerns to the relevant state or federal regulatory authority responsible for dam safety.
option2: Treat the matter as resolved once internal channels are exhausted, on the basis that the employer's rejection of the reports and the existence of an independent approving authority are sufficient safeguards.
option3: Consult legal counsel to determine the scope of professional and legal obligations before deciding whether to pursue external disclosure, balancing whistleblower protections against contractual and employment constraints.
role label: Engineer Contractor
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 85 Extraction

DP5
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP5
decision question: Should Engineer A treat time pressure and anticipated funding as sufficient justification for submitting incomplete documents without disclosure, or are those circumstances insufficient to override the disclosure obligation?
focus: Engineer A submitted dam design documents while asserting that incompleteness was justified by time pressures and anticipated federal funding, raising the question of whether those circumstances constitute an adequate ethical justification for non-disclosure.
option1: Treat the disclosure obligation as unconditional and formally notify all relevant parties of the incompleteness regardless of time pressures or funding status.
option2: Treat the submission as a recognized phased deliverable under the project's funding structure, documenting the staged nature of the design in the project record and relying on the approving authority's familiarity with the funding context.
option3: Refuse to submit incomplete documents and instead negotiate with the client for an extended deadline that allows for a complete submission, even at the risk of delaying the funding application.
role label: Engineer Contractor
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 85 Extraction

Engineer B Competence Escalation
type: CompetenceLimitEscalationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
case context: Engineer B approved incomplete dam design documents. The Board found that failure to recognize and address a competence gap in performing the review constitutes an ethics violation.
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.88
constrained entity: Engineer B
constraint class: Competence Limit Escalation Obligation
constraint statement: Engineer B was required, upon recognizing any inability to perform a competent review of Engineer A's dam design documents, to inform a supervisor so that an appropriately qualified engineer could be assigned to the review.
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics
temporal scope: During the review and approval process for Engineer A's submitted documents
text references: If Engineer B was not able to perform the necessary reviews of Engineer A's work, Engineer B should have provided this information to a supervisor who would have assigned an appropriate engineer to perform the review
text references: the failure to recognize the lack of competency and take appropriate action to address the situation is a violation of the NSPE Code
discovered in case: 85
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: discussion
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T16:56:15.795068+00:00
first discovered in case: 85
match confidence: 0.0
matches existing: false
source text: If Engineer B was not able to perform the necessary reviews of Engineer A's work, Engineer B should have provided this information to a supervisor who would have assigned an appropriate engineer to perform the review
synthesis literal: caseContext
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: constraintClass
synthesis literal: constraintStatement
synthesis literal: severity
synthesis literal: source
synthesis literal: temporalScope
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineer B was required, upon recognizing any inability to perform a competent review of Engineer A's dam design documents, to inform a supervisor so that an appropriately qualified engineer could be assigned to the review.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T16:56:15.795068+00:00
was attributed to: Case 85 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 85 Extraction

I.1.
type: NamedIndividual
comment: Hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public.
was generated by: ProEthica Case 85 Extraction

II.3.a.
type: NamedIndividual
comment: Engineers shall be objective and truthful in professional reports, statements, or testimony. They shall include all relevant and pertinent information in such reports, statements, or testimony, which should bear the date indicating when it was current.
was generated by: ProEthica Case 85 Extraction

II.5.
type: NamedIndividual
comment: Engineers shall avoid deceptive acts.
was generated by: ProEthica Case 85 Extraction

III.1.b.
type: NamedIndividual
comment: Engineers shall advise their clients or employers when they believe a project will not be successful.
was generated by: ProEthica Case 85 Extraction

III.2.b.
type: NamedIndividual
comment: Engineers shall not complete, sign, or seal plans and/or specifications that are not in conformity with applicable engineering standards. If the client or employer insists on such unprofessional conduct, they shall notify the proper authorities and withdraw from further service on the project.
was generated by: ProEthica Case 85 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_1
type: NamedIndividual
comment: The question arose because Engineer A's act of sealing and submitting drawings he knew were incomplete placed his professional certification in direct conflict with his obligation to provide honest and complete deliverables to a client who lacked the technical capacity to detect the deficiency. The undisclosed reliance on federal funds to absorb consequences added a second layer of conflict between his duty of cost allocation neutrality and his self-serving rationalization, making the ethical status of the submission genuinely contested.
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 85 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_10
type: NamedIndividual
comment: The question arose because Engineer A did not simply submit deficient work; he also constructed a private financial justification that reframed the consequences of that deficiency as manageable, and that justification implicates the principle of public welfare because it allowed a safety-relevant decision on a dam project to be filtered through a cost-source assumption rather than evaluated on its safety merits alone. The question persists because it is genuinely unclear whether a rationalization that concerns cost allocation, rather than safety directly, can be treated as a violation of the public welfare principle, or whether it is only a secondary ethical failure that follows from the primary one of submitting incomplete work.
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 85 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_11
type: NamedIndividual
comment: The question emerged because Engineer B occupied a dual position: he held institutional authority as the federal approving engineer, which carries an independent verification obligation, but the state of his competence relative to the submission created a gap between that authority and his actual capacity to exercise it. Engineer A's professional seal introduced a further complication, because reliance on that seal could be read either as a reasonable professional deference or as a mechanism by which federal legitimacy was lent to a deficient document set without any independent check.
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 85 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_12
type: NamedIndividual
comment: The question emerged because Engineer A's act of submitting incomplete documents without disclosure sits at the intersection of two genuine professional obligations: the deontological duty of honest representation to clients and public agencies, and the practical reality that engineers routinely rely on iterative review processes to catch deficiencies. The undisclosed deadline pressure and the undisclosed federal-funds assumption removed the conditions under which silent reliance on review might be defensible, converting what could have been a procedural shortfall into a potential breach of the duty of honest disclosure.
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 85 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_13
type: NamedIndividual
comment: The question emerged because Engineer A possessed the capability and awareness to deliver complete drawings but chose not to, and then concealed both the incompleteness and his reasoning from the client and the funding authority. Virtue ethics asks whether the internal rationalization about federal funds reflects the honest exercise of professional judgment or a self-serving substitution of financial convenience for integrity, and that substitution is precisely what makes the question non-trivial.
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 85 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_14
type: NamedIndividual
comment: This question arose because Engineer B's Incomplete Documents Approval set off a chain of concrete, measurable harms including the Unbuildability Declaration, the wasted bid cycle, and the Pre-Construction Conference disruption, all of which demand a reckoning with whether any timeline benefit justified those costs. The question is genuinely contested because consequentialism requires aggregating and comparing harms and benefits that span different stakeholders and time horizons, and reasonable analysts can weigh the Public Funds Stewardship Principle against the project delivery interest differently depending on what counterfactual they assume.
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 85 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_15
type: NamedIndividual
comment: The question arose because Engineer C possessed a private professional assessment that the documents were unbuildable yet proceeded to submit a low bid and enter a binding contract without disclosing that assessment, creating a gap between his internal knowledge and the representations implied by his contractual commitment. Deontological analysis forces the question of whether that gap constitutes a breach of the duty of candor or whether the competitive bidding context redefines the disclosure obligation.
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 85 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_16
type: NamedIndividual
comment: This question arose because Engineer A's silence persisted across multiple decision points, each of which gave downstream parties, including Engineer B, the local agency, and Engineer C, a false basis for proceeding. The question forces a determination of whether the harm to public safety and project finances was a direct consequence of the timing of disclosure, or whether earlier disclosure would have interrupted the chain of uninformed decisions before they became costly and dangerous.
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 85 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_17
type: NamedIndividual
comment: This question emerged because Engineer A faced a genuine structural conflict between the obligation to deliver complete, buildable design documents and the obligation to honor contractual deadlines, and the path he chose, submitting incomplete work without disclosure, satisfied neither warrant fully. The question asks whether the untaken path of refusal would have resolved that conflict more ethically, which requires weighing professional integrity obligations, contractual duties, public safety consequences, and the downstream effects on the client, the federal funding agency, and Engineer C's unbuildable bid.
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 85 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_18
type: NamedIndividual
comment: The question emerged because Engineer B's approval allowed deficient documents to reach competitive bidding, creating a fork between blaming individual competence failure and blaming systemic protocol design. The question asks whether correcting Engineer B's individual capacity would have been sufficient, or whether the approval pathway itself required redesign to prevent incomplete documents from advancing regardless of who occupied the reviewing role.
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 85 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_19
type: NamedIndividual
comment: The question emerged because Engineer C's Reactive Incompleteness Acknowledgment after Contract Award to Contractor created a gap between when his engineering judgment should have triggered disclosure and when disclosure actually occurred. The Unbuildability Declaration arriving post-award rather than pre-bid placed the competitive bidding process, the public agency's decision-making, and Engineer A's opportunity to correct deficiencies in a worse position than pre-bid disclosure would have, forcing the question of whether Engineer C's dual role as contractor and licensed engineer imposed a higher and earlier disclosure obligation.
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 85 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_2
type: NamedIndividual
comment: The question arose because Engineer B stood at the institutional checkpoint where federal oversight was supposed to protect public funds and downstream bidders from deficient documents, yet the approval was granted and the bid advertisement proceeded on an unbuildable design. The tension between the obligation to verify and the practical limit of competence recognition makes it genuinely uncertain whether Engineer B acted unethically through negligence, through incapacity, or through a systemic failure that no individual approval act could have corrected.
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 85 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_3
type: NamedIndividual
comment: The question arose because Engineer C's post-award characterization of the project as unbuildable created a retroactive conflict with the professional representation implied by submitting a bid. The gap between the moment of bidding and the moment of disclosure forced scrutiny of whether Engineer C used the bid as a competitive instrument while withholding a material professional judgment that the client and public funding authority needed before contract award.
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 85 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_4
type: NamedIndividual
comment: The question arose because Engineer A's assumption introduced a second, analytically distinct act alongside the incomplete submission. The assumption silently allocated a financial consequence of Engineer A's own deficiency onto a public fund without the knowledge or consent of the authority controlling that fund, and that act of silent allocation can be read as a misrepresentation independent of whether the drawings themselves were complete.
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 85 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_5
type: NamedIndividual
comment: The question emerged because Engineer A possessed knowledge of a deficiency that the Local Public Agency Client was structurally unable to discover, creating a gap between what the client could verify and what Engineer A knew. That gap forced a choice between a standard disclosure warrant and a relational warrant grounded in the power asymmetry between a technically sophisticated engineer and a technically limited client, and neither warrant clearly overrides the other in the extracted obligation set.
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 85 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_6
type: NamedIndividual
comment: The question emerged because Engineer B's approval of incomplete documents created a gap between what the verification obligation required and what a simple approve-or-reject action could achieve. Federal funding involvement introduced a public funds stewardship warrant that a purely bilateral approval decision could not satisfy, making it unclear whether Engineer B's duty began at document receipt and required escalation rather than unilateral disposition.
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 85 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_7
type: NamedIndividual
comment: The question arose because Engineer C's obligation to notify contracting parties of known deficiencies is well established, but the adequacy of notification as a terminal duty is contested when the underlying documents remain unbuildable after that notification. The gap between a disclosure duty and a performance-refusal duty is precisely where the ethical question lives, because the data show Engineer C proceeded into a contract on documents that were already known to be deficient.
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 85 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_8
type: NamedIndividual
comment: The question emerged because Engineer A faced a genuine collision between two independently legitimate professional obligations, and the act of submitting incomplete sealed drawings without disclosure made it impossible to satisfy both at once. The absence of any disclosure to the client or funding agency removed the one condition that might have reconciled the two warrants, forcing a direct confrontation between faithful-agent duty and the non-negotiable standard of professional completeness.
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 85 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_9
type: NamedIndividual
comment: This question arose because Engineer A's conduct at the moment of submission fused two normally compatible principles into a conflict. His technical self-confidence provided a plausible internal justification for not disclosing the incompleteness, making it genuinely unclear whether his silence reflected a defensible professional judgment or a rationalization that allowed competence confidence to override the independent duty of honest disclosure.
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 85 Extraction

Question_1
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 1
question text: Was it ethical for Engineer A to submit final drawings and specifications for review and approval that he knew were incomplete?
question type: board_explicit
was generated by: ProEthica Case 85 Extraction

Question_101
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 101
question text: Did Engineer A's assumption that federal funds would absorb cost overruns from his incomplete design constitute a misuse or misrepresentation of public funds, and does that assumption itself represent a separate ethical violation independent of the incompleteness of the drawings?
question type: implicit
was generated by: ProEthica Case 85 Extraction

Question_102
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 102
question text: Given that the local public agency lacked the in-house technical capacity to review the drawings and specifications, did Engineer A bear a heightened duty of disclosure precisely because his client was unable to independently detect the deficiencies he knew existed?
question type: implicit
was generated by: ProEthica Case 85 Extraction

Question_103
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 103
question text: At what point during the design process did Engineer B's review obligation begin, and should Engineer B have escalated concerns about the adequacy of the submission to higher federal authority rather than simply approving or rejecting the documents unilaterally?
question type: implicit
was generated by: ProEthica Case 85 Extraction

Question_104
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 104
question text: Was Engineer C's ethical obligation limited to notifying the contracting parties of the unbuildability deficiencies at the pre-construction conference, or did it extend to refusing to proceed with the contract until the drawings and specifications were corrected to a buildable standard?
question type: implicit
was generated by: ProEthica Case 85 Extraction

Question_2
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 2
question text: Was it ethical for Engineer B to approve a set of incomplete drawings on behalf of the Federal government for competitive bidding?
question type: board_explicit
was generated by: ProEthica Case 85 Extraction

Question_201
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 201
question text: Does Engineer A's duty as a faithful agent to meet the client's specified delivery deadline conflict with his overriding obligation to submit only complete, accurate, and professionally sealed drawings, and if so, which obligation must yield and under what circumstances?
question type: principle_tension
was generated by: ProEthica Case 85 Extraction

Question_202
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 202
question text: Does Engineer A's principle of professional competence in dam design conflict with his principle of honesty and non-concealment of deficiency, given that his technical confidence in his own eventual ability to resolve the missing details may have led him to rationalize withholding disclosure of the incompleteness from the client and approving authority?
question type: principle_tension
was generated by: ProEthica Case 85 Extraction

Question_203
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 203
question text: Does Engineer A's cost allocation rationalization — his assumption that federal funds rather than local funds would cover overruns — conflict with the principle of public welfare and safety, insofar as that rationalization functioned as a justification for proceeding with a design that posed a public safety risk on a dam project?
question type: principle_tension
was generated by: ProEthica Case 85 Extraction

Question_204
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 204
question text: Does Engineer B's obligation to recognize the limits of his own competence in reviewing the incomplete submission conflict with his institutional role as the federal approving authority, and does deference to Engineer A's professional seal relieve Engineer B of independent verification responsibility or instead compound the ethical failure by lending federal legitimacy to a deficient document set?
question type: principle_tension
was generated by: ProEthica Case 85 Extraction

Question_3
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 3
question text: Was it ethical for Engineer C, owner of the Hi-Lo Construction firm, to submit a bid on a construction contract that he later characterized as “unbuildable” without major changes?
question type: board_explicit
was generated by: ProEthica Case 85 Extraction

Question_301
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 301
question text: From a deontological perspective, did Engineer A fulfill his duty of honest disclosure when he knowingly submitted incomplete drawings and specifications without informing the local public agency, Engineer B, or any other stakeholder of their deficiency, regardless of whether he believed federal funds would cover resulting cost overruns?
question type: theoretical
was generated by: ProEthica Case 85 Extraction

Question_302
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 302
question text: From a virtue ethics standpoint, did Engineer A demonstrate professional integrity when he rationalized submitting deficient work by assuming federal funds would absorb any cost overruns, thereby prioritizing schedule compliance and financial convenience over the honest exercise of his professional judgment?
question type: theoretical
was generated by: ProEthica Case 85 Extraction

Question_303
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 303
question text: From a consequentialist perspective, did the aggregate harm produced by Engineer B's approval of materially incomplete drawings — including wasted public funds, project delays, potential construction defects, and erosion of public trust in federal engineering oversight — outweigh any benefit gained by expediting the project timeline?
question type: theoretical
was generated by: ProEthica Case 85 Extraction

Question_304
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 304
question text: From a deontological perspective, did Engineer C violate his duty of candor to the contracting parties by submitting a low bid on a project whose documents he assessed as containing unbuildable elements, thereby entering a binding contractual relationship under conditions he privately believed to be materially defective?
question type: theoretical
was generated by: ProEthica Case 85 Extraction

Question_401
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 401
question text: Would the public safety risk and financial harm to the project have been avoided if Engineer A had disclosed the incompleteness of the drawings and specifications to the local public agency and Engineer B at the time of submission, rather than waiting until the deficiencies were raised by Engineer C at the pre-construction conference?
question type: counterfactual
was generated by: ProEthica Case 85 Extraction

Question_402
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 402
question text: If Engineer A had refused to submit the drawings and specifications by the specified deadline rather than delivering an incomplete product, what professional and contractual obligations would have governed that refusal, and would such a refusal have better served the public welfare than the path he chose?
question type: counterfactual
was generated by: ProEthica Case 85 Extraction

Question_403
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 403
question text: If Engineer B had possessed or sought the technical expertise necessary to identify the material incompleteness of Engineer A's drawings before approving them, would the project have proceeded to competitive bidding, and what systemic changes to federal review protocols might have prevented the approval of deficient documents?
question type: counterfactual
was generated by: ProEthica Case 85 Extraction

Question_404
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 404
question text: Had Engineer C notified the local public agency and Engineer A of the apparent unbuildability of portions of the project before submitting his bid rather than after contract award, would the competitive bidding process have been suspended for redesign, and would that course of action have better aligned with Engineer C's professional obligations as both a contractor and an engineer?
question type: counterfactual
was generated by: ProEthica Case 85 Extraction

RFP issuance by local public agency before Engineer A's firm submitting brochure and completing interview
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: Engineer A responds to an RFP from a small local public agency... Engineer A's firm's impressive brochure and personal interview results in the award of a contract.
from entity text: RFP issuance by local public agency
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: Engineer A's firm submitting brochure and completing interview
synthesis literal: allenRelation
synthesis literal: description
synthesis literal: evidence
synthesis literal: fromEntity
synthesis literal: fromEntityURI
synthesis literal: owlTimeURI
synthesis literal: toEntity
synthesis literal: toEntityURI
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: Engineer A s firm submitting brochure and completi
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 85 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_1
type: NamedIndividual
comment: Because Engineer A possessed actual knowledge of the incompleteness and chose to submit without any disclosure, the board concluded that his conduct violated the obligation of honest representation to his client and the prohibition against deceptive acts, regardless of his belief that federal funds would eventually cover resulting overruns.
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 85 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_10
type: NamedIndividual
comment: Because Engineer C's professional engineering license gave him a technical capacity that an ordinary contractor would not possess, and because that capacity imposed a disclosure obligation coextensive with his ability to assess the documents, the board found that his submission of a bid without disclosing known or discoverable unbuildability deficiencies represented a use of professional competence to gain competitive advantage while simultaneously suppressing the professional disclosure that competence required.
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 85 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_11
type: NamedIndividual
comment: Because Engineer A combined a known deficiency with an undisclosed private rationalization that redirected anticipated financial harm onto federal funds, the board found that the rationalization itself constituted a separate ethical violation, given that the parties responsible for those funds were never told the basis on which Engineer A had decided to proceed.
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 85 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_12
type: NamedIndividual
comment: Because the local public agency could not independently detect the deficiencies Engineer A knew existed, the board concluded that Engineer A bore a heightened and affirmative disclosure duty, and that his silence under those conditions was not a minor omission but a fundamental breach of the professional relationship owed to a client who could not protect itself.
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 85 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_13
type: NamedIndividual
comment: Because Engineer B's approval was not a ministerial act but a professional judgment carrying federal legitimacy, and because that approval was given to documents the board found to be materially incomplete, the board concluded that Engineer B's review obligation began before formal submission and required either independent verification of adequacy or escalation to higher authority when such verification was beyond his competence.
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 85 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_14
type: NamedIndividual
comment: Because Engineer C entered a binding contractual relationship under conditions he privately believed to be materially defective, and because the project was a dam with direct public safety implications, the board concluded that his ethical obligation extended beyond post-award notification to pre-bid disclosure and, once deficiencies were identified, to refusing to proceed until the drawings were corrected to a buildable standard.
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 85 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_15
type: NamedIndividual
comment: Because Engineer A resolved the conflict between deadline pressure and completeness unilaterally and silently, rather than disclosing it to the client who bore responsibility for the project, the board concluded under a deontological analysis that his duty of honest disclosure was not discharged and that his failure to disclose was a categorical violation, not a procedural lapse excused by schedule circumstances.
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 85 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_16
type: NamedIndividual
comment: Because Engineer B approved drawings that Engineer A had already internally flagged as deficient, and because that approval directly enabled a procurement process built on a false premise of adequacy, the board found that every subsequent harm traced causally to the approval decision. Given that rejection or escalation was available and would have cost only time, the board concluded that the approval produced net harm far exceeding any benefit under a consequentialist analysis.
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 85 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_17
type: NamedIndividual
comment: Because Engineer A knew the drawings were incomplete and submitted them without disclosure, the board found that the harms flowing from the deficient procurement were attributable to that concealment. Given that disclosure at the time of submission would have opened corrective pathways, and given that schedule pressure does not constitute a recognized exception to the completeness obligation, the board concluded that early disclosure was both required and would have been effective.
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 85 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_18
type: NamedIndividual
comment: Because Engineer C formed his unbuildability assessment during bid preparation and then submitted a low bid without disclosing it, the board found that he allowed the contracting parties to commit to a binding relationship on a false premise of document adequacy. Given that pre-bid disclosure would have given the local public agency a meaningful opportunity to suspend bidding for redesign, the board concluded that Engineer C's timing of disclosure violated his duty of candor under Code Section II.5.
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 85 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_19
type: NamedIndividual
comment: Because Engineer A privately knew the drawings were incomplete and submitted them without disclosure rather than seeking a deadline extension or renegotiation, the board found that he evaded rather than resolved the tension between schedule and completeness. Given that the NSPE code establishes professional completeness as non-subordinate to schedule compliance, the board concluded that Engineer A's conduct failed both obligations simultaneously rather than satisfying one at the expense of the other.
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 85 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_2
type: NamedIndividual
comment: Because Engineer B approved a set of drawings he should have scrutinized as the federal gatekeeper, and because that approval allowed an incomplete design to proceed to competitive bidding at public expense, the board concluded that Engineer B failed his independent verification obligation and thereby compounded the harm initiated by Engineer A's submission.
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 85 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_20
type: NamedIndividual
comment: Because Engineer A's assumption that federal funds would cover overruns was undisclosed and functioned to suppress rather than resolve his awareness of the deficiency, the board found it constituted a compounded ethical failure layered on top of the incomplete submission itself. Given that federal funds are public funds and their misuse harms the public interest regardless of the funding tier, the board concluded that the rationalization violated the public welfare principle independently of the incompleteness violation.
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 85 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_21
type: NamedIndividual
comment: Given that all three engineers acted on knowledge of material deficiencies without making timely affirmative disclosure to the parties who could have halted or corrected the process, and given that the project was a dam carrying direct public safety implications and funded by public money, the board concluded that each actor independently violated the duty of honest disclosure and the duty to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public. The board further concluded that no actor was relieved of that independent responsibility by the failure of another, because professional ethical obligations in a multi-party project are non-delegable and are not discharged by reliance on another engineer's seal, institutional role, or anticipated corrective action.
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 85 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_3
type: NamedIndividual
comment: Because Engineer C held a professional judgment that the project was unbuildable without major changes and nonetheless submitted a bid without disclosing that judgment, the board concluded that he entered the contractual relationship under conditions he privately believed to be materially defective, in violation of his duty of candor to the contracting parties.
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 85 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_4
type: NamedIndividual
comment: Because Engineer A chose to seal documents he knew were incomplete, and because that seal carried an affirmative professional representation of adequacy to every party in the review and bidding chain, the board concluded that his conduct went beyond mere non-disclosure and constituted an active deceptive act compounding his original ethical violation.
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 85 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_5
type: NamedIndividual
comment: Because Engineer A knew his client could not independently evaluate the drawings and chose to remain silent about their incompleteness, the board concluded that his faithful agent duty required a heightened standard of candor in this specific relationship, and that his silence under those conditions constituted a breach of that elevated obligation beyond the baseline ethical failure already identified.
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 85 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_6
type: NamedIndividual
comment: Because Engineer A privately assumed federal funds would cover his professional shortfall without authorization or disclosure, and because that assumption operated on a dam project carrying public safety risk, the board found the cost allocation rationalization to be a separate ethical violation, one that distorted his professional judgment and misappropriated public funds in a way that compounded rather than merely accompanied the incompleteness of the drawings.
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 85 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_7
type: NamedIndividual
comment: Because Engineer B's approval lent federal legitimacy to materially deficient documents and set the procurement sequence in motion, the board found that his failure to recognize or act on the limits of his own competence was not merely a personal lapse but an institutional act that compounded Engineer A's original violation by making the deficient submission the official basis for a public construction contract.
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 85 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_8
type: NamedIndividual
comment: Because the approval process itself was structurally inadequate for a dam project and Engineer B neither challenged that inadequacy nor compensated for it, the board found that his ethical failure extended beyond the single approval decision to encompass a broader failure of professional responsibility, one that included acquiescence to an institutional framework that made deficient approvals foreseeable.
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 85 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_9
type: NamedIndividual
comment: Because the ethical weight of Engineer C's bid submission depends on when he formed his unbuildability assessment, the board found that the conclusion of unethical conduct is most clearly supported when Engineer C had or should have had the professional capacity to identify the deficiencies before bidding, and that the pre-construction conference notification, while better than silence, did not retroactively cure a bid submitted under conditions he privately believed to be materially defective.
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 85 Extraction

Causal edge (causedByAction)
type: Derivation
comment: property=causedByAction; causal chain's causedByAction text resolved to the case individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: http://proethica.org/cases/85#Action_Incomplete_Documents_Approval

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Causal edge (responsibleAgent)
type: Derivation
comment: property=responsibleAgent; causal chain's responsibleAgent text resolved to the case individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Local public agency / project parties

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

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

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

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

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

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

Causal edge (causedByAction)
type: Derivation
comment: property=causedByAction; causal chain's causedByAction text resolved to the case individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: http://proethica.org/cases/85#Action_Low_Bid_Submission

Causal edge (causedByAction)
type: Derivation
comment: property=causedByAction; causal chain's causedByAction text resolved to the case individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: http://proethica.org/cases/85#Action_RFP_Response_Submission

Causal edge (causedByAction)
type: Derivation
comment: property=causedByAction; causal chain's causedByAction text resolved to the case individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: http://proethica.org/cases/85#Action_Incomplete_Work_Submission

Causal edge (causedByAction)
type: Derivation
comment: property=causedByAction; causal chain's causedByAction text resolved to the case individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: http://proethica.org/cases/85#Action_Incomplete_Documents_Approval

Causal edge (causedByAction)
type: Derivation
comment: property=causedByAction; causal chain's causedByAction text resolved to the case individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: http://proethica.org/cases/85#Action_Reactive_Incompleteness_Acknowledgment

Causal edge (causedByAction)
type: Derivation
comment: property=causedByAction; causal chain's causedByAction text resolved to the case individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: http://proethica.org/cases/85#Action_Reactive_Incompleteness_Acknowledgment

Defeasibility edge from interpretation
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=interpretation; confidence=0.88
generated at time: 2026-06-05T09:46:17.990378+00:00
value: Because the conduct did not involve public health or safety, the engineer's obligation to disclose did not extend beyond internal channels; further disclosure became a matter of personal conscience with attendant professional risk.

Defeasibility edge from interpretation
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=interpretation; confidence=0.6
generated at time: 2026-06-05T09:46:17.991009+00:00
value: Professional competence required Engineer A to produce drawings and specifications that were complete, technically adequate, and constructable. The submission of documents that were neither complete nor buildable without major changes reflects a failure to meet this standard.

Defeasibility edge from interpretation
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=interpretation; confidence=0.8
generated at time: 2026-06-05T09:46:17.990499+00:00
value: The principle prohibits Engineer A from rationalizing deficient deliverables on the basis that remediation costs would fall on federal funding rather than the client, because the source of remediation funding does not alter the obligation to deliver complete work.

Defeasibility edge from interpretation
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=interpretation; confidence=0.78
generated at time: 2026-06-05T09:46:17.990598+00:00
value: The federal funding source did not lower the required standard of completeness.

Defeasibility edge from interpretation
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=interpretation; confidence=0.6
generated at time: 2026-06-05T09:46:17.991252+00:00
value: Professional competence required Engineer A to produce drawings and specifications that were complete, technically adequate, and constructable. The submission of documents that were neither complete nor buildable without major changes reflects a failure to meet this standard.

Defeasibility edge from interpretation
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=interpretation; confidence=0.7
generated at time: 2026-06-05T09:46:17.990818+00:00
value: Transparency required Engineer A to make the limitations and incompleteness of the deliverables visible to all parties who would rely on them, enabling informed decision-making by the client and approving authority.

Defeasibility edge from interpretation
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=interpretation; confidence=0.72
generated at time: 2026-06-05T09:46:17.990724+00:00
value: The obligation to disclose known incompleteness at the time of submission required Engineer A to inform the client and approving authority that the deliverables were deficient before or at the time of submission, not to allow them to proceed through approval and bidding as if complete.

Defeasibility edge from interpretation
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=interpretation; confidence=0.82
generated at time: 2026-06-05T09:46:17.990913+00:00
value: The paramount duty to public welfare required Engineer A to deliver complete, adequate, and buildable design documents for a dam, a structure whose failure could cause serious harm to the public. Submitting known-deficient sealed documents violated this paramount obligation.

Defeasibility edge from interpretation
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=interpretation; confidence=0.7
generated at time: 2026-06-05T09:46:17.991138+00:00
value: The principle required Engineer B to recognize whether the review task exceeded personal competence and, if so, to notify a supervisor so that an appropriately qualified engineer could be assigned rather than proceeding with an inadequate review.

Fluent edge (initiates)
type: Derivation
comment: property=initiates; happening's initiates state text resolved to the case State(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select (Event Calculus fluent transition)
value: Active Construction Contract; Contractor Bound to Deficient Documents

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

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

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

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

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

Fluent edge (initiates)
type: Derivation
comment: property=initiates; happening's initiates state text resolved to the case State(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select (Event Calculus fluent transition)
value: Federal Approval of Deficient Documents; Project Cleared for Bidding

Fluent edge (initiates)
type: Derivation
comment: property=initiates; happening's initiates state text resolved to the case State(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select (Event Calculus fluent transition)
value: Incomplete Documents in Circulation; Public Safety Risk Latent; Unjustified Expenditure of Public Funds Risk

Fluent edge (initiates)
type: Derivation
comment: property=initiates; happening's initiates state text resolved to the case State(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select (Event Calculus fluent transition)
value: Construction Contract Awarded on Deficient Documents; Contractor Exposed to Unbuildable Conditions

Fluent edge (initiates)
type: Derivation
comment: property=initiates; happening's initiates state text resolved to the case State(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select (Event Calculus fluent transition)
value: Stakeholder Uninformed of Deficiencies; Misrepresentation of Deliverable Completeness

Fluent edge (initiates)
type: Derivation
comment: property=initiates; happening's initiates state text resolved to the case State(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select (Event Calculus fluent transition)
value: Stakeholder Uninformed of Deficiencies; Misrepresentation of Deliverable Completeness

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

Normative edge (guidedByPrinciple)
type: Derivation
comment: property=guidedByPrinciple; action's guidedByPrinciple text resolved to the case Obligation/Principle individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select (obligation-engagement grounding)
value: Competence in professional review; Responsible stewardship of federal funds; Honest representation to client

Normative edge (guidedByPrinciple)
type: Derivation
comment: property=guidedByPrinciple; action's guidedByPrinciple text resolved to the case Obligation/Principle individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select (obligation-engagement grounding)
value: Competence in professional review; Responsible stewardship of federal funds; Honest representation to client

Normative edge (violatesObligation)
type: Derivation
comment: property=violatesObligation; action's violatesObligation text resolved to the case Obligation/Principle individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select (obligation-engagement grounding)
value: Obligation to perform services within area of competence; Obligation to recognize limits of competency and escalate appropriately; Public fund stewardship

Normative edge (violatesObligation)
type: Derivation
comment: property=violatesObligation; action's violatesObligation text resolved to the case Obligation/Principle individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select (obligation-engagement grounding)
value: Obligation to perform services within area of competence; Obligation to recognize limits of competency and escalate appropriately; Public fund stewardship

Normative edge (guidedByPrinciple)
type: Derivation
comment: property=guidedByPrinciple; action's guidedByPrinciple text resolved to the case Obligation/Principle individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select (obligation-engagement grounding)
value: Completeness of professional deliverables; Honest representation to client; Public fund stewardship

Normative edge (guidedByPrinciple)
type: Derivation
comment: property=guidedByPrinciple; action's guidedByPrinciple text resolved to the case Obligation/Principle individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select (obligation-engagement grounding)
value: Completeness of professional deliverables; Honest representation to client; Public fund stewardship

Normative edge (guidedByPrinciple)
type: Derivation
comment: property=guidedByPrinciple; action's guidedByPrinciple text resolved to the case Obligation/Principle individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select (obligation-engagement grounding)
value: Completeness of professional deliverables; Honest representation to client; Public fund stewardship

Normative edge (guidedByPrinciple)
type: Derivation
comment: property=guidedByPrinciple; action's guidedByPrinciple text resolved to the case Obligation/Principle individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select (obligation-engagement grounding)
value: Completeness of professional deliverables; Honest representation to client; Public fund stewardship

Normative edge (violatesObligation)
type: Derivation
comment: property=violatesObligation; action's violatesObligation text resolved to the case Obligation/Principle individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select (obligation-engagement grounding)
value: Obligation to provide complete design drawings and specifications; Obligation to avoid deceptive acts; Obligation to perform services within area of competence

Normative edge (violatesObligation)
type: Derivation
comment: property=violatesObligation; action's violatesObligation text resolved to the case Obligation/Principle individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select (obligation-engagement grounding)
value: Obligation to provide complete design drawings and specifications; Obligation to avoid deceptive acts; Obligation to perform services within area of competence

Normative edge (violatesObligation)
type: Derivation
comment: property=violatesObligation; action's violatesObligation text resolved to the case Obligation/Principle individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select (obligation-engagement grounding)
value: Obligation to provide complete design drawings and specifications; Obligation to avoid deceptive acts; Obligation to perform services within area of competence

Normative edge (guidedByPrinciple)
type: Derivation
comment: property=guidedByPrinciple; action's guidedByPrinciple text resolved to the case Obligation/Principle individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select (obligation-engagement grounding)
value: Informed risk assessment before bidding; Professional competence; Honest representation to client

Normative edge (guidedByPrinciple)
type: Derivation
comment: property=guidedByPrinciple; action's guidedByPrinciple text resolved to the case Obligation/Principle individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select (obligation-engagement grounding)
value: Informed risk assessment before bidding; Professional competence; Honest representation to client

Normative edge (violatesObligation)
type: Derivation
comment: property=violatesObligation; action's violatesObligation text resolved to the case Obligation/Principle individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select (obligation-engagement grounding)
value: Obligation to perform services within area of competence; Obligation to make an informed professional judgment before committing to contract performance

Normative edge (guidedByPrinciple)
type: Derivation
comment: property=guidedByPrinciple; action's guidedByPrinciple text resolved to the case Obligation/Principle individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select (obligation-engagement grounding)
value: Transparency with clients and public agencies; Honest representation to client; Public fund stewardship

Normative edge (guidedByPrinciple)
type: Derivation
comment: property=guidedByPrinciple; action's guidedByPrinciple text resolved to the case Obligation/Principle individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select (obligation-engagement grounding)
value: Transparency with clients and public agencies; Honest representation to client; Public fund stewardship

Normative edge (guidedByPrinciple)
type: Derivation
comment: property=guidedByPrinciple; action's guidedByPrinciple text resolved to the case Obligation/Principle individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select (obligation-engagement grounding)
value: Transparency with clients and public agencies; Honest representation to client; Public fund stewardship

Normative edge (violatesObligation)
type: Derivation
comment: property=violatesObligation; action's violatesObligation text resolved to the case Obligation/Principle individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select (obligation-engagement grounding)
value: Obligation to avoid deceptive acts; Obligation to provide complete design drawings and specifications; Obligation of honest disclosure to client and funding agency; Public fund stewardship

Normative edge (violatesObligation)
type: Derivation
comment: property=violatesObligation; action's violatesObligation text resolved to the case Obligation/Principle individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select (obligation-engagement grounding)
value: Obligation to avoid deceptive acts; Obligation to provide complete design drawings and specifications; Obligation of honest disclosure to client and funding agency; Public fund stewardship

Normative edge (violatesObligation)
type: Derivation
comment: property=violatesObligation; action's violatesObligation text resolved to the case Obligation/Principle individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select (obligation-engagement grounding)
value: Obligation to avoid deceptive acts; Obligation to provide complete design drawings and specifications; Obligation of honest disclosure to client and funding agency; Public fund stewardship

Normative edge (violatesObligation)
type: Derivation
comment: property=violatesObligation; action's violatesObligation text resolved to the case Obligation/Principle individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select (obligation-engagement grounding)
value: Obligation to avoid deceptive acts; Obligation to provide complete design drawings and specifications; Obligation of honest disclosure to client and funding agency; Public fund stewardship

Normative edge (guidedByPrinciple)
type: Derivation
comment: property=guidedByPrinciple; action's guidedByPrinciple text resolved to the case Obligation/Principle individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select (obligation-engagement grounding)
value: Professional competence; Honest representation to client

Normative edge (guidedByPrinciple)
type: Derivation
comment: property=guidedByPrinciple; action's guidedByPrinciple text resolved to the case Obligation/Principle individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select (obligation-engagement grounding)
value: Professional competence; Honest representation to client

Normative edge (guidedByPrinciple)
type: Derivation
comment: property=guidedByPrinciple; action's guidedByPrinciple text resolved to the case Obligation/Principle individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select (obligation-engagement grounding)
value: Transparency with clients and public agencies; Honest representation to client; Public fund stewardship

Normative edge (guidedByPrinciple)
type: Derivation
comment: property=guidedByPrinciple; action's guidedByPrinciple text resolved to the case Obligation/Principle individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select (obligation-engagement grounding)
value: Transparency with clients and public agencies; Honest representation to client; Public fund stewardship

Normative edge (guidedByPrinciple)
type: Derivation
comment: property=guidedByPrinciple; action's guidedByPrinciple text resolved to the case Obligation/Principle individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select (obligation-engagement grounding)
value: Transparency with clients and public agencies; Honest representation to client; Public fund stewardship

Normative edge (violatesObligation)
type: Derivation
comment: property=violatesObligation; action's violatesObligation text resolved to the case Obligation/Principle individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select (obligation-engagement grounding)
value: Obligation to avoid deceptive acts; Obligation of honest disclosure to client and funding agency; Obligation to provide complete design drawings and specifications

Normative edge (violatesObligation)
type: Derivation
comment: property=violatesObligation; action's violatesObligation text resolved to the case Obligation/Principle individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select (obligation-engagement grounding)
value: Obligation to avoid deceptive acts; Obligation of honest disclosure to client and funding agency; Obligation to provide complete design drawings and specifications

Normative edge (violatesObligation)
type: Derivation
comment: property=violatesObligation; action's violatesObligation text resolved to the case Obligation/Principle individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select (obligation-engagement grounding)
value: Obligation to avoid deceptive acts; Obligation of honest disclosure to client and funding agency; Obligation to provide complete design drawings and specifications

Normative edge (violatesObligation)
type: Derivation
comment: property=violatesObligation; action's violatesObligation text resolved to the case Obligation/Principle individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select (obligation-engagement grounding)
value: Obligation to avoid deceptive acts; Obligation of honest disclosure to client and funding agency; Obligation to provide complete design drawings and specifications

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

Participant edge (possessedBy)
type: Derivation
comment: property=possessedBy; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Defense Industry Engineer (BER Case No. 82-5)

Participant edge (obligatedParty)
type: Derivation
comment: property=obligatedParty; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Defense industry engineer (BER Case No. 82-5)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Actor relationship edge (has_provider)
type: Derivation
comment: relation_type=has_provider; property=hasClient
generated at time: 2026-06-05T09:45:59.391669+00:00
value: Engineer C could have requested further clarification from the owner or Engineer A in order to better understand the engineering drawings

Actor relationship edge (reviewed_by)
type: Derivation
comment: relation_type=reviewed_by; property=workReviewedBy
generated at time: 2026-06-05T09:45:59.450811+00:00
value: The signed and sealed drawings and specifications are ultimately approved by Engineer B of the engineering staff of the federal agency

Actor relationship edge (employs)
type: Derivation
comment: relation_type=employs; property=employedBy
generated at time: 2026-06-05T09:45:59.387367+00:00
value: approved by Engineer B of the engineering staff of the federal agency funding the project

Actor relationship edge (reviews)
type: Derivation
comment: relation_type=reviews; property=reviewsWorkOf
generated at time: 2026-06-05T09:45:59.386328+00:00
value: The signed and sealed drawings and specifications are ultimately approved by Engineer B of the engineering staff of the federal agency funding the project

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A owed a duty of loyalty to the local public agency client as a faithful agent, but that duty did not extend to concealing the incompleteness of the deliverables

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A engaged in deceptive conduct by submitting incomplete drawings while asserting that incompleteness was attributable to time pressures and anticipated federal funding

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A rationalized submitting incomplete design documents by asserting that federal funds would be awarded to complete the work

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A rationalized submitting incomplete drawings and specifications in part because he believed federal grant funds, rather than local funds, would cover any increased costs

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A submitted incomplete and partially unbuildable dam drawings and specifications, creating risk to the public who would rely on the dam

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A submitted incomplete design drawings and specifications for the dam project while asserting that the incompleteness was due to time pressures

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A concealed the known incompleteness of the drawings and specifications from the client, the federal approving engineer, and the bidding contractors

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A knew the drawings and specifications were incomplete and that parts of the project were unbuildable, yet submitted them under seal without disclosing these deficiencies

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A produced drawings and specifications for a dam that were materially incomplete and contained elements that a contractor found unbuildable

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A failed to conduct the professional engagement transparently by submitting incomplete drawings and specifications without disclosing their deficiencies

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A's assertion that incomplete work was acceptable because federal funds would remedy the deficiency constituted a misrepresentation to the public funding authority

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer B approved Engineer A's incomplete dam design drawings without either possessing the competence to identify their inadequacy or taking action to ensure that a competent reviewer was assigned

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer B reviewed and approved the signed and sealed drawings and specifications on behalf of the federal funding agency, yet the documents were materially incomplete

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer C, as a licensed engineer and contractor, identified and reported the material deficiencies in the drawings and specifications at the pre-construction conference

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer C, as both a licensed engineer and a contractor, was expected to apply professional engineering competence to evaluate the bidding documents and identify their inadequacies

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer C, as a licensed engineer and contractor, submitted a low bid on the dam project without including bid items for additional services to address known document inadequacies

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The defense industry engineer who documented and reported excessive subcontractor costs and delays had an ethical right but not an ethical duty to continue pursuing disclosure

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A knew the drawings and specifications were incomplete and that parts of the project were unbuildable, yet submitted them under seal without disclosing these deficiencies

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A submitted incomplete and partially unbuildable dam drawings and specifications, creating risk to the public who would rely on the dam

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A rationalized submitting incomplete drawings and specifications in part because he believed federal grant funds, rather than local funds, would cover any increased costs

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A rationalized submitting incomplete design documents by asserting that federal funds would be awarded to complete the work

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A produced drawings and specifications for a dam that were materially incomplete and contained elements that a contractor found unbuildable

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A submitted incomplete design drawings and specifications for the dam project while asserting that the incompleteness was due to time pressures

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Transforms general honesty and faithful-agent principles into a specific obligation to disclose when external pressures have compromised the professional's ability to deliver a complete and adequate work product.

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A's assertion that incomplete work was acceptable because federal funds would remedy the deficiency constituted a misrepresentation to the public funding authority

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A submitted incomplete design drawings and specifications for the dam project while asserting that the incompleteness was due to time pressures

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A failed to conduct the professional engagement transparently by submitting incomplete drawings and specifications without disclosing their deficiencies

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer B reviewed and approved the signed and sealed drawings and specifications on behalf of the federal funding agency, yet the documents were materially incomplete

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer B approved Engineer A's incomplete dam design drawings without either possessing the competence to identify their inadequacy or taking action to ensure that a competent reviewer was assigned

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer C, as a licensed engineer and contractor, identified and reported the material deficiencies in the drawings and specifications at the pre-construction conference

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer C, as a licensed engineer and contractor, submitted a low bid on the dam project without including bid items for additional services to address known document inadequacies

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The defense industry engineer who documented and reported excessive subcontractor costs and delays had an ethical right but not an ethical duty to continue pursuing disclosure

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to apply his professional seal only to drawings and specifications that were complete, buildable, and met professional standards, and not to seal documents he knew to be materially incomplete.

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public by ensuring that the dam drawings and specifications were complete and buildable before submission

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer C, as a licensed engineer and contractor, was obligated to formally document and report the identified design deficiencies and unbuildable elements to the client and design engineer

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer C was obligated, upon identifying deficiencies and unbuildable elements in the dam project bidding documents, to either include appropriate bid items for additional services needed to complete the work or to seek clarification

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: The engineer had an ethical right but not a mandatory ethical duty to continue reporting excessive subcontractor costs and delays to proper authority after the employer rejected the reports

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to make the decision to submit complete and adequate drawings and specifications without regard to his assumption that federal funds rather than local funds would absorb any cost overruns

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to produce drawings and specifications that were complete, technically adequate, and buildable

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to provide a complete and buildable set of design drawings and specifications for the dam project

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to communicate to the local public agency that the specified delivery date was incompatible with producing complete and buildable drawings and specifications

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to refrain from representing to the client and federal funding agency that incomplete design documents were acceptable because federal funds would be awarded to complete the work

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to disclose to the local public agency client, the federal approving engineer, and the bidding contractors that the drawings and specifications were materially incomplete and that certain elements were unbuildable

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer B was obligated to conduct a sufficiently thorough independent technical review of the submitted dam drawings and specifications to identify material deficiencies and unbuildable elements before approving them on behalf of the fede

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer B was obligated, upon recognizing any inability to perform a competent review of Engineer A's dam design documents, to inform a supervisor so that a qualified engineer could be assigned to perform the review

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

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

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

State edge (affects)
type: Derivation
comment: property=affects; state affectedParties text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select
value: Engineer A; Local public agency; Engineer B; Hi-Lo Construction; Federal funding agency

State edge (affects)
type: Derivation
comment: property=affects; state affectedParties text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select
value: Engineer A; Local public agency; Engineer B; Hi-Lo Construction; Federal funding agency

State edge (affects)
type: Derivation
comment: property=affects; state affectedParties text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select
value: Engineer A; Local public agency; Engineer B; Hi-Lo Construction; Federal funding agency

State edge (affects)
type: Derivation
comment: property=affects; state affectedParties text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select
value: Engineer A; Local public agency; Federal funding agency; Hi-Lo Construction

State edge (affects)
type: Derivation
comment: property=affects; state affectedParties text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select
value: Engineer A; Local public agency; Federal funding agency; Hi-Lo Construction

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

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

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

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

State edge (affects)
type: Derivation
comment: property=affects; state affectedParties text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select
value: Engineer A; Local public agency; Engineer B (federal agency approver); Hi-Lo Construction

State edge (affects)
type: Derivation
comment: property=affects; state affectedParties text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select
value: Engineer A; Local public agency; Engineer B (federal agency approver); Hi-Lo Construction

State edge (affects)
type: Derivation
comment: property=affects; state affectedParties text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select
value: General public downstream of dam; Local public agency; Hi-Lo Construction workers; Engineer A

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

State edge (activatesConstraint)
type: Derivation
comment: property=activatesConstraint; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Engineer may disclose but is not required to do so

State edge (activatesObligation)
type: Derivation
comment: property=activatesObligation; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Discretionary right to disclose as matter of personal conscience

State edge (activatesConstraint)
type: Derivation
comment: property=activatesConstraint; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Professional must not allow client or approving authority to rely on a deliverable without knowing its limitations

State edge (activatesConstraint)
type: Derivation
comment: property=activatesConstraint; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Professional must not seal and submit documents known to be incomplete without disclosing the reason and the incompleteness

State edge (activatesObligation)
type: Derivation
comment: property=activatesObligation; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Duty to seek deadline extension rather than deliver a known-incomplete product

State edge (activatesObligation)
type: Derivation
comment: property=activatesObligation; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Duty to disclose factors that materially affected the quality of the professional's work product

State edge (activatedByEvent)
type: Derivation
comment: property=activatedByEvent; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: A contractor-engineer reviews bidding documents prior to submitting a bid

State edge (activatedByEvent)
type: Derivation
comment: property=activatedByEvent; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: The contractor-engineer submits a bid without reflecting the deficiency or seeking clarification

State edge (activatedByEvent)
type: Derivation
comment: property=activatedByEvent; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: The documents are materially incomplete or inadequate for construction

State edge (activatesConstraint)
type: Derivation
comment: property=activatesConstraint; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Contractor-engineer must not submit a bid that ignores known inadequacies without disclosure

State edge (activatesConstraint)
type: Derivation
comment: property=activatesConstraint; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Contractor-engineer may not later claim ignorance of deficiencies apparent from document review

State edge (activatesObligation)
type: Derivation
comment: property=activatesObligation; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Obligation to seek clarification when documents appear incomplete

State edge (activatesObligation)
type: Derivation
comment: property=activatesObligation; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Obligation to reflect known deficiencies in bid pricing

State edge (terminatedByEvent)
type: Derivation
comment: property=terminatedByEvent; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Contractor adjusts bid to include items for additional services

State edge (terminatedByEvent)
type: Derivation
comment: property=terminatedByEvent; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Contractor seeks clarification and receives adequate design information

State edge (terminatedByEvent)
type: Derivation
comment: property=terminatedByEvent; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Contract is withdrawn or rebid with complete documents

State edge (terminatedByEvent)
type: Derivation
comment: property=terminatedByEvent; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Deficiencies identified at pre-construction conference; corrective action not described

State edge (activatesObligation)
type: Derivation
comment: property=activatesObligation; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Duty to disclose assumptions about funding that affect project scope or cost

State edge (activatedByEvent)
type: Derivation
comment: property=activatedByEvent; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Engineer A submitted incomplete plans while assuming federal funds would be awarded to complete the work, without disclosing or obtaining authorization for that assumption

State edge (activatesObligation)
type: Derivation
comment: property=activatesObligation; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Duty to disclose assumptions about funding that affect project scope or cost

State edge (activatedByEvent)
type: Derivation
comment: property=activatedByEvent; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Professional submits drawings, specifications, or other deliverable known to be incomplete

State edge (activatesConstraint)
type: Derivation
comment: property=activatesConstraint; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Professional must not allow project to proceed to bid or construction on an incomplete deliverable without disclosure

State edge (activatesConstraint)
type: Derivation
comment: property=activatesConstraint; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Professional must not misrepresent completeness of sealed documents

State edge (activatesObligation)
type: Derivation
comment: property=activatesObligation; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Duty to disclose incompleteness to client and approving authority

State edge (activatedByEvent)
type: Derivation
comment: property=activatedByEvent; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Professional submits drawings, specifications, or other deliverable known to be incomplete

State edge (activatesConstraint)
type: Derivation
comment: property=activatesConstraint; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Professional must not allow project to proceed to bid or construction on an incomplete deliverable without disclosure

State edge (activatesConstraint)
type: Derivation
comment: property=activatesConstraint; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Professional must not misrepresent completeness of sealed documents

State edge (activatesObligation)
type: Derivation
comment: property=activatesObligation; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Duty to disclose incompleteness to client and approving authority

State edge (terminatedByEvent)
type: Derivation
comment: property=terminatedByEvent; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Deficiencies identified at pre-construction conference by Engineer C; resolution not described in the text

State edge (activatesConstraint)
type: Derivation
comment: property=activatesConstraint; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Engineer may disclose but is not required to do so

State edge (activatesObligation)
type: Derivation
comment: property=activatesObligation; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Discretionary right to disclose as matter of personal conscience

State edge (activatesConstraint)
type: Derivation
comment: property=activatesConstraint; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Professional must not allow client or approving authority to rely on a deliverable without knowing its limitations

State edge (activatesConstraint)
type: Derivation
comment: property=activatesConstraint; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Professional must not seal and submit documents known to be incomplete without disclosing the reason and the incompleteness

State edge (activatesObligation)
type: Derivation
comment: property=activatesObligation; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Duty to seek deadline extension rather than deliver a known-incomplete product

State edge (activatesObligation)
type: Derivation
comment: property=activatesObligation; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Duty to disclose factors that materially affected the quality of the professional's work product

State edge (terminatedByEvent)
type: Derivation
comment: property=terminatedByEvent; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Engineer A's acknowledgment at the pre-construction conference that he felt pressured

State edge (activatedByEvent)
type: Derivation
comment: property=activatedByEvent; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: The submission is materially incomplete or deficient

State edge (activatedByEvent)
type: Derivation
comment: property=activatedByEvent; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: A reviewing engineer approves a design submission

State edge (activatesConstraint)
type: Derivation
comment: property=activatesConstraint; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Reviewer must not allow incomplete work to advance without disclosure

State edge (activatesConstraint)
type: Derivation
comment: property=activatesConstraint; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Reviewer must not approve work beyond their competence

State edge (activatesObligation)
type: Derivation
comment: property=activatesObligation; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Obligation to recognize competence limits and escalate to a qualified reviewer

State edge (terminatedByEvent)
type: Derivation
comment: property=terminatedByEvent; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: A competent reviewer re-examines and properly evaluates the submission

State edge (activatedByEvent)
type: Derivation
comment: property=activatedByEvent; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: The submission is materially incomplete or deficient

State edge (activatedByEvent)
type: Derivation
comment: property=activatedByEvent; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: A reviewing engineer approves a design submission

State edge (activatesConstraint)
type: Derivation
comment: property=activatesConstraint; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Reviewer must not allow incomplete work to advance without disclosure

State edge (activatesConstraint)
type: Derivation
comment: property=activatesConstraint; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Reviewer must not approve work beyond their competence

State edge (activatesObligation)
type: Derivation
comment: property=activatesObligation; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Obligation to recognize competence limits and escalate to a qualified reviewer

State edge (terminatedByEvent)
type: Derivation
comment: property=terminatedByEvent; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: A competent reviewer re-examines and properly evaluates the submission

State edge (activatedByEvent)
type: Derivation
comment: property=activatedByEvent; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: A contractor-engineer reviews bidding documents prior to submitting a bid

State edge (activatedByEvent)
type: Derivation
comment: property=activatedByEvent; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: The contractor-engineer submits a bid without reflecting the deficiency or seeking clarification

State edge (activatedByEvent)
type: Derivation
comment: property=activatedByEvent; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: The documents are materially incomplete or inadequate for construction

State edge (activatesConstraint)
type: Derivation
comment: property=activatesConstraint; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Contractor-engineer must not submit a bid that ignores known inadequacies without disclosure

State edge (activatesConstraint)
type: Derivation
comment: property=activatesConstraint; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Contractor-engineer may not later claim ignorance of deficiencies apparent from document review

State edge (activatesObligation)
type: Derivation
comment: property=activatesObligation; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Obligation to seek clarification when documents appear incomplete

State edge (activatesObligation)
type: Derivation
comment: property=activatesObligation; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Obligation to reflect known deficiencies in bid pricing

State edge (terminatedByEvent)
type: Derivation
comment: property=terminatedByEvent; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Contractor adjusts bid to include items for additional services

State edge (terminatedByEvent)
type: Derivation
comment: property=terminatedByEvent; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Contractor seeks clarification and receives adequate design information

State edge (terminatedByEvent)
type: Derivation
comment: property=terminatedByEvent; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Contract is withdrawn or rebid with complete documents

State edge (terminatedByEvent)
type: Derivation
comment: property=terminatedByEvent; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Not resolved; Engineer C encountered construction problems attributable to the incomplete documents

State edge (activatedByEvent)
type: Derivation
comment: property=activatedByEvent; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Local agency awards contract without in-house technical capacity to evaluate the deliverable

State edge (activatedByEvent)
type: Derivation
comment: property=activatedByEvent; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: The submission is materially incomplete or deficient

State edge (activatedByEvent)
type: Derivation
comment: property=activatedByEvent; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: A reviewing engineer approves a design submission

State edge (activatesConstraint)
type: Derivation
comment: property=activatesConstraint; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Reviewer must not allow incomplete work to advance without disclosure

State edge (activatesConstraint)
type: Derivation
comment: property=activatesConstraint; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Reviewer must not approve work beyond their competence

State edge (activatesObligation)
type: Derivation
comment: property=activatesObligation; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Obligation to recognize competence limits and escalate to a qualified reviewer

State edge (terminatedByEvent)
type: Derivation
comment: property=terminatedByEvent; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: A competent reviewer re-examines and properly evaluates the submission

Temporal relation edge (toEntity)
type: Derivation
comment: property=toEntity; temporal relation's toEntity text resolved to the case Action/Event individual by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Engineer A's firm's impressive brochure and personal interview results in the award of a contract for the design, drawings, and specifications.

Temporal relation edge (fromEntity)
type: Derivation
comment: property=fromEntity; temporal relation's fromEntity text resolved to the case Action/Event individual by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: The signed and sealed drawings and specifications are ultimately approved by Engineer B... and the project is thereafter duly advertised for bids.

Temporal relation edge (toEntity)
type: Derivation
comment: property=toEntity; temporal relation's toEntity text resolved to the case Action/Event individual by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: The signed and sealed drawings and specifications are ultimately approved by Engineer B... and the project is thereafter duly advertised for bids.

Temporal relation edge (fromEntity)
type: Derivation
comment: property=fromEntity; temporal relation's fromEntity text resolved to the case Action/Event individual by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: A contract is awarded to the low bidder, Hi-Lo Construction. At the pre-construction conference, it is pointed out by Engineer C... that much of the design detail is lacking.

Temporal relation edge (toEntity)
type: Derivation
comment: property=toEntity; temporal relation's toEntity text resolved to the case Action/Event individual by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: A contract is awarded to the low bidder, Hi-Lo Construction. At the pre-construction conference, it is pointed out by Engineer C... that much of the design detail is lacking.

Temporal relation edge (toEntity)
type: Derivation
comment: property=toEntity; temporal relation's toEntity text resolved to the case Action/Event individual by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Presumably, Engineer C had an opportunity to review the bidding documents which included appropriate engineering drawings, plans, and specifications. From such a review, Engineer C should have had a sense of what would be necessary to complete the project... Engineer C submitted the low bid on the project.

Temporal relation edge (fromEntity)
type: Derivation
comment: property=fromEntity; temporal relation's fromEntity text resolved to the case Action/Event individual by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Engineer A responds to an RFP... results in the award of a contract for the design, drawings, and specifications. The signed and sealed drawings and specifications are ultimately approved by Engineer B.

Temporal relation edge (fromEntity)
type: Derivation
comment: property=fromEntity; temporal relation's fromEntity text resolved to the case Action/Event individual by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: A contract is awarded to the low bidder, Hi-Lo Construction. At the pre-construction conference, it is pointed out by Engineer C, owner of Hi-Lo Construction, that much of the design detail is lacking.

Temporal relation edge (toEntity)
type: Derivation
comment: property=toEntity; temporal relation's toEntity text resolved to the case Action/Event individual by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: A contract is awarded to the low bidder, Hi-Lo Construction. At the pre-construction conference, it is pointed out by Engineer C, owner of Hi-Lo Construction, that much of the design detail is lacking.

Temporal relation edge (toEntity)
type: Derivation
comment: property=toEntity; temporal relation's toEntity text resolved to the case Action/Event individual by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Engineer A felt pressured to deliver the drawings and specifications on a specified date, but did not inform anyone as to their incompleteness... At the pre-construction conference... Engineer A generally agrees with Hi-Lo's characterization.

Temporal relation edge (fromEntity)
type: Derivation
comment: property=fromEntity; temporal relation's fromEntity text resolved to the case Action/Event individual by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Engineer A felt pressured to deliver the drawings and specifications on a specified date, but did not inform anyone as to their incompleteness.

Temporal relation edge (fromEntity)
type: Derivation
comment: property=fromEntity; temporal relation's fromEntity text resolved to the case Action/Event individual by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Engineer A responds to an RFP from a small local public agency to build a new dam to be financed in part by a federal grant.

Temporal relation edge (toEntity)
type: Derivation
comment: property=toEntity; temporal relation's toEntity text resolved to the case Action/Event individual by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: The signed and sealed drawings and specifications are ultimately approved by Engineer B of the engineering staff of the federal agency funding the project.

Temporal relation edge (fromEntity)
type: Derivation
comment: property=fromEntity; temporal relation's fromEntity text resolved to the case Action/Event individual by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: The project is thereafter duly advertised for bids and a contract is awarded to the low bidder, Hi-Lo Construction.

Temporal relation edge (toEntity)
type: Derivation
comment: property=toEntity; temporal relation's toEntity text resolved to the case Action/Event individual by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: The project is thereafter duly advertised for bids and a contract is awarded to the low bidder, Hi-Lo Construction.

Incomplete Work Submission → Document Incompleteness Occurrence
type: CausalChain
type: NamedIndividual
causal language: Engineer A decided to submit drawings and specifications that he knew to be incomplete by the specified date... while much of the information was missing from the drawings and specifications
causal step1: Incomplete Work Submission -- Engineer A submits knowingly incomplete drawings and specifications
causal step2: Document Incompleteness Occurrence -- Drawings and specifications exist in a knowingly incomplete state
cause text: Incomplete Work Submission
counterfactual: Had Engineer A completed the full design as required, the incompleteness would not have occurred
effect text: Document Incompleteness Occurrence
necessary factors: Engineer A's decision to submit despite incompleteness
necessary factors: Engineer A's expectation that federal funds would cover added costs
necessary factors: Time pressure to deliver by a specified date
responsibility type: direct
responsible agent: Engineer A
responsible agent text: Engineer A
sufficient factors: Decision to deliver incomplete documents under deadline pressure with reliance on federal funding
within agent control: true
discovered in section: facts
synthesis literal: causalLanguage
synthesis literal: causalSequence
synthesis literal: counterfactual
synthesis literal: necessaryFactors
synthesis literal: responsibilityType
synthesis literal: sufficientFactors
synthesis literal: withinAgentControl
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 85 Extraction

Defense Engineer Whistleblower Conscience
type: WhistleblowerConscienceConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
constrained entity: Defense Industry Engineer (BER 82-5)
case context: In BER Case No. 82-5, an engineer employed by a defense firm documented and reported excessive subcontractor costs and delays. The employer rejected the reports. The Board found no mandatory duty to escalate further but recognized an ethical right to do so.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.85
constrained entity: Defense industry engineer
constraint class: Whistleblower Conscience Constraint
constraint statement: The engineer was not ethically required to continue reporting excessive subcontractor costs and delays after the employer rejected those reports, but retained an ethical right to do so as a matter of personal conscience, with the understanding that doing so might result in loss of employment.
severity: medium
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case No. 82-5
temporal scope: After employer rejection of the engineer's internal reports
text references: if an engineer feels strongly that an employer's course of conduct is improper when related to public concerns, and if the engineer feels compelled to blow the whistle to expose facts as he sees them, he may well have to pay the price of loss of employment
text references: the engineer did not have an ethical obligation to continue his efforts to secure a change in the policy after his employer rejected his reports or to report his concerns to proper authority, but has an ethical right to do so as a matter of personal conscience
text references: the ethical duty or right of the engineer becomes a matter of personal conscience
discovered in case: 85
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: discussion
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T16:56:15.795068+00:00
first discovered in case: 85
match confidence: 0.0
matches existing: false
source text: the engineer did not have an ethical obligation to continue his efforts to secure a change in the policy after his employer rejected his reports or to report his concerns to proper authority, but has an ethical right to do so as a matter of personal conscience
synthesis literal: caseContext
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: constraintClass
synthesis literal: constraintStatement
synthesis literal: severity
synthesis literal: source
synthesis literal: temporalScope
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: The engineer was not ethically required to continue reporting excessive subcontractor costs and delays after the employer rejected those reports, but retained an ethical right to do so as a matter of personal conscience, with the understanding that doing so might result in loss of employment.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T16:56:15.795068+00:00
was attributed to: Case 85 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 85 Extraction

Defense Industry Engineer Whistleblower Conscience
type: WhistleblowerConscienceJudgmentCapability
type: NamedIndividual
possessed by: Defense Industry Engineer (BER 82-5)
capability class: Whistleblower Conscience Judgment Capability
capability statement: The defense industry engineer demonstrated the capability to assess whether employer conduct involving excessive subcontractor costs and delays warranted disclosure beyond internal reporting, and to exercise personal conscience judgment about whether to pursue the matter publicly.
case context: BER Case No. 82-5 involved an engineer at a defense firm who reported subcontractor cost and schedule problems internally. The Board found no mandatory ethical duty to continue the campaign or go public, but recognized an ethical right to do so as a matter of personal conscience, distinguishing this from situations involving public health and safety.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.82
demonstrated through: Documenting and reporting excessive subcontractor costs and delays to the employer, then facing the question of whether to escalate to public disclosure after the employer rejected the reports.
possessed by: Defense Industry Engineer (BER Case No. 82-5)
proficiency level: intermediate
text references: the Board ruled that the engineer did not have an ethical obligation to continue his efforts to secure a change in the policy after his employer rejected his reports or to report his concerns to proper authority, but has an ethical right to do so as a matter of personal conscience
text references: the ethical duty or right of the engineer becomes a matter of personal conscience
discovered in case: 85
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: discussion
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T16:55:58.579791+00:00
first discovered in case: 85
match confidence: 0.62
match reasoning: Via class 'Whistleblower Conscience Judgment Capability': Safety Disclosure Escalation Capability addresses escalation to regulatory authorities when internal resolution fails, but the present capability is distinct in that it concerns the threshold judgment between ethical right and ethical duty in non-safety public interest contexts, and the personal conscience dimension of that judgment. The match is weak enough that a new class is warranted, though there is partial conceptual overlap.
matched ontology class: SafetyDisclosureEscalationCapability
matched ontology label: Safety Disclosure Escalation Capability
matches existing: true
source text: the Board ruled that the engineer did not have an ethical obligation to continue his efforts to secure a change in the policy after his employer rejected his reports or to report his concerns to proper authority, but has an ethical right to do so as a matter of personal conscience
synthesis literal: capabilityClass
synthesis literal: capabilityStatement
synthesis literal: caseContext
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: demonstratedThrough
synthesis literal: proficiencyLevel
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: The defense industry engineer demonstrated the capability to assess whether employer conduct involving excessive subcontractor costs and delays warranted disclosure beyond internal reporting, and to exercise personal conscience judgment about whether to pursue the matter publicly.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T16:55:58.579791+00:00
was attributed to: Case 85 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 85 Extraction

Engineer A Buildability Assessment
type: BuildabilityAssessmentCapability
type: NamedIndividual
possessed by: Engineer A
capability class: Buildability Assessment Capability
capability statement: Engineer A possessed sufficient buildability assessment capability to recognize that the submitted drawings and specifications were incomplete and contained unbuildable elements, but failed to act on that recognition before submission.
case context: At the pre-construction conference, Engineer A acknowledged the accuracy of the contractor's finding that the dam drawings and specifications were materially deficient and contained unbuildable elements, indicating awareness of the deficiency prior to or at submission.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.85
demonstrated through: Agreement with Hi-Lo Construction's characterization that design detail was lacking and that certain parts of the project were unbuildable without major changes.
proficiency level: intermediate
text references: Engineer A generally agrees with Hi-Lo's characterization
discovered in case: 85
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: facts
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T16:51:18.309339+00:00
first discovered in case: 85
match confidence: 0.0
matches existing: false
source text: Engineer A generally agrees with Hi-Lo's characterization
synthesis literal: capabilityClass
synthesis literal: capabilityStatement
synthesis literal: caseContext
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: demonstratedThrough
synthesis literal: proficiencyLevel
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineer A possessed sufficient buildability assessment capability to recognize that the submitted drawings and specifications were incomplete and contained unbuildable elements, but failed to act on that recognition before submission.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T16:51:18.309339+00:00
was attributed to: Case 85 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 85 Extraction

Engineer A Competence Dam Drawings
type: CompetenceConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
constrained entity: Engineer A
case context: Engineer A submitted dam drawings and specifications that were materially incomplete, citing deadline pressure as the cause. Whether the incompleteness arose from insufficient time, insufficient competence, or both, the constraint required him to either meet professional standards or disclose the gap.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.85
constraint class: Competence Constraint
constraint statement: Engineer A was constrained from submitting drawings and specifications that he lacked the capacity or time to complete to professional standards, and was required either to produce a complete and adequate product or to disclose the limitations preventing him from doing so.
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics, Section II.2
temporal scope: Throughout the design phase and at the time of submission
text references: Engineer A generally agrees with Hi-Lo's characterization, but in his defense responds that he felt pressured to deliver the drawings and specifications on a specified date, but did not inform anyone as to their incompleteness.
discovered in case: 85
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: facts
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T16:51:16.118939+00:00
first discovered in case: 85
match confidence: 0.95
match reasoning: Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Competence Constraint'
matched ontology class: CompetenceConstraint
matched ontology label: Competence Constraint
matches existing: true
source text: Engineer A generally agrees with Hi-Lo's characterization, but in his defense responds that he felt pressured to deliver the drawings and specifications on a specified date, but did not inform anyone as to their incompleteness.
synthesis literal: caseContext
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: constraintClass
synthesis literal: constraintStatement
synthesis literal: severity
synthesis literal: source
synthesis literal: temporalScope
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineer A was constrained from submitting drawings and specifications that he lacked the capacity or time to complete to professional standards, and was required either to produce a complete and adequate product or to disclose the limitations preventing him from doing so.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T16:51:16.118939+00:00
was attributed to: Case 85 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 85 Extraction

Engineer A Complete Design Constraint
type: CompleteReportingConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
constrained entity: Engineer A
case context: Engineer A was retained to provide a complete design for a dam project and submitted drawings and specifications that were materially incomplete, citing time pressures and anticipated federal funding as justification.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.88
constraint class: Complete Reporting Constraint
constraint statement: Engineer A was required to provide a complete set of design drawings and specifications for the dam project and was prohibited from submitting incomplete documents as if they satisfied the full design obligation.
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; professional engineering standards for design deliverables
temporal scope: Throughout the design engagement and at the time of deliverable submission
text references: Engineer A was fully required to provide the complete design on the project
text references: It is clear that Engineer A had an obligation to provide a complete set of design drawings and specifications on the project in which Engineer A was engaged
discovered in case: 85
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: discussion
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T16:56:15.795068+00:00
first discovered in case: 85
match confidence: 0.95
match reasoning: Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Complete Reporting Constraint'
matched ontology class: CompleteReportingConstraint
matched ontology label: Complete Reporting Constraint
matches existing: true
source text: It is clear that Engineer A had an obligation to provide a complete set of design drawings and specifications on the project in which Engineer A was engaged
synthesis literal: caseContext
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: constraintClass
synthesis literal: constraintStatement
synthesis literal: severity
synthesis literal: source
synthesis literal: temporalScope
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineer A was required to provide a complete set of design drawings and specifications for the dam project and was prohibited from submitting incomplete documents as if they satisfied the full design obligation.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T16:56:15.795068+00:00
was attributed to: Case 85 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 85 Extraction

Engineer A Complete Design Delivery
type: BuildabilityAssessmentCapability
type: NamedIndividual
possessed by: Engineer A
capability class: Buildability Assessment Capability
capability statement: Engineer A was required to produce drawings and specifications that were complete and buildable, and to assess whether the documents were adequate for contractor use before submitting them under seal.
case context: Engineer A was retained to produce a complete set of design drawings and specifications for a dam project. The Board found that Engineer A submitted incomplete and unbuildable documents, violating the obligation to deliver complete and adequate design documents.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.83
demonstrated through: Engineer A submitted drawings and specifications that were incomplete and contained unbuildable elements, demonstrating a failure to apply buildability assessment before submission.
proficiency level: advanced
text references: Engineer A had an obligation to provide a complete set of design drawings and specifications on the project in which Engineer A was engaged.
text references: Engineer A was fully required to provide the complete design on the project.
discovered in case: 85
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: discussion
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T16:55:58.579791+00:00
first discovered in case: 85
match confidence: 0.0
matches existing: false
source text: Engineer A had an obligation to provide a complete set of design drawings and specifications on the project in which Engineer A was engaged.
synthesis literal: capabilityClass
synthesis literal: capabilityStatement
synthesis literal: caseContext
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: demonstratedThrough
synthesis literal: proficiencyLevel
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineer A was required to produce drawings and specifications that were complete and buildable, and to assess whether the documents were adequate for contractor use before submitting them under seal.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T16:55:58.579791+00:00
was attributed to: Case 85 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 85 Extraction

Engineer A Cost Assumption Neutrality
type: CostAssumptionNeutralityCapability
type: NamedIndividual
possessed by: Engineer A
capability class: Cost Assumption Neutrality Capability
capability statement: Engineer A lacked the capability to set aside assumptions about federal cost coverage when making decisions about deliverable completeness, allowing those assumptions to substitute for professional judgment about adequacy.
case context: Engineer A rationalized submission of incomplete dam design documents in part by assuming that increased costs from incompleteness would be borne by federal rather than local funding, a consideration irrelevant to the professional obligation to produce complete work.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.85
demonstrated through: Decision to submit incomplete drawings and specifications based on the assumption that federal funds rather than local funds would cover any resulting cost overruns.
proficiency level: basic
text references: Engineer A was confident that sufficient federal funds (and not local funding) would cover any potential increased costs.
discovered in case: 85
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: facts
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T16:51:18.309339+00:00
first discovered in case: 85
match confidence: 0.0
matches existing: false
source text: Engineer A was confident that sufficient federal funds (and not local funding) would cover any potential increased costs.
synthesis literal: capabilityClass
synthesis literal: capabilityStatement
synthesis literal: caseContext
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: demonstratedThrough
synthesis literal: proficiencyLevel
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineer A lacked the capability to set aside assumptions about federal cost coverage when making decisions about deliverable completeness, allowing those assumptions to substitute for professional judgment about adequacy.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T16:51:18.309339+00:00
was attributed to: Case 85 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 85 Extraction

Engineer A Cost Assumption Rationalization
type: CostAssumptionNeutralityConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
constrained entity: Engineer A
case context: Engineer A justified submitting incomplete work by assuming federal grant funds would be available to remedy deficiencies, without disclosing this assumption to the client or verifying the funding.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.91
constraint class: Cost Assumption Neutrality Constraint
constraint statement: Engineer A was prohibited from rationalizing the submission of incomplete drawings and specifications on the basis of an undisclosed assumption that federal funds would cover cost overruns arising from the incomplete design.
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics
temporal scope: At the time of submission of incomplete drawings and specifications
text references: Engineer A's bold assertion that the work was incomplete, but that this was due to time pressures and his expectation that Federal funds would be awarded to complete the work is wholly unconvincing
text references: Engineer A's comment about Federal funds borders on fraud and misrepresentation and is a clear violation of the NSPE Code
discovered in case: 85
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: discussion
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T16:56:15.795068+00:00
first discovered in case: 85
match confidence: 0.0
matches existing: false
source text: Engineer A's bold assertion that the work was incomplete, but that this was due to time pressures and his expectation that Federal funds would be awarded to complete the work is wholly unconvincing
synthesis literal: caseContext
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: constraintClass
synthesis literal: constraintStatement
synthesis literal: severity
synthesis literal: source
synthesis literal: temporalScope
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineer A was prohibited from rationalizing the submission of incomplete drawings and specifications on the basis of an undisclosed assumption that federal funds would cover cost overruns arising from the incomplete design.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T16:56:15.795068+00:00
was attributed to: Case 85 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 85 Extraction

Engineer A Deadline Pressure Disclosure
type: DeadlinePressureDisclosureConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
constrained entity: Engineer A
case context: Engineer A acknowledged that deadline pressure caused the incompleteness of the deliverable but disclosed this to no one before or at the time of submission, allowing the client and approving engineer to proceed on the false assumption that the documents were complete.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.85
constraint class: Deadline Pressure Disclosure Constraint
constraint statement: Engineer A was required to communicate to the local public agency that the specified delivery date was incompatible with producing complete and buildable drawings and specifications, and was prohibited from submitting the deficient product without that disclosure.
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics, Section II.2 and Section III.2
temporal scope: Before or at the time of submission of the drawings and specifications
text references: Engineer A generally agrees with Hi-Lo's characterization, but in his defense responds that he felt pressured to deliver the drawings and specifications on a specified date, but did not inform anyone as to their incompleteness.
discovered in case: 85
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: facts
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T16:51:16.118939+00:00
first discovered in case: 85
match confidence: 0.0
matches existing: false
source text: Engineer A generally agrees with Hi-Lo's characterization, but in his defense responds that he felt pressured to deliver the drawings and specifications on a specified date, but did not inform anyone as to their incompleteness.
synthesis literal: caseContext
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: constraintClass
synthesis literal: constraintStatement
synthesis literal: severity
synthesis literal: source
synthesis literal: temporalScope
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineer A was required to communicate to the local public agency that the specified delivery date was incompatible with producing complete and buildable drawings and specifications, and was prohibited from submitting the deficient product without that disclosure.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T16:51:16.118939+00:00
was attributed to: Case 85 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 85 Extraction

Engineer A Deadline Pressure Resistance
type: DeadlinePressureResistanceCapability
type: NamedIndividual
possessed by: Engineer A
capability class: Deadline Pressure Resistance Capability
capability statement: Engineer A lacked the capability to resist deadline pressure and communicate schedule incompatibility to the client, instead submitting incomplete drawings and specifications without disclosure.
case context: Engineer A submitted signed and sealed dam drawings and specifications that were materially incomplete, citing deadline pressure as a factor but failing to communicate that pressure or its consequences to any party.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstrated through: Failure to inform the local public agency that the specified delivery date was incompatible with producing complete and buildable dam drawings and specifications.
proficiency level: basic
text references: he felt pressured to deliver the drawings and specifications on a specified date, but did not inform anyone as to their incompleteness
discovered in case: 85
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: facts
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T16:51:18.309339+00:00
first discovered in case: 85
match confidence: 0.0
matches existing: false
source text: he felt pressured to deliver the drawings and specifications on a specified date, but did not inform anyone as to their incompleteness
synthesis literal: capabilityClass
synthesis literal: capabilityStatement
synthesis literal: caseContext
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: demonstratedThrough
synthesis literal: proficiencyLevel
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineer A lacked the capability to resist deadline pressure and communicate schedule incompatibility to the client, instead submitting incomplete drawings and specifications without disclosure.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T16:51:18.309339+00:00
was attributed to: Case 85 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 85 Extraction

Engineer A Deadline Pressure Submission
type: DeadlinePressureDisclosureConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
constrained entity: Engineer A
case context: Engineer A cited time pressures as a cause of the incomplete deliverable but did not disclose this to the client before submission.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.87
constraint class: Deadline Pressure Disclosure Constraint
constraint statement: Engineer A was required to communicate to the client that the specified delivery date was incompatible with producing complete and buildable drawings and specifications before submitting an incomplete product under seal.
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics
temporal scope: Before submission of incomplete drawings and specifications
text references: Engineer A was selected for his expertise, which presumably included Engineer A's ability to fully perform the work based on project time parameters
text references: Engineer A's bold assertion that the work was incomplete, but that this was due to time pressures and his expectation that Federal funds would be awarded to complete the work is wholly unconvincing
discovered in case: 85
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: discussion
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T16:56:15.795068+00:00
first discovered in case: 85
match confidence: 0.0
matches existing: false
source text: Engineer A's bold assertion that the work was incomplete, but that this was due to time pressures and his expectation that Federal funds would be awarded to complete the work is wholly unconvincing
synthesis literal: caseContext
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: constraintClass
synthesis literal: constraintStatement
synthesis literal: severity
synthesis literal: source
synthesis literal: temporalScope
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineer A was required to communicate to the client that the specified delivery date was incompatible with producing complete and buildable drawings and specifications before submitting an incomplete product under seal.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T16:56:15.795068+00:00
was attributed to: Case 85 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 85 Extraction

Engineer A Federal Funds Misrepresentation
type: PublicFundsMisrepresentationConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
constrained entity: Engineer A
case context: Engineer A submitted incomplete dam design drawings and specifications, asserting that incompleteness was due to time pressures and that federal funds would cover completion, which the Board characterized as bordering on fraud and misrepresentation.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.92
constraint class: Public Funds Misrepresentation Constraint
constraint statement: Engineer A was prohibited from representing to the local public agency and federal funding authority that incomplete drawings and specifications were acceptable on the basis of an undisclosed assumption that federal funds would be awarded to complete the work.
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics, provisions on deceptive acts and professional obligations
temporal scope: At the time of submission of incomplete drawings and specifications
text references: Engineer A's bold assertion that the work was incomplete, but that this was due to time pressures and his expectation that Federal funds would be awarded to complete the work is wholly unconvincing
text references: Engineer A's comment about Federal funds borders on fraud and misrepresentation and is a clear violation of the NSPE Code
discovered in case: 85
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: discussion
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T16:56:15.795068+00:00
first discovered in case: 85
match confidence: 0.75
match reasoning: Via class 'Public Funds Misrepresentation Constraint': The prohibition on misrepresenting incomplete work as adequate by relying on unverified public funding assumptions is a specific application of the general non-deception constraint. The Cost Assumption Neutrality Constraint extracted from prior sections addresses the rationalization aspect, while this constraint addresses the affirmative misrepresentation to the client and funding agency. It is a variant of Non-Deception rather than a fully new class, but the public-funds-specific framing and fraud-border characterization give it enough specificity to warrant a distinct class.
matched ontology class: Non Deception
matched ontology label: Non-Deception (Constraint)
matches existing: true
source text: Engineer A's bold assertion that the work was incomplete, but that this was due to time pressures and his expectation that Federal funds would be awarded to complete the work is wholly unconvincing
synthesis literal: caseContext
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: constraintClass
synthesis literal: constraintStatement
synthesis literal: severity
synthesis literal: source
synthesis literal: temporalScope
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineer A was prohibited from representing to the local public agency and federal funding authority that incomplete drawings and specifications were acceptable on the basis of an undisclosed assumption that federal funds would be awarded to complete the work.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T16:56:15.795068+00:00
was attributed to: Case 85 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 85 Extraction

Engineer A Federal Funds Rationalization
type: CostAssumptionNeutralityConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
constrained entity: Engineer A
case context: Engineer A rationalized submitting incomplete dam design documents by assuming that federal grant funds, rather than local funds, would absorb any cost overruns resulting from the incomplete design. This assumption was never disclosed to or confirmed by the client or the federal agency.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.83
constraint class: Cost Assumption Neutrality Constraint
constraint statement: Engineer A was prohibited from using his undisclosed assumption that federal funds would cover cost overruns as a justification for submitting incomplete drawings and specifications, because that assumption was unverified, undisclosed, and not his to make on behalf of the client or the public.
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics, Section II.2 and Section III.2
temporal scope: At the time Engineer A decided to submit the incomplete deliverable
text references: Engineer A was confident that sufficient federal funds (and not local funding) would cover any potential increased costs.
discovered in case: 85
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: facts
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T16:51:16.118939+00:00
first discovered in case: 85
match confidence: 0.0
matches existing: false
source text: Engineer A was confident that sufficient federal funds (and not local funding) would cover any potential increased costs.
synthesis literal: caseContext
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: constraintClass
synthesis literal: constraintStatement
synthesis literal: severity
synthesis literal: source
synthesis literal: temporalScope
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineer A was prohibited from using his undisclosed assumption that federal funds would cover cost overruns as a justification for submitting incomplete drawings and specifications, because that assumption was unverified, undisclosed, and not his to make on behalf of the client or the public.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T16:51:16.118939+00:00
was attributed to: Case 85 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 85 Extraction

Engineer A Incomplete Deliverable Disclosure
type: IncompleteAnalysisDisclosureCapability
type: NamedIndividual
possessed by: Engineer A
capability class: Incomplete Analysis Disclosure Capability
capability statement: Engineer A lacked the capability to recognize and discharge the obligation to disclose the material incompleteness of the dam drawings and specifications to the client, approving authority, and bidding contractors before or at the time of submission.
case context: Engineer A submitted incomplete dam design documents under seal without disclosing their incompleteness to the local public agency, the federal approving engineer, or the bidding contractors, and the deficiency was only surfaced at the pre-construction conference by the contractor.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.82
demonstrated through: Submission of signed and sealed drawings and specifications known to be materially incomplete without informing any party of that incompleteness.
proficiency level: basic
text references: While much of the information was missing from the drawings and specifications
text references: did not inform anyone as to their incompleteness
discovered in case: 85
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: facts
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T16:51:18.309339+00:00
first discovered in case: 85
match confidence: 0.95
match reasoning: Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Incomplete Analysis Disclosure Capability'
matched ontology class: IncompleteAnalysisDisclosureCapability
matched ontology label: Incomplete Analysis Disclosure Capability
matches existing: true
source text: did not inform anyone as to their incompleteness
synthesis literal: capabilityClass
synthesis literal: capabilityStatement
synthesis literal: caseContext
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: demonstratedThrough
synthesis literal: proficiencyLevel
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineer A lacked the capability to recognize and discharge the obligation to disclose the material incompleteness of the dam drawings and specifications to the client, approving authority, and bidding contractors before or at the time of submission.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T16:51:18.309339+00:00
was attributed to: Case 85 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 85 Extraction

Engineer A Norm Awareness Dam Design
type: NormAwarenessCapability
type: NamedIndividual
possessed by: Engineer A
capability class: Norm Awareness Capability
capability statement: Engineer A demonstrated insufficient norm awareness capability, failing to recognize that professional obligations of completeness, disclosure, and responsible charge applied to the dam drawings and specifications regardless of deadline pressure or assumptions about cost allocation.
case context: Engineer A's conduct at each stage of the dam design project reflected a failure to recognize or apply the professional norms governing completeness, disclosure, and responsible charge that applied to his role as the design engineer.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.84
demonstrated through: Submission of incomplete drawings under seal without disclosure, and rationalization based on deadline pressure and funding assumptions rather than professional standards.
proficiency level: basic
text references: Engineer A was confident that sufficient federal funds (and not local funding) would cover any potential increased costs.
text references: he felt pressured to deliver the drawings and specifications on a specified date, but did not inform anyone as to their incompleteness
discovered in case: 85
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: facts
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T16:51:18.309339+00:00
first discovered in case: 85
match confidence: 0.95
match reasoning: Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Norm Awareness Capability'
matched ontology class: NormAwarenessCapability
matched ontology label: Norm Awareness Capability
matches existing: true
source text: he felt pressured to deliver the drawings and specifications on a specified date, but did not inform anyone as to their incompleteness
synthesis literal: capabilityClass
synthesis literal: capabilityStatement
synthesis literal: caseContext
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: demonstratedThrough
synthesis literal: proficiencyLevel
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineer A demonstrated insufficient norm awareness capability, failing to recognize that professional obligations of completeness, disclosure, and responsible charge applied to the dam drawings and specifications regardless of deadline pressure or assumptions about cost allocation.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T16:51:18.309339+00:00
was attributed to: Case 85 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 85 Extraction

Engineer A Public Funds Misrepresentation Avoidance
type: PublicFundsMisrepresentationAvoidanceCapability
type: NamedIndividual
possessed by: Engineer A
capability class: Public Funds Misrepresentation Avoidance Capability
capability statement: Engineer A was required to recognize that asserting incomplete work was acceptable because federal funds would be awarded to complete it constituted a misrepresentation to the client and federal funding agency, and to refrain from making such representations.
case context: Engineer A submitted incomplete dam drawings and justified the incompleteness by claiming federal funds would be awarded to complete the work. The Board found this assertion violated the NSPE Code as a deceptive act and misrepresentation to the public client and federal agency.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.85
demonstrated through: Engineer A asserted that incomplete drawings were acceptable due to time pressures and anticipated federal funding, a representation the Board characterized as bordering on fraud and misrepresentation.
proficiency level: intermediate
text references: Engineer A's bold assertion that the work was incomplete, but that this was due to time pressures and his expectation that Federal funds would be awarded to complete the work is wholly unconvincing.
text references: Engineer A's comment about Federal funds borders on fraud and misrepresentation and is a clear violation of the NSPE Code.
discovered in case: 85
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: discussion
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T16:55:58.579791+00:00
first discovered in case: 85
match confidence: 0.0
matches existing: false
source text: Engineer A's bold assertion that the work was incomplete, but that this was due to time pressures and his expectation that Federal funds would be awarded to complete the work is wholly unconvincing.
synthesis literal: capabilityClass
synthesis literal: capabilityStatement
synthesis literal: caseContext
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: demonstratedThrough
synthesis literal: proficiencyLevel
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineer A was required to recognize that asserting incomplete work was acceptable because federal funds would be awarded to complete it constituted a misrepresentation to the client and federal funding agency, and to refrain from making such representations.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T16:55:58.579791+00:00
was attributed to: Case 85 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 85 Extraction

Engineer A Responsible Charge Seal Dam
type: ResponsibleChargeSealConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
constrained entity: Engineer A
case context: Engineer A signed and sealed dam drawings and specifications that he knew to be incomplete and that a contractor subsequently declared unbuildable in significant parts. The seal implied responsible charge over a complete and adequate product.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.95
constraint class: Responsible Charge Seal Constraint
constraint statement: Engineer A was prohibited from applying his professional seal to drawings and specifications that were materially incomplete and unbuildable in significant parts, because sealing those documents represented a certification of responsible charge over a product that did not meet professional standards.
severity: critical
source: State professional engineering licensing statutes and NSPE Code of Ethics, Section III.2
temporal scope: At the time of sealing and submitting the drawings and specifications
text references: Engineer A generally agrees with Hi-Lo's characterization, but in his defense responds that he felt pressured to deliver the drawings and specifications on a specified date, but did not inform anyone as to their incompleteness.
text references: The signed and sealed drawings and specifications are ultimately approved by Engineer B of the engineering staff of the federal agency funding the project.
discovered in case: 85
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: facts
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T16:51:16.118939+00:00
first discovered in case: 85
match confidence: 0.95
match reasoning: Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Responsible Charge Seal Constraint'
matched ontology class: ResponsibleChargeSealConstraint
matched ontology label: Responsible Charge Seal Constraint
matches existing: true
source text: The signed and sealed drawings and specifications are ultimately approved by Engineer B of the engineering staff of the federal agency funding the project.
synthesis literal: caseContext
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: constraintClass
synthesis literal: constraintStatement
synthesis literal: severity
synthesis literal: source
synthesis literal: temporalScope
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineer A was prohibited from applying his professional seal to drawings and specifications that were materially incomplete and unbuildable in significant parts, because sealing those documents represented a certification of responsible charge over a product that did not meet professional standards.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T16:51:16.118939+00:00
was attributed to: Case 85 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 85 Extraction

Engineer A Responsible Charge Verification
type: ResponsibleChargeVerificationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
possessed by: Engineer A
capability class: Responsible Charge Verification Capability
capability statement: Engineer A failed to exercise the responsible charge verification capability required before applying his professional seal, submitting drawings and specifications he knew to be incomplete and unbuildable.
case context: Engineer A signed and sealed dam drawings and specifications that he knew were incomplete, indicating a failure to apply the standard of review required to support responsible charge before sealing the documents.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.87
demonstrated through: Application of professional seal to drawings and specifications that were materially incomplete and that Engineer A acknowledged were deficient when confronted at the pre-construction conference.
proficiency level: basic
text references: Engineer A generally agrees with Hi-Lo's characterization
text references: The signed and sealed drawings and specifications are ultimately approved by Engineer B
discovered in case: 85
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: facts
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T16:51:18.309339+00:00
first discovered in case: 85
match confidence: 0.95
match reasoning: Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Responsible Charge Verification Capability'
matched ontology class: ResponsibleChargeVerificationCapability
matched ontology label: Responsible Charge Verification Capability
matches existing: true
source text: The signed and sealed drawings and specifications are ultimately approved by Engineer B
synthesis literal: capabilityClass
synthesis literal: capabilityStatement
synthesis literal: caseContext
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: demonstratedThrough
synthesis literal: proficiencyLevel
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineer A failed to exercise the responsible charge verification capability required before applying his professional seal, submitting drawings and specifications he knew to be incomplete and unbuildable.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T16:51:18.309339+00:00
was attributed to: Case 85 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 85 Extraction

Engineer A Safety Dam Design
type: SafetyConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
constrained entity: Engineer A
case context: The project involved design of a dam, a structure whose failure poses severe risks to public safety. Engineer A submitted incomplete and unbuildable drawings and specifications, creating conditions under which construction could proceed on an inadequate design.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.92
constraint class: Safety Constraint
constraint statement: Engineer A was required to ensure that the dam drawings and specifications were complete and adequate to support safe construction before submitting them under seal, and was prohibited from submitting documents that created foreseeable risks to public safety through incomplete or unbuildable design.
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics, Section I.1
temporal scope: Throughout the design and submission phases of the dam project
text references: Engineer C, owner of Hi-Lo Construction, that much of the design detail is lacking in the drawings and specifications and that Hi-Lo Construction declares that certain parts of the project are 'unbuildable' without major changes.
discovered in case: 85
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: facts
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T16:51:16.118939+00:00
first discovered in case: 85
match confidence: 0.95
match reasoning: Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Safety Constraint'
matched ontology class: SafetyConstraint
matched ontology label: Safety Constraint
matches existing: true
source text: Engineer C, owner of Hi-Lo Construction, that much of the design detail is lacking in the drawings and specifications and that Hi-Lo Construction declares that certain parts of the project are 'unbuildable' without major changes.
synthesis literal: caseContext
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: constraintClass
synthesis literal: constraintStatement
synthesis literal: severity
synthesis literal: source
synthesis literal: temporalScope
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineer A was required to ensure that the dam drawings and specifications were complete and adequate to support safe construction before submitting them under seal, and was prohibited from submitting documents that created foreseeable risks to public safety through incomplete or unbuildable design.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T16:51:16.118939+00:00
was attributed to: Case 85 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 85 Extraction

Engineer A's firm submitting brochure and completing interview before award of design contract to Engineer A
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: Engineer A's firm's impressive brochure and personal interview results in the award of a contract for the design, drawings, and specifications.
from entity text: Engineer A's firm submitting brochure and completing interview
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity: Design Contract Award
to entity text: award of design contract to Engineer A
synthesis literal: allenRelation
synthesis literal: description
synthesis literal: evidence
synthesis literal: fromEntity
synthesis literal: fromEntityURI
synthesis literal: owlTimeURI
synthesis literal: toEntity
synthesis literal: toEntityURI
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: Design Contract Award
interval before: award of design contract to Engineer A
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 85 Extraction

Engineer B Approving Engineer Verification
type: ResponsibleChargeVerificationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
possessed by: Engineer B
capability class: Responsible Charge Verification Capability
capability statement: Engineer B was required to conduct a sufficiently thorough independent technical review of Engineer A's submitted dam drawings and specifications to identify material deficiencies before approving them on behalf of the federal funding agency.
case context: Engineer B, as the federal agency approving engineer, reviewed and approved Engineer A's incomplete dam drawings as a condition of federal grant funding. The Board found Engineer B's approval troubling and noted the obligation to perform services within one's area of competence.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.85
demonstrated through: Engineer B approved incomplete and deficient drawings without identifying the material deficiencies that were apparent to Engineer C at the pre-construction conference.
proficiency level: advanced
text references: Engineer B's approval of Engineer A's incomplete plans is troubling, although we do not know all of the facts and circumstances relating to the decision to approve.
text references: Engineers have an obligation to perform services within their area of competence.
discovered in case: 85
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: discussion
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T16:55:58.579791+00:00
first discovered in case: 85
match confidence: 0.95
match reasoning: Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Responsible Charge Verification Capability'
matched ontology class: ResponsibleChargeVerificationCapability
matched ontology label: Responsible Charge Verification Capability
matches existing: true
source text: Engineer B's approval of Engineer A's incomplete plans is troubling, although we do not know all of the facts and circumstances relating to the decision to approve.
synthesis literal: capabilityClass
synthesis literal: capabilityStatement
synthesis literal: caseContext
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: demonstratedThrough
synthesis literal: proficiencyLevel
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineer B was required to conduct a sufficiently thorough independent technical review of Engineer A's submitted dam drawings and specifications to identify material deficiencies before approving them on behalf of the federal funding agency.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T16:55:58.579791+00:00
was attributed to: Case 85 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 85 Extraction

Engineer B Buildability Assessment
type: BuildabilityAssessmentCapability
type: NamedIndividual
possessed by: Engineer B
capability class: Buildability Assessment Capability
capability statement: Engineer B was required to possess buildability assessment capability sufficient to identify that the submitted dam drawings and specifications were materially incomplete and contained unbuildable elements during the federal approval review.
case context: Engineer B, as the federal agency approving engineer, reviewed and approved the dam design documents without identifying the material incompleteness and unbuildable elements that were apparent to the contractor at the pre-construction conference.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.83
demonstrated through: Approval of signed and sealed drawings and specifications that were subsequently found at the pre-construction conference to be materially deficient and to contain unbuildable elements.
proficiency level: advanced
text references: The signed and sealed drawings and specifications are ultimately approved by Engineer B of the engineering staff of the federal agency funding the project
discovered in case: 85
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: facts
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T16:51:18.309339+00:00
first discovered in case: 85
match confidence: 0.0
matches existing: false
source text: The signed and sealed drawings and specifications are ultimately approved by Engineer B of the engineering staff of the federal agency funding the project
synthesis literal: capabilityClass
synthesis literal: capabilityStatement
synthesis literal: caseContext
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: demonstratedThrough
synthesis literal: proficiencyLevel
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineer B was required to possess buildability assessment capability sufficient to identify that the submitted dam drawings and specifications were materially incomplete and contained unbuildable elements during the federal approval review.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T16:51:18.309339+00:00
was attributed to: Case 85 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 85 Extraction

Engineer B Competence Limit Recognition
type: CompetenceLimitRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
possessed by: Engineer B
capability class: Competence Limit Recognition Capability
capability statement: Engineer B was required to recognize whether the review of Engineer A's dam design documents fell within Engineer B's own technical competence, and if not, to inform a supervisor so that a qualified engineer could be assigned to perform the review.
case context: Engineer B, as the federal agency approving engineer, approved Engineer A's incomplete dam drawings. The Board found that if Engineer B lacked competence to perform the review, the obligation was to disclose that to a supervisor rather than proceed with an inadequate review.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.87
demonstrated through: Engineer B approved incomplete and deficient drawings without identifying material deficiencies, raising the question of whether Engineer B recognized the limits of competence and acted accordingly.
proficiency level: intermediate
text references: If Engineer B was not able to perform the necessary reviews of Engineer A's work, Engineer B should have provided this information to a supervisor who would have assigned an appropriate engineer to perform the review.
text references: the failure to recognize the lack of competency and take appropriate action to address the situation is a violation of the NSPE Code
discovered in case: 85
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: discussion
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T16:55:58.579791+00:00
first discovered in case: 85
match confidence: 0.0
matches existing: false
source text: If Engineer B was not able to perform the necessary reviews of Engineer A's work, Engineer B should have provided this information to a supervisor who would have assigned an appropriate engineer to perform the review.
synthesis literal: capabilityClass
synthesis literal: capabilityStatement
synthesis literal: caseContext
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: demonstratedThrough
synthesis literal: proficiencyLevel
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineer B was required to recognize whether the review of Engineer A's dam design documents fell within Engineer B's own technical competence, and if not, to inform a supervisor so that a qualified engineer could be assigned to perform the review.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T16:55:58.579791+00:00
was attributed to: Case 85 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 85 Extraction

Engineer B Responsible Charge Verification
type: ResponsibleChargeVerificationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
possessed by: Engineer B
capability class: Responsible Charge Verification Capability
capability statement: Engineer B was required to exercise responsible charge verification capability sufficient to identify material incompleteness and unbuildable elements in the dam drawings and specifications during the federal approval review.
case context: Engineer B, as the federal agency approving engineer, approved the dam design documents without conducting a review thorough enough to identify the material deficiencies subsequently identified by the contractor.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.85
demonstrated through: Approval of materially deficient drawings and specifications without identifying the incompleteness that was apparent to the contractor at the pre-construction conference.
proficiency level: advanced
text references: The signed and sealed drawings and specifications are ultimately approved by Engineer B of the engineering staff of the federal agency funding the project
discovered in case: 85
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: facts
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T16:51:18.309339+00:00
first discovered in case: 85
match confidence: 0.95
match reasoning: Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Responsible Charge Verification Capability'
matched ontology class: ResponsibleChargeVerificationCapability
matched ontology label: Responsible Charge Verification Capability
matches existing: true
source text: The signed and sealed drawings and specifications are ultimately approved by Engineer B of the engineering staff of the federal agency funding the project
synthesis literal: capabilityClass
synthesis literal: capabilityStatement
synthesis literal: caseContext
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: demonstratedThrough
synthesis literal: proficiencyLevel
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineer B was required to exercise responsible charge verification capability sufficient to identify material incompleteness and unbuildable elements in the dam drawings and specifications during the federal approval review.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T16:51:18.309339+00:00
was attributed to: Case 85 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 85 Extraction

Engineer C Bid Adequacy Reflection
type: BidAdequacyReflectionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
constrained entity: Engineer C
case context: Engineer C, a licensed engineer and contractor, submitted the low bid on a dam project with known or apparent document deficiencies without reflecting those deficiencies in the bid or seeking clarification.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.89
constraint class: Bid Adequacy Reflection Constraint
constraint statement: Engineer C was required, upon identifying deficiencies and unbuildable elements in the dam project bidding documents, to either include appropriate bid items for additional services needed to complete the work, request clarification from the owner or Engineer A, or decline to bid.
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; professional engineering standards for contractor-engineers
temporal scope: During the bidding process before submission of the low bid
text references: Engineer C could have requested further clarification from the owner or Engineer A in order to better understand the engineering drawings
text references: Engineer C had no one to fault but himself for the problems Engineer C encountered in attempting to build the project
text references: Engineer C submitted the low bid on the project, presumably knowing inadequacies of the documents as well as the obvious risks involved
text references: If the engineering documents were incomplete or inadequate, then Engineer C's bid should have reflected that fact and contained appropriate bid items for additional services required to complete the work for the benefit of the owner
discovered in case: 85
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: discussion
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T16:56:15.795068+00:00
first discovered in case: 85
match confidence: 0.0
matches existing: false
source text: If the engineering documents were incomplete or inadequate, then Engineer C's bid should have reflected that fact and contained appropriate bid items for additional services required to complete the work for the benefit of the owner
synthesis literal: caseContext
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: constraintClass
synthesis literal: constraintStatement
synthesis literal: severity
synthesis literal: source
synthesis literal: temporalScope
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineer C was required, upon identifying deficiencies and unbuildable elements in the dam project bidding documents, to either include appropriate bid items for additional services needed to complete the work, request clarification from the owner or Engineer A, or decline to bid.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T16:56:15.795068+00:00
was attributed to: Case 85 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 85 Extraction

Engineer C Bid Document Adequacy
type: BidDocumentAdequacyAssessmentCapability
type: NamedIndividual
possessed by: Engineer C
capability class: Bid Document Adequacy Assessment Capability
capability statement: Engineer C, as a licensed engineer and contractor, possessed the technical background and experience to evaluate the bidding documents for completeness and buildability before submitting a bid, and should have identified deficiencies and reflected them in bid pricing or clarification requests.
case context: Engineer C submitted the low bid on the dam project despite the bidding documents containing incomplete and unbuildable elements. The Board found that Engineer C had the engineering background to evaluate the documents and should have either priced the deficiencies into the bid or sought clarification before bidding.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstrated through: Engineer C's identification at the pre-construction conference that design detail was lacking and that certain elements were unbuildable, demonstrating that the capability existed but was not exercised at the bidding stage.
proficiency level: advanced
text references: Engineer C had no one to fault but himself for the problems Engineer C encountered in attempting to build the project.
text references: Engineer C had the necessary background and experience to carefully evaluate the engineering drawings as well as other aspects of the work in order to make an informed decision as to whether to bid on the project.
text references: If the engineering documents were incomplete or inadequate, then Engineer C's bid should have reflected that fact and contained appropriate bid items for additional services required to complete the work for the benefit of the owner.
discovered in case: 85
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: discussion
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T16:55:58.579791+00:00
first discovered in case: 85
match confidence: 0.0
matches existing: false
source text: Engineer C had the necessary background and experience to carefully evaluate the engineering drawings as well as other aspects of the work in order to make an informed decision as to whether to bid on the project.
synthesis literal: capabilityClass
synthesis literal: capabilityStatement
synthesis literal: caseContext
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: demonstratedThrough
synthesis literal: proficiencyLevel
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineer C, as a licensed engineer and contractor, possessed the technical background and experience to evaluate the bidding documents for completeness and buildability before submitting a bid, and should have identified deficiencies and reflected them in bid pricing or clarification requests.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T16:55:58.579791+00:00
was attributed to: Case 85 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 85 Extraction

Engineer C Buildability Assessment
type: BuildabilityAssessmentCapability
type: NamedIndividual
possessed by: Engineer C
capability class: Buildability Assessment Capability
capability statement: Engineer C demonstrated buildability assessment capability by identifying at the pre-construction conference that design detail was lacking and that certain project elements were unbuildable without major changes.
case context: Engineer C, as owner of Hi-Lo Construction and a licensed engineer, identified material constructability deficiencies in the dam drawings and specifications at the pre-construction conference.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstrated through: Declaration at the pre-construction conference that much of the design detail was lacking and that certain parts of the project were unbuildable without major changes.
proficiency level: advanced
text references: Engineer C, owner of Hi-Lo Construction, that much of the design detail is lacking in the drawings and specifications and that Hi-Lo Construction declares that certain parts of the project are 'unbuildable' without major changes.
discovered in case: 85
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: facts
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T16:51:18.309339+00:00
first discovered in case: 85
match confidence: 0.0
matches existing: false
source text: Engineer C, owner of Hi-Lo Construction, that much of the design detail is lacking in the drawings and specifications and that Hi-Lo Construction declares that certain parts of the project are 'unbuildable' without major changes.
synthesis literal: capabilityClass
synthesis literal: capabilityStatement
synthesis literal: caseContext
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: demonstratedThrough
synthesis literal: proficiencyLevel
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineer C demonstrated buildability assessment capability by identifying at the pre-construction conference that design detail was lacking and that certain project elements were unbuildable without major changes.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T16:51:18.309339+00:00
was attributed to: Case 85 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 85 Extraction

Engineer C Contractor
type: ContractorRole
type: NamedIndividual
actor: Engineer C
case involvement: As owner of Hi-Lo Construction, the awarded low bidder, identified at the pre-construction conference that design detail was lacking and that certain parts of the project were unbuildable without major changes.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.87
other attribute: organization: Hi-Lo Construction
role category: provider_client
role class: Contractor Role
role in organization: Owner
technical background: Engineering judgment applied to constructability review
text references: Hi-Lo Construction declares that certain parts of the project are 'unbuildable' without major changes
text references: it is pointed out by Engineer C, owner of Hi-Lo Construction, that much of the design detail is lacking in the drawings and specifications
discovered in case: 85
discovered in pass: 1
discovered in section: facts
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T16:46:00.156208+00:00
first discovered in case: 85
match confidence: 0.95
match reasoning: Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Contractor Role'
matched ontology class: ContractorRole
matched ontology label: Contractor Role
matches existing: true
source text: it is pointed out by Engineer C, owner of Hi-Lo Construction, that much of the design detail is lacking in the drawings and specifications
synthesis literal: caseInvolvement
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: roleCategory
synthesis literal: roleClass
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: As owner of Hi-Lo Construction, the awarded low bidder, identified at the pre-construction conference that design detail was lacking and that certain parts of the project were unbuildable without major changes.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T16:46:00.156208+00:00
was attributed to: Case 85 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 85 Extraction

Engineer C Contractor Deficiency Notification
type: EngineeringDesignErrorRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
possessed by: Engineer C
capability class: Engineering Design Error Recognition Capability
capability statement: Engineer C demonstrated engineering design error recognition capability by identifying at the pre-construction conference that the dam drawings and specifications contained material deficiencies and unbuildable elements.
case context: Engineer C, as a licensed engineer and contractor, identified specific design deficiencies and unbuildable elements in the dam drawings and specifications at the pre-construction conference, triggering the obligation to formally document and report those deficiencies.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.86
demonstrated through: Formal identification at the pre-construction conference that design detail was lacking and that certain project elements were unbuildable without major changes.
proficiency level: advanced
text references: Engineer C, owner of Hi-Lo Construction, that much of the design detail is lacking in the drawings and specifications and that Hi-Lo Construction declares that certain parts of the project are 'unbuildable' without major changes.
discovered in case: 85
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: facts
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T16:51:18.309339+00:00
first discovered in case: 85
match confidence: 0.95
match reasoning: Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Engineering Design Error Recognition Capability'
matched ontology class: EngineeringDesignErrorRecognitionCapability
matched ontology label: Engineering Design Error Recognition Capability
matches existing: true
source text: Engineer C, owner of Hi-Lo Construction, that much of the design detail is lacking in the drawings and specifications and that Hi-Lo Construction declares that certain parts of the project are 'unbuildable' without major changes.
synthesis literal: capabilityClass
synthesis literal: capabilityStatement
synthesis literal: caseContext
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: demonstratedThrough
synthesis literal: proficiencyLevel
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineer C demonstrated engineering design error recognition capability by identifying at the pre-construction conference that the dam drawings and specifications contained material deficiencies and unbuildable elements.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T16:51:18.309339+00:00
was attributed to: Case 85 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 85 Extraction

Engineer C's review of bidding documents before Engineer C submitting low bid
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: Presumably, Engineer C had an opportunity to review the bidding documents which included appropriate engineering drawings, plans, and specifications. From such a review, Engineer C should have had a sense of what would be necessary to complete the project... Engineer C submitted the low bid on the project.
from entity text: Engineer C's review of bidding documents
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity: Low Bid Submission
to entity text: Engineer C submitting low bid
synthesis literal: allenRelation
synthesis literal: description
synthesis literal: evidence
synthesis literal: fromEntity
synthesis literal: fromEntityURI
synthesis literal: owlTimeURI
synthesis literal: toEntity
synthesis literal: toEntityURI
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: Engineer C submitting low bid
interval before: Low Bid Submission
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 85 Extraction

Federal Agency Funding Authority
type: RegulatoryAuthorityRole
type: NamedIndividual
actor: Federal Agency
case involvement: Provided partial federal grant funding for the dam project and employed Engineer B to review and approve the design documents as a condition of that funding.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.8
other attribute: function: Grant funding and technical document approval
role category: public_responsibility
role class: Regulatory Authority Role
role nature: Federal government agency
text references: Engineer B of the engineering staff of the federal agency funding the project
text references: a new dam to be financed in part by a federal grant
discovered in case: 85
discovered in pass: 1
discovered in section: facts
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T16:46:00.156208+00:00
first discovered in case: 85
match confidence: 0.95
match reasoning: Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Regulatory Authority Role'
matched ontology class: RegulatoryAuthorityRole
matched ontology label: Regulatory Authority Role
matches existing: true
source text: a new dam to be financed in part by a federal grant
synthesis literal: caseInvolvement
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: roleCategory
synthesis literal: roleClass
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Provided partial federal grant funding for the dam project and employed Engineer B to review and approve the design documents as a condition of that funding.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T16:46:00.156208+00:00
was attributed to: Case 85 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 85 Extraction

award of design contract to Engineer A before production of drawings and specifications by Engineer A
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: Engineer A responds to an RFP... results in the award of a contract for the design, drawings, and specifications. The signed and sealed drawings and specifications are ultimately approved by Engineer B.
from entity: Design Contract Award
from entity text: award of design contract to Engineer A
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: production of drawings and specifications by Engineer A
synthesis literal: allenRelation
synthesis literal: description
synthesis literal: evidence
synthesis literal: fromEntity
synthesis literal: fromEntityURI
synthesis literal: owlTimeURI
synthesis literal: toEntity
synthesis literal: toEntityURI
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: production of drawings and specifications by Engin
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 85 Extraction

delivery of drawings and specifications on specified date before Engineer A acknowledging incompleteness at pre-construction conference
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: Engineer A felt pressured to deliver the drawings and specifications on a specified date, but did not inform anyone as to their incompleteness... At the pre-construction conference... Engineer A generally agrees with Hi-Lo's characterization.
from entity text: delivery of drawings and specifications on specified date
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity: Incompleteness Acknowledgment Event
to entity text: Engineer A acknowledging incompleteness at pre-construction conference
synthesis literal: allenRelation
synthesis literal: description
synthesis literal: evidence
synthesis literal: fromEntity
synthesis literal: fromEntityURI
synthesis literal: owlTimeURI
synthesis literal: toEntity
synthesis literal: toEntityURI
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: Engineer A acknowledging incompleteness at pre-con
interval before: Incompleteness Acknowledgment Event
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 85 Extraction

design contract award before Engineer A's awareness of time pressure
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: Engineer A felt pressured to deliver the drawings and specifications on a specified date, but did not inform anyone as to their incompleteness.
from entity: Design Contract Award
from entity text: design contract award
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: Engineer A's awareness of time pressure
synthesis literal: allenRelation
synthesis literal: description
synthesis literal: evidence
synthesis literal: fromEntity
synthesis literal: fromEntityURI
synthesis literal: owlTimeURI
synthesis literal: toEntity
synthesis literal: toEntityURI
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: Engineer A s awareness of time pressure
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 85 Extraction

partial federal grant funding commitment before RFP issuance
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: Engineer A responds to an RFP from a small local public agency to build a new dam to be financed in part by a federal grant.
from entity: Federal Grant Involvement
from entity text: partial federal grant funding commitment
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: RFP issuance
synthesis literal: allenRelation
synthesis literal: description
synthesis literal: evidence
synthesis literal: fromEntity
synthesis literal: fromEntityURI
synthesis literal: owlTimeURI
synthesis literal: toEntity
synthesis literal: toEntityURI
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: RFP issuance
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 85 Extraction

production of drawings and specifications by Engineer A before Engineer B's approval of drawings and specifications
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: The signed and sealed drawings and specifications are ultimately approved by Engineer B of the engineering staff of the federal agency funding the project.
from entity text: production of drawings and specifications by Engineer A
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity: Incomplete Documents Approval
to entity text: Engineer B's approval of drawings and specifications
synthesis literal: allenRelation
synthesis literal: description
synthesis literal: evidence
synthesis literal: fromEntity
synthesis literal: fromEntityURI
synthesis literal: owlTimeURI
synthesis literal: toEntity
synthesis literal: toEntityURI
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: Engineer B s approval of drawings and specificatio
interval before: Incomplete Documents Approval
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 85 Extraction

After federal approval, prior to bid submission deadline
type: ProperInterval

After bid submission deadline, prior to pre-construction conference
type: Instant

Early project phase, after RFP response and interview
type: Instant

Design phase, prior to document submission for review
type: ProperInterval

Pre-design phase, established before RFP issuance
type: ProperInterval

Post-submission, prior to bid advertisement
type: Instant

Review phase, prior to project advertisement for bids
type: Instant

Design phase, at the deadline for deliverable submission
type: Instant

During the pre-construction conference, following Engineer C's declaration
type: Instant

Bidding phase, prior to contract award
type: Instant

Design phase, concurrent with and following submission of incomplete documents
type: ProperInterval

After contract award, before construction commencement
type: Instant

Pre-contract phase, prior to contract award
type: Instant

Pre-construction conference, after contract award to Hi-Lo Construction
type: Instant

During the pre-construction conference
type: Instant

Engineer B's approval of drawings and specifications before project advertised for bids
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: The signed and sealed drawings and specifications are ultimately approved by Engineer B... and the project is thereafter duly advertised for bids.
from entity: Incomplete Documents Approval
from entity text: Engineer B's approval of drawings and specifications
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity: Bid Advertisement
to entity text: project advertised for bids
synthesis literal: allenRelation
synthesis literal: description
synthesis literal: evidence
synthesis literal: fromEntity
synthesis literal: fromEntityURI
synthesis literal: owlTimeURI
synthesis literal: toEntity
synthesis literal: toEntityURI
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: Bid Advertisement
interval before: project advertised for bids
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 85 Extraction

Engineer C submitting low bid before pre-construction conference
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: A contract is awarded to the low bidder, Hi-Lo Construction. At the pre-construction conference, it is pointed out by Engineer C... that much of the design detail is lacking.
from entity: Low Bid Submission
from entity text: Engineer C submitting low bid
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity: Pre-Construction Conference
to entity text: pre-construction conference
synthesis literal: allenRelation
synthesis literal: description
synthesis literal: evidence
synthesis literal: fromEntity
synthesis literal: fromEntityURI
synthesis literal: owlTimeURI
synthesis literal: toEntity
synthesis literal: toEntityURI
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: Pre-Construction Conference
interval before: pre-construction conference
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 85 Extraction

contract awarded to Hi-Lo Construction before pre-construction conference
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: A contract is awarded to the low bidder, Hi-Lo Construction. At the pre-construction conference, it is pointed out by Engineer C, owner of Hi-Lo Construction, that much of the design detail is lacking.
from entity: Contract Award to Contractor
from entity text: contract awarded to Hi-Lo Construction
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity: Pre-Construction Conference
to entity text: pre-construction conference
synthesis literal: allenRelation
synthesis literal: description
synthesis literal: evidence
synthesis literal: fromEntity
synthesis literal: fromEntityURI
synthesis literal: owlTimeURI
synthesis literal: toEntity
synthesis literal: toEntityURI
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: Pre-Construction Conference
interval before: pre-construction conference
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 85 Extraction

project advertised for bids before contract awarded to Hi-Lo Construction
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: The project is thereafter duly advertised for bids and a contract is awarded to the low bidder, Hi-Lo Construction.
from entity: Bid Advertisement
from entity text: project advertised for bids
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity: Contract Award to Contractor
to entity text: contract awarded to Hi-Lo Construction
synthesis literal: allenRelation
synthesis literal: description
synthesis literal: evidence
synthesis literal: fromEntity
synthesis literal: fromEntityURI
synthesis literal: owlTimeURI
synthesis literal: toEntity
synthesis literal: toEntityURI
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: Contract Award to Contractor
interval before: contract awarded to Hi-Lo Construction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 85 Extraction

Incomplete Documents Approval → Bid Advertisement
type: CausalChain
type: NamedIndividual
causal language: the signed and sealed drawings and specifications are ultimately approved by Engineer B of the engineering staff of the federal agency funding the project, and the project is thereafter duly advertised for bids
causal step1: Incomplete Documents Approval -- Engineer B approves the incomplete plans
causal step2: Bid Advertisement -- Project advertised for public bids based on approved documents
cause: Incomplete Documents Approval
cause text: Incomplete Documents Approval
counterfactual: Without Engineer B's approval, the project would not have been advertised for bids
effect: Bid Advertisement
effect text: Bid Advertisement
necessary factors: Engineer B's approval of the plans
necessary factors: Existence of project documents to advertise
necessary factors: Federal funding oversight process
responsibility type: indirect
responsible agent: Engineer B
responsible agent text: Engineer B
sufficient factors: Federal approval triggering the bid advertisement process
within agent control: true
discovered in section: facts
synthesis literal: causalLanguage
synthesis literal: causalSequence
synthesis literal: counterfactual
synthesis literal: necessaryFactors
synthesis literal: responsibilityType
synthesis literal: sufficientFactors
synthesis literal: withinAgentControl
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 85 Extraction

Pre-Construction Conference → Unbuildability Declaration
type: CausalChain
type: NamedIndividual
causal language: At the pre-construction conference, it is pointed out by Engineer C, owner of Hi-Lo Construction, that much of the design detail is lacking in the drawings and specifications and that Hi-Lo Construction declares that certain parts of the project are "unbuildable" without major changes
causal step1: Pre-Construction Conference -- Parties convene for the conference
causal step2: Unbuildability Declaration -- Engineer C declares parts of the project unbuildable without major changes
cause: Pre-Construction Conference
cause text: Pre-Construction Conference
counterfactual: Without the conference, Engineer C's unbuildability declaration would not have been made at that point
effect: Unbuildability Declaration
effect text: Unbuildability Declaration
necessary factors: Convening of the pre-construction conference
necessary factors: Engineer C's review identifying missing design detail
necessary factors: Pre-existing document incompleteness
responsibility type: direct
responsible agent: Engineer C
responsible agent text: Engineer C
sufficient factors: Conference forum combined with Engineer C's recognition of incomplete documents
within agent control: true
discovered in section: facts
synthesis literal: causalLanguage
synthesis literal: causalSequence
synthesis literal: counterfactual
synthesis literal: necessaryFactors
synthesis literal: responsibilityType
synthesis literal: sufficientFactors
synthesis literal: withinAgentControl
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 85 Extraction

RFP Response Submission → Design Contract Award
type: CausalChain
type: NamedIndividual
causal language: Engineer A's firm's impressive brochure and personal interview results in the award of a contract for the design, drawings, and specifications.
causal step1: RFP Response Submission -- Engineer A's firm responds to the local public agency's RFP with brochure and interview
causal step2: Design Contract Award -- Local agency awards design contract to Engineer A's firm
cause: RFP Response Submission
cause text: RFP Response Submission
counterfactual: Without the RFP response and impressive presentation, Engineer A's firm would not have been awarded the design contract
effect: Design Contract Award
effect text: Design Contract Award
necessary factors: Engineer A's firm responding to the RFP
necessary factors: Impressive brochure and personal interview
necessary factors: Local agency's selection process
responsibility type: direct
responsible agent: Engineer A
responsible agent text: Engineer A's firm
sufficient factors: Combination of submitted RFP response + impressive brochure + successful personal interview
within agent control: true
discovered in section: facts
synthesis literal: causalLanguage
synthesis literal: causalSequence
synthesis literal: counterfactual
synthesis literal: necessaryFactors
synthesis literal: responsibilityType
synthesis literal: sufficientFactors
synthesis literal: withinAgentControl
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 85 Extraction

Unbuildability Declaration → Reactive Incompleteness Acknowledgment
type: CausalChain
type: NamedIndividual
causal language: Engineer A generally agrees with Hi-Lo's characterization, but in his defense responds that he felt pressured to deliver the drawings and specifications on a specified date
causal step1: Unbuildability Declaration -- Engineer C declares portions unbuildable
causal step2: Reactive Incompleteness Acknowledgment -- Engineer A agrees and cites deadline pressure and reliance on federal funds
cause: Unbuildability Declaration
cause text: Unbuildability Declaration
counterfactual: Without Engineer C raising the issue, Engineer A would likely not have acknowledged the incompleteness at that time
effect: Reactive Incompleteness Acknowledgment
effect text: Reactive Incompleteness Acknowledgment
necessary factors: Engineer A's awareness that documents were incomplete
necessary factors: Engineer A's presence at the conference
necessary factors: Engineer C's declaration of unbuildability
responsibility type: direct
responsible agent: Engineer A
responsible agent text: Engineer A
sufficient factors: Engineer C's challenge prompting Engineer A's defensive acknowledgment
within agent control: true
discovered in section: facts
synthesis literal: causalLanguage
synthesis literal: causalSequence
synthesis literal: counterfactual
synthesis literal: necessaryFactors
synthesis literal: responsibilityType
synthesis literal: sufficientFactors
synthesis literal: withinAgentControl
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 85 Extraction

Federal Grant Involvement → Federal Review Completion
type: CausalChain
type: NamedIndividual
causal language: The signed and sealed drawings and specifications are ultimately approved by Engineer B of the engineering staff of the federal agency funding the project
causal step1: Federal Grant Involvement -- Federal grant partially funds the dam project
causal step2: Federal Review Completion -- Engineer B reviews documents on behalf of federal agency
cause: Federal Grant Involvement
cause text: Federal Grant Involvement
counterfactual: Without the federal grant, the federal agency review by Engineer B would not have been required
effect: Federal Review Completion
effect text: Federal Review Completion
necessary factors: Engineer B assigned as reviewer
necessary factors: Federal grant partially funding the project
necessary factors: Federal oversight requirement triggering review
responsibility type: indirect
responsible agent: Federal Agency
responsible agent text: Federal funding agency
sufficient factors: Federal funding requiring federal engineering review of the documents
within agent control: true
discovered in section: facts
synthesis literal: causalLanguage
synthesis literal: causalSequence
synthesis literal: counterfactual
synthesis literal: necessaryFactors
synthesis literal: responsibilityType
synthesis literal: sufficientFactors
synthesis literal: withinAgentControl
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 85 Extraction

Bid Advertisement → Low Bid Submission
type: CausalChain
type: NamedIndividual
causal language: the project is thereafter duly advertised for bids and a contract is awarded to the low bidder, Hi-Lo Construction
causal step1: Bid Advertisement -- Project advertised to the public for bids
causal step2: Low Bid Submission -- Engineer C submits the low bid for Hi-Lo Construction
cause: Bid Advertisement
cause text: Bid Advertisement
counterfactual: Without the bid advertisement, Engineer C could not have submitted a bid
effect: Low Bid Submission
effect text: Low Bid Submission
necessary factors: Available bidding documents for review
necessary factors: Engineer C's decision to bid
necessary factors: Public advertisement of the project for bids
responsibility type: direct
responsible agent: Engineer C
responsible agent text: Engineer C
sufficient factors: Advertised project opportunity prompting Hi-Lo's bid submission
within agent control: true
discovered in section: facts
synthesis literal: causalLanguage
synthesis literal: causalSequence
synthesis literal: counterfactual
synthesis literal: necessaryFactors
synthesis literal: responsibilityType
synthesis literal: sufficientFactors
synthesis literal: withinAgentControl
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 85 Extraction

Contract Award to Contractor → Pre-Construction Conference
type: CausalChain
type: NamedIndividual
causal language: At the pre-construction conference, it is pointed out by Engineer C, owner of Hi-Lo Construction, that much of the design detail is lacking
causal step1: Contract Award to Contractor -- Hi-Lo awarded the contract
causal step2: Pre-Construction Conference -- Parties convene to begin project planning
cause: Contract Award to Contractor
cause text: Contract Award to Contractor
counterfactual: Without the contract award, the pre-construction conference would not have been convened
effect: Pre-Construction Conference
effect text: Pre-Construction Conference
necessary factors: Award of construction contract to Hi-Lo
necessary factors: Parties available to convene
necessary factors: Standard pre-construction conference practice
responsibility type: indirect
responsible agent: Federal Agency
responsible agent text: Local public agency / project parties
sufficient factors: Contract award triggering the standard pre-construction conference
within agent control: true
discovered in section: facts
synthesis literal: causalLanguage
synthesis literal: causalSequence
synthesis literal: counterfactual
synthesis literal: necessaryFactors
synthesis literal: responsibilityType
synthesis literal: sufficientFactors
synthesis literal: withinAgentControl
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 85 Extraction

Low Bid Submission → Contract Award to Contractor
type: CausalChain
type: NamedIndividual
causal language: a contract is awarded to the low bidder, Hi-Lo Construction
causal step1: Low Bid Submission -- Engineer C submits lowest bid
causal step2: Contract Award to Contractor -- Hi-Lo Construction awarded the construction contract
cause: Low Bid Submission
cause text: Low Bid Submission
counterfactual: Without submitting the low bid, Hi-Lo would not have been awarded the contract
effect: Contract Award to Contractor
effect text: Contract Award to Contractor
necessary factors: Completion of bid advertisement
necessary factors: Engineer C's submission of the lowest bid
necessary factors: Standard low-bidder award process
responsibility type: direct
responsible agent: Engineer C
responsible agent text: Engineer C
sufficient factors: Submission of the lowest bid in a low-bid procurement
within agent control: true
discovered in section: facts
synthesis literal: causalLanguage
synthesis literal: causalSequence
synthesis literal: counterfactual
synthesis literal: necessaryFactors
synthesis literal: responsibilityType
synthesis literal: sufficientFactors
synthesis literal: withinAgentControl
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 85 Extraction

Non-Disclosure of Incompleteness → Incomplete Documents Approval
type: CausalChain
type: NamedIndividual
causal language: did not inform anyone as to their incompleteness
causal step1: Non-Disclosure of Incompleteness -- Engineer A withholds knowledge of incompleteness from all parties
causal step2: Federal Review Completion -- Engineer B reviews the incomplete plans without catching defects
causal step3: Incomplete Documents Approval -- Engineer B approves the incomplete drawings and specifications
cause: Non-Disclosure of Incompleteness
cause text: Non-Disclosure of Incompleteness
counterfactual: Had Engineer A disclosed the incompleteness, Engineer B would likely not have approved the plans
effect: Incomplete Documents Approval
effect text: Incomplete Documents Approval
necessary factors: Engineer A's silence about the incompleteness
necessary factors: Engineer B's lack of independent identification of the defects
necessary factors: Local agency's lack of in-house technical review capability
responsibility type: shared
responsible agent: Engineer A
responsible agent text: Engineer A
sufficient factors: Non-disclosure combined with inadequate federal review
within agent control: true
discovered in section: facts
synthesis literal: causalLanguage
synthesis literal: causalSequence
synthesis literal: counterfactual
synthesis literal: necessaryFactors
synthesis literal: responsibilityType
synthesis literal: sufficientFactors
synthesis literal: withinAgentControl
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 85 Extraction

Defense Industry Engineer Whistleblower
type: DefenseIndustryEngineer
type: NamedIndividual
adheres to principle: Defense Industry Engineer Whistleblower Conscience
has obligation: Defense Industry Engineer Whistleblower Conscience
actor: Defense Industry Engineer (BER 82-5)
case involvement: In BER Case No. 82-5, an engineer employed by a large defense industry firm documented and reported excessive costs and time delays by subcontractors to the employer. The Board ruled the engineer had no ethical obligation to continue efforts after the employer rejected the reports, but had an ethical right to escalate as a matter of personal conscience, since the matter did not involve public health or safety.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.8
has employer: Large defense industry firm
other attribute: issue: Excessive subcontractor costs and schedule delays
role category: employer_relationship
role class: Defense Industry Engineer
text references: an engineer employed by a large defense industry firm documented and reported to his employer excessive costs and time delays by sub-contractors
text references: if an engineer feels strongly that an employer's course of conduct is improper when related to public concerns, and if the engineer feels compelled to blow the whistle to expose facts as he sees them, he may well have to pay the price of loss of employment
text references: the engineer did not have an ethical obligation to continue his efforts to secure a change in the policy after his employer rejected his reports or to report his concerns to proper authority, but has an ethical right to do so as a matter of personal conscience
discovered in case: 85
discovered in pass: 1
discovered in section: discussion
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T16:46:55.513806+00:00
first discovered in case: 85
match confidence: 0.0
matches existing: false
source text: an engineer employed by a large defense industry firm documented and reported to his employer excessive costs and time delays by sub-contractors
synthesis literal: caseInvolvement
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: roleCategory
synthesis literal: roleClass
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: In BER Case No. 82-5, an engineer employed by a large defense industry firm documented and reported excessive costs and time delays by subcontractors to the employer. The Board ruled the engineer had no ethical obligation to continue efforts after the employer rejected the reports, but had an ethical right to escalate as a matter of personal conscience, since the matter did not involve public health or safety.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T16:46:55.513806+00:00
was attributed to: Case 85 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 85 Extraction

Engineer A Faithful Agent Duty Limits
type: FaithfulAgentDutyPrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
invoked by: Engineer A
applied to: Engineer A's professional relationship with the local public agency
balancing with: Deliverable Completeness Disclosure Principle
balancing with: Public Welfare Paramountcy Principle
concept category: Principle
concrete expression: Engineer A owed a duty of loyalty to the local public agency client as a faithful agent, but that duty did not extend to concealing the incompleteness of the deliverables or to rationalizing deficient work on the basis that federal funds would cover the consequences.
confidence: 0.83
interpretation: The faithful agent duty requires advancing the client's legitimate interests, which include receiving complete and adequate design documents. Delivering incomplete documents while concealing their deficiency does not serve the client's legitimate interests and therefore falls outside the scope of the faithful agent duty.
invoked by: Engineer A Dam Design Engineer
principle class: Faithful Agent Duty Principle
tension resolution: The faithful agent duty, properly understood, required disclosure of deficiencies to the client, not concealment. The duty was therefore not in genuine tension with the disclosure obligation but was misapplied by Engineer A.
text references: Engineer A responds to an RFP from a small local public agency
text references: did not inform anyone as to their incompleteness
discovered in case: 85
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: facts
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T16:49:05.036482+00:00
first discovered in case: 85
match confidence: 0.95
match reasoning: Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Faithful Agent Duty Principle'
matched ontology class: FaithfulAgentDutyPrinciple
matched ontology label: Faithful Agent Duty Principle
matches existing: true
source text: Engineer A responds to an RFP from a small local public agency to build a new dam
synthesis literal: appliedTo
synthesis literal: balancingWith
synthesis literal: concreteExpression
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: interpretation
synthesis literal: principleClass
synthesis literal: tensionResolution
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineer A owed a duty of loyalty to the local public agency client as a faithful agent, but that duty did not extend to concealing the incompleteness of the deliverables or to rationalizing deficient work on the basis that federal funds would cover the consequences.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T16:49:05.036482+00:00
was attributed to: Case 85 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 85 Extraction

Engineer A Professional Integrity Deceptive Acts
type: ProfessionalIntegrity
type: NamedIndividual
invoked by: Engineer A
applied to: Submission of incomplete dam design drawings and specifications
balancing with: Faithful Agent Duty Principle
concept category: Principle
concrete expression: Engineer A engaged in deceptive conduct by submitting incomplete drawings while asserting that incompleteness was attributable to time pressures and anticipated federal funding, misrepresenting the status and adequacy of the work product to the client and the approving authority.
confidence: 0.91
interpretation: Professional integrity required Engineer A to honestly represent the completeness and adequacy of the work product rather than submitting deficient deliverables while offering pretextual justifications.
invoked by: Engineer A Dam Design Engineer
principle class: Professional Integrity
tension resolution: The Board found Engineer A's conduct to be a clear violation of the NSPE Code, with no legitimate competing obligation that could justify the deceptive submission.
text references: Engineer A's bold assertion that the work was incomplete, but that this was due to time pressures and his expectation that Federal funds would be awarded to complete the work is wholly unconvincing
text references: this case does not involve a conflict with the ethical requirement of confidentiality, but concerns the affirmative responsibility of engineers to complete plans in conformity with applicable engineering standards and avoid deceptive acts
discovered in case: 85
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: discussion
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T16:53:07.457315+00:00
first discovered in case: 85
match confidence: 0.95
match reasoning: Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Professional Integrity'
matched ontology class: ProfessionalIntegrity
matched ontology label: Professional Integrity
matches existing: true
source text: this case does not involve a conflict with the ethical requirement of confidentiality, but concerns the affirmative responsibility of engineers to complete plans in conformity with applicable engineering standards and avoid deceptive acts.
synthesis literal: appliedTo
synthesis literal: balancingWith
synthesis literal: concreteExpression
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: interpretation
synthesis literal: principleClass
synthesis literal: tensionResolution
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineer A engaged in deceptive conduct by submitting incomplete drawings while asserting that incompleteness was attributable to time pressures and anticipated federal funding, misrepresenting the status and adequacy of the work product to the client and the approving authority.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T16:53:07.457315+00:00
was attributed to: Case 85 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 85 Extraction

Engineer A Public Safety Risk
type: PublicSafetyatRisk
type: NamedIndividual
activates constraint: Engineer A Non-Safety Disclosure Limit
activates obligation: Engineer A Deliverable Completeness Disclosure
affects: Engineer A
active period: From submission of incomplete drawings through the pre-construction conference and beyond until deficiencies are resolved
affected parties: Engineer A
affected parties: General public downstream of dam
affected parties: Hi-Lo Construction workers
affected parties: Local public agency
concept category: State
confidence: 0.89
principle transformation: Transforms the general duty of honesty and public welfare into a discretionary right rather than a mandatory obligation, because the absence of a public safety nexus removes the override condition that would compel disclosure.
state class: Public Safety at Risk
subject: Risk to public safety arising from proceeding toward construction of a dam on incomplete and unbuildable design documents
terminated by: Not resolved within the described text
text references: certain parts of the project are unbuildable without major changes
text references: much of the design detail is lacking in the drawings and specifications
triggering event: Incomplete and partially unbuildable dam design is approved and contracted for construction
urgency level: high
discovered in case: 85
discovered in pass: 1
discovered in section: facts
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T16:46:12.006396+00:00
first discovered in case: 85
match confidence: 0.95
match reasoning: Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Public Safety at Risk'
matched ontology class: PublicSafetyAtRisk
matched ontology label: Public Safety at Risk
matches existing: true
source text: certain parts of the project are unbuildable without major changes
synthesis literal: activePeriod
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: stateClass
synthesis literal: subject
synthesis literal: terminatedBy
synthesis literal: textReferences
synthesis literal: triggeringEvent
synthesis literal: urgencyLevel
comment: Risk to public safety arising from proceeding toward construction of a dam on incomplete and unbuildable design documents
generated at time: 2026-06-04T16:46:12.006396+00:00
was attributed to: Case 85 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 85 Extraction

Engineer A Responsible Charge Seal
type: ResponsibleChargeSealObligation
type: NamedIndividual
obligated party: Engineer A
case context: Engineer A signed and sealed dam drawings and specifications that he knew were incomplete and contained unbuildable elements, thereby certifying documents that did not meet the standard required for professional sealing.
compliance status: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.9
derived from principle: Engineer A Deliverable Completeness Concealment
obligation class: Responsible Charge Seal Obligation
obligation statement: Engineer A was obligated to apply his professional seal only to drawings and specifications that were complete, buildable, and met professional standards, and not to seal documents he knew to be materially incomplete.
temporal scope: At the time of signing and sealing the drawings and specifications
text references: Engineer A generally agrees with Hi-Lo's characterization, but in his defense responds that he felt pressured to deliver the drawings and specifications on a specified date, but did not inform anyone as to their incompleteness
text references: The signed and sealed drawings and specifications are ultimately approved by Engineer B
discovered in case: 85
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: facts
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T16:50:13.568162+00:00
first discovered in case: 85
match confidence: 0.95
match reasoning: Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Responsible Charge Seal Obligation'
matched ontology class: ResponsibleChargeSealObligation
matched ontology label: Responsible Charge Seal Obligation
matches existing: true
source text: The signed and sealed drawings and specifications are ultimately approved by Engineer B
synthesis literal: caseContext
synthesis literal: complianceStatus
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: obligationClass
synthesis literal: obligationStatement
synthesis literal: temporalScope
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineer A was obligated to apply his professional seal only to drawings and specifications that were complete, buildable, and met professional standards, and not to seal documents he knew to be materially incomplete.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T16:50:13.568162+00:00
was attributed to: Case 85 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 85 Extraction

Engineer C Contractor Deficiency Notification
type: ContractorDeficiencyNotificationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
obligated party: Engineer C
case context: Engineer C, as owner of Hi-Lo Construction and a licensed engineer, identified at the pre-construction conference that design detail was lacking and that certain parts of the project were unbuildable, and reported these findings to the parties present.
compliance status: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.83
derived from principle: Engineer C Contractor Collegial Notification Observation
obligation class: Contractor Deficiency Notification Obligation
obligation statement: Engineer C, as a licensed engineer and contractor, was obligated to formally document and report the identified design deficiencies and unbuildable elements to the client and design engineer so that the deficiencies could be remedied before construction proceeded.
temporal scope: At the pre-construction conference upon identification of the deficiencies
text references: it is pointed out by Engineer C, owner of Hi-Lo Construction, that much of the design detail is lacking in the drawings and specifications and that Hi-Lo Construction declares that certain parts of the project are 'unbuildable' without major changes
discovered in case: 85
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: facts
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T16:50:13.568162+00:00
first discovered in case: 85
match confidence: 0.72
match reasoning: Via class 'Contractor Deficiency Notification Obligation': Observer Irregularity Reporting Obligation addresses the duty to document and report procedural irregularities during a test or investigation. The present obligation applies to a contractor-engineer who identifies design deficiencies in documents during pre-construction review rather than during a test. The underlying duty to report identified deficiencies to responsible parties is analogous but the role context and trigger conditions are sufficiently distinct to warrant a separate class.
matched ontology class: ObserverIrregularityReportingObligation
matched ontology label: Observer Irregularity Reporting Obligation
matches existing: true
source text: it is pointed out by Engineer C, owner of Hi-Lo Construction, that much of the design detail is lacking in the drawings and specifications and that Hi-Lo Construction declares that certain parts of the project are 'unbuildable' without major changes
synthesis literal: caseContext
synthesis literal: complianceStatus
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: obligationClass
synthesis literal: obligationStatement
synthesis literal: temporalScope
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineer C, as a licensed engineer and contractor, was obligated to formally document and report the identified design deficiencies and unbuildable elements to the client and design engineer so that the deficiencies could be remedied before construction proceeded.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T16:50:13.568162+00:00
was attributed to: Case 85 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 85 Extraction

Engineer C Unbuildable Bid Notification
type: ContractorDeficiencyNotificationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
case context: Engineer C, as owner of Hi-Lo Construction and a licensed engineer, identified that significant design detail was lacking and that parts of the project were unbuildable. Engineer C raised these issues at the pre-construction conference but the ethical constraint required earlier and more formal notification.
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.8
constrained entity: Engineer C
constraint class: Contractor Deficiency Notification Obligation
constraint statement: Engineer C, as a licensed engineer and contractor who identified material design deficiencies and unbuildable elements before or upon bidding, was constrained by professional ethics obligations to formally document and report those deficiencies rather than simply raising them informally at the pre-construction conference.
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics, Section II.2 and Section III.2
temporal scope: Upon identification of deficiencies, before or at the time of bidding and at the pre-construction conference
text references: Engineer C, owner of Hi-Lo Construction, that much of the design detail is lacking in the drawings and specifications and that Hi-Lo Construction declares that certain parts of the project are 'unbuildable' without major changes.
discovered in case: 85
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: facts
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T16:51:16.118939+00:00
first discovered in case: 85
match confidence: 0.0
matches existing: false
source text: Engineer C, owner of Hi-Lo Construction, that much of the design detail is lacking in the drawings and specifications and that Hi-Lo Construction declares that certain parts of the project are 'unbuildable' without major changes.
synthesis literal: caseContext
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: constraintClass
synthesis literal: constraintStatement
synthesis literal: severity
synthesis literal: source
synthesis literal: temporalScope
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineer C, as a licensed engineer and contractor who identified material design deficiencies and unbuildable elements before or upon bidding, was constrained by professional ethics obligations to formally document and report those deficiencies rather than simply raising them informally at the pre-construction conference.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T16:51:16.118939+00:00
was attributed to: Case 85 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 85 Extraction

Incompleteness Acknowledgment Event
type: Event
type: NamedIndividual
caused by action: Reactive Incompleteness Acknowledgment
causes state change: The incompleteness of the project documents became a matter of official record acknowledged by the design engineer, triggering formal accountability and the need for remediation.
concept category: Event
event type: outcome
initiates text: Engineer A Liability Exposure
initiates text: Official Incompleteness Record
initiates text: Remediation Required State
severity: high
temporal extent: instant
temporal marker: During the pre-construction conference, following Engineer C's declaration
temporal sequence: 15
terminates text: Non-Disclosure of Incompleteness State
synthesis literal: causesStateChange
synthesis literal: description
synthesis literal: eventType
synthesis literal: severity
synthesis literal: temporalExtent
synthesis literal: temporalMarker
synthesis literal: temporalSequence
comment: Engineer A acknowledged at the pre-construction conference that the submitted drawings and specifications were incomplete, confirming what had previously been concealed from the agency and contractor.
has time: During the pre-construction conference, following Engineer C's declaration
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 85 Extraction

Current Case No Safety Nexus
type: NoPublicSafetyNexusState
type: NamedIndividual
activates constraint: Engineer A Non-Safety Disclosure Limit
activates obligation: Engineer A Deliverable Completeness Disclosure
affects: Engineer A
active period: Throughout the Board's analysis of the current case
affected parties: Engineer A
affected parties: Owner
affected parties: Public
concept category: State
confidence: 0.85
principle transformation: Transforms the general duty of honesty and public welfare into a discretionary right rather than a mandatory obligation, because the absence of a public safety nexus removes the override condition that would compel disclosure.
state class: No Public Safety Nexus State
subject: Engineer A's incomplete plan submission in the current case
terminated by: Not terminated within the case analysis; the Board proceeds on the basis that the affirmative duty of completeness and anti-deception applies instead
text references: the issue does not allege a danger to public health or safety, but is premised upon a claim of unsatisfactory plans and the unjustified expenditure of public funds
text references: this case does not involve a conflict with the ethical requirement of confidentiality, but concerns the affirmative responsibility of engineers to complete plans in conformity with applicable engineering standards and avoid deceptive acts
triggering event: Board's determination that the case involves unsatisfactory plans and unjustified public expenditure rather than a public health or safety danger
urgency level: medium
discovered in case: 85
discovered in pass: 1
discovered in section: discussion
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T16:47:21.871867+00:00
first discovered in case: 85
match confidence: 0.0
matches existing: false
source text: the issue does not allege a danger to public health or safety, but is premised upon a claim of unsatisfactory plans and the unjustified expenditure of public funds
synthesis literal: activePeriod
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: stateClass
synthesis literal: subject
synthesis literal: terminatedBy
synthesis literal: textReferences
synthesis literal: triggeringEvent
synthesis literal: urgencyLevel
comment: Engineer A's incomplete plan submission in the current case
generated at time: 2026-06-04T16:47:21.871867+00:00
was attributed to: Case 85 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 85 Extraction

Defense Industry Engineer Whistleblower Conscience
type: WhistleblowerConscienceObligation
type: NamedIndividual
defeasible under: Current Case No Safety Nexus
obligated party: Defense Industry Engineer (BER 82-5)
case context: BER Case No. 82-5: engineer employed by a large defense industry firm documented and reported excessive costs and time delays by subcontractors; employer rejected the reports; no public health or safety danger was alleged.
compliance status: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.85
derived from principle: Defense Industry Engineer Whistleblower Conscience
obligated party: Defense industry engineer (BER Case No. 82-5)
obligation class: Whistleblower Conscience Obligation
obligation statement: The engineer had an ethical right but not a mandatory ethical duty to continue reporting excessive subcontractor costs and delays to proper authority after the employer rejected the reports, and any further disclosure was a matter of personal conscience.
temporal scope: After employer rejection of initial reports
text references: the Board ruled that the engineer did not have an ethical obligation to continue his efforts to secure a change in the policy after his employer rejected his reports or to report his concerns to proper authority, but has an ethical right to do so as a matter of personal conscience
text references: the ethical duty or right of the engineer becomes a matter of personal conscience
discovered in case: 85
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: discussion
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T16:54:40.172403+00:00
first discovered in case: 85
match confidence: 0.0
matches existing: false
source text: the Board ruled that the engineer did not have an ethical obligation to continue his efforts to secure a change in the policy after his employer rejected his reports or to report his concerns to proper authority, but has an ethical right to do so as a matter of personal conscience
synthesis literal: caseContext
synthesis literal: complianceStatus
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: obligationClass
synthesis literal: obligationStatement
synthesis literal: temporalScope
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: The engineer had an ethical right but not a mandatory ethical duty to continue reporting excessive subcontractor costs and delays to proper authority after the employer rejected the reports, and any further disclosure was a matter of personal conscience.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T16:54:40.172403+00:00
was attributed to: Case 85 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 85 Extraction

Engineer A Federal Funds Assumption
type: ClientFundingAssumptionState
type: NamedIndividual
activated by event: Federal Grant Involvement
activates obligation: Engineer A Public Funds Misrepresentation
affects: Engineer A
active period: From Engineer A's decision to submit incomplete plans through the Board's analysis
affected parties: Engineer A
affected parties: Owner
affected parties: Public (as federal fund recipients)
concept category: State
confidence: 0.92
principle transformation: Transforms faithful-agent and honest-communication principles into an obligation to disclose and obtain authorization for any assumption about third-party funding that the professional uses to justify delivering a deficient or incomplete work product.
state class: Client Funding Assumption State
subject: Engineer A's reliance on anticipated federal funding to justify incomplete deliverable
terminated by: Board finding that the assumption borders on fraud and misrepresentation
text references: Engineer A's comment about Federal funds borders on fraud and misrepresentation and is a clear violation of the NSPE Code
text references: his expectation that Federal funds would be awarded to complete the work is wholly unconvincing
triggering event: Engineer A submitted incomplete plans while assuming federal funds would be awarded to complete the work, without disclosing or obtaining authorization for that assumption
urgency level: high
discovered in case: 85
discovered in pass: 1
discovered in section: discussion
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T16:47:21.871867+00:00
first discovered in case: 85
match confidence: 0.0
matches existing: false
source text: his expectation that Federal funds would be awarded to complete the work is wholly unconvincing
synthesis literal: activePeriod
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: stateClass
synthesis literal: subject
synthesis literal: terminatedBy
synthesis literal: textReferences
synthesis literal: triggeringEvent
synthesis literal: urgencyLevel
comment: Engineer A's reliance on anticipated federal funding to justify incomplete deliverable
generated at time: 2026-06-04T16:47:21.871867+00:00
was attributed to: Case 85 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 85 Extraction

Engineer A Non-Deception Submission
type: Non-DeceptionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
constrained entity: Engineer A
case context: The Board found that Engineer A's assertion that incompleteness was acceptable due to anticipated federal funds bordered on fraud and misrepresentation, constituting a clear violation of the NSPE Code's non-deception provisions.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.93
constraint class: Non-Deception (Constraint)
constraint statement: Engineer A was prohibited from engaging in deceptive acts in connection with the submission of incomplete drawings and specifications, including misrepresenting their adequacy or relying on unverified funding assumptions to justify their incompleteness.
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics, non-deception provisions
temporal scope: At the time of submission of incomplete drawings and specifications
text references: Engineer A's comment about Federal funds borders on fraud and misrepresentation and is a clear violation of the NSPE Code
text references: this case does not involve a conflict with the ethical requirement of confidentiality, but concerns the affirmative responsibility of engineers to complete plans in conformity with applicable engineering standards and avoid deceptive acts
discovered in case: 85
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: discussion
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T16:56:15.795068+00:00
first discovered in case: 85
match confidence: 0.95
match reasoning: Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Non-Deception (Constraint)'
matched ontology class: Non Deception
matched ontology label: Non-Deception (Constraint)
matches existing: true
source text: Engineer A's comment about Federal funds borders on fraud and misrepresentation and is a clear violation of the NSPE Code
synthesis literal: caseContext
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: constraintClass
synthesis literal: constraintStatement
synthesis literal: severity
synthesis literal: source
synthesis literal: temporalScope
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineer A was prohibited from engaging in deceptive acts in connection with the submission of incomplete drawings and specifications, including misrepresenting their adequacy or relying on unverified funding assumptions to justify their incompleteness.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T16:56:15.795068+00:00
was attributed to: Case 85 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 85 Extraction

Engineer A Non-Safety Disclosure Limit
type: DefeasibleConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
constrained entity: Engineer A
case context: The Board analogized the current case to BER Case No. 82-5, noting that neither case involved public health or safety danger, which affected the scope of mandatory disclosure obligations while leaving intact the affirmative duties of plan completeness and non-deception.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.78
constraint class: Defeasible Constraint
constraint statement: Because the incomplete plan submission did not allege a danger to public health or safety but involved unsatisfactory plans and potential unjustified expenditure of public funds, the mandatory external disclosure obligations that attach to safety-threatening conduct did not apply with the same force, though affirmative obligations of completeness and non-deception remained.
severity: medium
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case No. 82-5 precedent
temporal scope: Throughout the project engagement
text references: the Board indicated that it could dismiss the case on the narrow ground that the NSPE Code does not apply to a claim not involving public health and safety, but that was too narrow a reading of the ethical duties of engineers
text references: the issue does not allege a danger to public health or safety, but is premised upon a claim of unsatisfactory plans and the unjustified expenditure of public funds
text references: this case does not involve a conflict with the ethical requirement of confidentiality, but concerns the affirmative responsibility of engineers to complete plans in conformity with applicable engineering standards and avoid deceptive acts
discovered in case: 85
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: discussion
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T16:56:15.795068+00:00
first discovered in case: 85
match confidence: 0.95
match reasoning: Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Defeasible Constraint'
matched ontology class: DefeasibleConstraint
matched ontology label: Defeasible Constraint
matches existing: true
source text: the issue does not allege a danger to public health or safety, but is premised upon a claim of unsatisfactory plans and the unjustified expenditure of public funds
synthesis literal: caseContext
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: constraintClass
synthesis literal: constraintStatement
synthesis literal: severity
synthesis literal: source
synthesis literal: temporalScope
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Because the incomplete plan submission did not allege a danger to public health or safety but involved unsatisfactory plans and potential unjustified expenditure of public funds, the mandatory external disclosure obligations that attach to safety-threatening conduct did not apply with the same force, though affirmative obligations of completeness and non-deception remained.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T16:56:15.795068+00:00
was attributed to: Case 85 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 85 Extraction

Engineer A Safety Obligation Dam Design
type: SafetyObligation
type: NamedIndividual
obligated party: Engineer A
prevails over: Engineer A Deadline Pressure Resistance
case context: Engineer A submitted incomplete and partially unbuildable dam drawings and specifications, creating risk to the public who would rely on the dam, without disclosing the deficiencies to any party.
compliance status: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.93
derived from principle: Engineer A Public Welfare Deficient Dam Design
obligation class: Safety Obligation
obligation statement: Engineer A was obligated to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public by ensuring that the dam drawings and specifications were complete and buildable before submission, given that the public would rely on the dam as a safety-critical structure.
temporal scope: Throughout the design and submission process
text references: Engineer A generally agrees with Hi-Lo's characterization
text references: much of the design detail is lacking in the drawings and specifications and that Hi-Lo Construction declares that certain parts of the project are 'unbuildable' without major changes
discovered in case: 85
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: facts
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T16:50:13.568162+00:00
first discovered in case: 85
match confidence: 0.95
match reasoning: Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Safety Obligation'
matched ontology class: SafetyObligation
matched ontology label: Safety Obligation
matches existing: true
source text: much of the design detail is lacking in the drawings and specifications and that Hi-Lo Construction declares that certain parts of the project are 'unbuildable' without major changes
synthesis literal: caseContext
synthesis literal: complianceStatus
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: obligationClass
synthesis literal: obligationStatement
synthesis literal: temporalScope
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineer A was obligated to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public by ensuring that the dam drawings and specifications were complete and buildable before submission, given that the public would rely on the dam as a safety-critical structure.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T16:50:13.568162+00:00
was attributed to: Case 85 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 85 Extraction

Engineer B Approving Engineer Verification
type: ApprovingEngineerVerificationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
defeasible under: Engineer B Competence Gap Review
obligated party: Engineer B
case context: Engineer B reviewed and approved the signed and sealed drawings and specifications as a member of the federal agency engineering staff, but the documents were materially incomplete and contained unbuildable elements that were subsequently identified by the contractor at the pre-construction conference.
compliance status: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.85
derived from principle: Engineer B Federal Review Approval Competence
obligation class: Approving Engineer Verification Obligation
obligation statement: Engineer B was obligated to conduct a sufficiently thorough independent technical review of the submitted dam drawings and specifications to identify material deficiencies and unbuildable elements before approving them on behalf of the federal funding agency.
temporal scope: During the federal agency review and approval process
text references: The signed and sealed drawings and specifications are ultimately approved by Engineer B of the engineering staff of the federal agency funding the project
text references: much of the design detail is lacking in the drawings and specifications and that Hi-Lo Construction declares that certain parts of the project are 'unbuildable' without major changes
discovered in case: 85
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: facts
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T16:50:13.568162+00:00
first discovered in case: 85
match confidence: 0.74
match reasoning: Via class 'Approving Engineer Verification Obligation': Responsible Charge Verification Obligation addresses the duty of a licensed engineer in responsible charge to verify work before sealing. The present obligation applies to a reviewing or approving engineer at a funding agency rather than the originating engineer, and the verification duty runs to independent review of another's submission rather than one's own work. It is a variant of the same underlying competence principle applied to a distinct role context, warranting a separate class.
matched ontology class: ResponsibleChargeVerificationObligation
matched ontology label: Responsible Charge Verification Obligation
matches existing: true
source text: The signed and sealed drawings and specifications are ultimately approved by Engineer B of the engineering staff of the federal agency funding the project
synthesis literal: caseContext
synthesis literal: complianceStatus
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: obligationClass
synthesis literal: obligationStatement
synthesis literal: temporalScope
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineer B was obligated to conduct a sufficiently thorough independent technical review of the submitted dam drawings and specifications to identify material deficiencies and unbuildable elements before approving them on behalf of the federal funding agency.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T16:50:13.568162+00:00
was attributed to: Case 85 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 85 Extraction

Engineer B Federal Approving Engineer
type: FederalAgencyApprovingEngineer
type: NamedIndividual
adheres to principle: Engineer B Competence Recognition Approval
adheres to principle: Engineer B Federal Review Approval Competence
has obligation: Engineer B Approving Engineer Verification
has obligation: Engineer B Competence Limit Escalation
actor: Engineer B
case involvement: Reviewed and approved the signed and sealed drawings and specifications as a member of the federal agency engineering staff, thereby enabling the project to proceed to bid despite the documents' incompleteness.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.88
has employer: Federal funding agency
has license: Professional Engineer
other attribute: function: Technical approval of grant-funded project documents
role category: public_responsibility
role class: Federal Agency Approving Engineer
text references: approved by Engineer B of the engineering staff of the federal agency funding the project
discovered in case: 85
discovered in pass: 1
discovered in section: facts
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T16:46:00.156208+00:00
first discovered in case: 85
match confidence: 0.0
matches existing: false
source text: approved by Engineer B of the engineering staff of the federal agency funding the project
synthesis literal: caseInvolvement
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: roleCategory
synthesis literal: roleClass
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Reviewed and approved the signed and sealed drawings and specifications as a member of the federal agency engineering staff, thereby enabling the project to proceed to bid despite the documents' incompleteness.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T16:46:00.156208+00:00
was attributed to: Case 85 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 85 Extraction

Engineer C Contractor Collegial Notification Observation
type: CompleteReportingPrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
invoked by: Engineer C
applied to: Pre-construction conference disclosure of design deficiencies
balancing with: Constructor Client commercial interests
concept category: Principle
concrete expression: Engineer C, as a licensed engineer and contractor, identified and reported the material deficiencies in the drawings and specifications at the pre-construction conference, fulfilling an obligation to surface known technical inadequacies rather than proceeding silently.
confidence: 0.82
interpretation: Engineer C's disclosure of the unbuildable elements and missing design detail reflects the professional obligation to report known technical deficiencies that affect the viability of a project, even when doing so creates complications for the project schedule and relationships.
invoked by: Engineer C Engineer Contractor
principle class: Complete Reporting Principle
tension resolution: Engineer C honored the reporting obligation by disclosing the deficiencies at the pre-construction conference rather than proceeding and absorbing costs or creating safety risks.
text references: it is pointed out by Engineer C, owner of Hi-Lo Construction, that much of the design detail is lacking in the drawings and specifications and that Hi-Lo Construction declares that certain parts of the project are unbuildable without major changes
discovered in case: 85
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: facts
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T16:49:05.036482+00:00
first discovered in case: 85
match confidence: 0.95
match reasoning: Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Complete Reporting Principle'
matched ontology class: CompleteReportingPrinciple
matched ontology label: Complete Reporting Principle
matches existing: true
source text: it is pointed out by Engineer C, owner of Hi-Lo Construction, that much of the design detail is lacking in the drawings and specifications and that Hi-Lo Construction declares that certain parts of the project are unbuildable without major changes
synthesis literal: appliedTo
synthesis literal: balancingWith
synthesis literal: concreteExpression
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: interpretation
synthesis literal: principleClass
synthesis literal: tensionResolution
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineer C, as a licensed engineer and contractor, identified and reported the material deficiencies in the drawings and specifications at the pre-construction conference, fulfilling an obligation to surface known technical inadequacies rather than proceeding silently.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T16:49:05.036482+00:00
was attributed to: Case 85 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 85 Extraction

Defense Industry Engineer Whistleblower Conscience
type: WhistleblowerConsciencePrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
invoked by: Defense Industry Engineer (BER 82-5)
applied to: Internal reports of excessive subcontractor costs and time delays on defense contracts
balancing with: Confidentiality Principle
balancing with: Faithful Agent Duty Principle
concept category: Principle
concrete expression: The defense industry engineer who documented and reported excessive subcontractor costs and delays had an ethical right but not an ethical duty to continue pursuing disclosure after the employer rejected the reports, because the conduct involved unjustified public expenditure rather than a direct public safety threat.
confidence: 0.9
interpretation: Because the conduct did not involve public health or safety, the engineer's obligation to disclose did not extend beyond internal channels; further disclosure became a matter of personal conscience with attendant professional risk.
invoked by: Defense Industry Engineer Whistleblower
principle class: Whistleblower Conscience Principle
tension resolution: The Board declined to impose a blanket duty of continued disclosure or public reporting, characterizing the decision as a matter of personal conscience while acknowledging the engineer's right to proceed at personal professional risk.
text references: if an engineer feels strongly that an employer's course of conduct is improper when related to public concerns, and if the engineer feels compelled to blow the whistle to expose facts as he sees them, he may well have to pay the price of loss of employment
text references: the Board ruled that the engineer did not have an ethical obligation to continue his efforts to secure a change in the policy after his employer rejected his reports or to report his concerns to proper authority, but has an ethical right to do so as a matter of personal conscience
text references: the case did not involve a danger to the public health or safety, but related to a claim of unsatisfactory plans and the unjustified expenditure of public funds
discovered in case: 85
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: discussion
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T16:53:07.457315+00:00
first discovered in case: 85
match confidence: 0.0
matches existing: false
source text: the Board ruled that the engineer did not have an ethical obligation to continue his efforts to secure a change in the policy after his employer rejected his reports or to report his concerns to proper authority, but has an ethical right to do so as a matter of personal conscience.
synthesis literal: appliedTo
synthesis literal: balancingWith
synthesis literal: concreteExpression
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: interpretation
synthesis literal: principleClass
synthesis literal: tensionResolution
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: The defense industry engineer who documented and reported excessive subcontractor costs and delays had an ethical right but not an ethical duty to continue pursuing disclosure after the employer rejected the reports, because the conduct involved unjustified public expenditure rather than a direct public safety threat.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T16:53:07.457315+00:00
was attributed to: Case 85 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 85 Extraction

Engineer A Cost Allocation Bias
type: CostAllocationBiasProhibitionPrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
invoked by: Engineer A
applied to: Incomplete dam design drawings submitted under federal grant conditions
balancing with: Faithful Agent Duty Principle
concept category: Principle
concrete expression: Engineer A rationalized submitting incomplete design documents by asserting that federal funds would be awarded to complete the work, effectively treating anticipated third-party public funding as a justification for delivering deficient deliverables.
confidence: 0.93
interpretation: The principle prohibits Engineer A from rationalizing deficient deliverables on the basis that remediation costs would fall on federal funding rather than the client, because the source of remediation funding does not alter the obligation to deliver complete work.
invoked by: Engineer A Dam Design Engineer
principle class: Cost Allocation Bias Prohibition Principle
tension resolution: The Board characterized Engineer A's federal funds comment as bordering on fraud and misrepresentation, finding no legitimate basis for the cost-allocation rationale.
text references: Engineer A's bold assertion that the work was incomplete, but that this was due to time pressures and his expectation that Federal funds would be awarded to complete the work is wholly unconvincing
text references: Engineer A's comment about Federal funds borders on fraud and misrepresentation and is a clear violation of the NSPE Code
discovered in case: 85
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: discussion
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T16:53:07.457315+00:00
first discovered in case: 85
match confidence: 0.0
matches existing: false
source text: Engineer A's comment about Federal funds borders on fraud and misrepresentation and is a clear violation of the NSPE Code.
synthesis literal: appliedTo
synthesis literal: balancingWith
synthesis literal: concreteExpression
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: interpretation
synthesis literal: principleClass
synthesis literal: tensionResolution
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineer A rationalized submitting incomplete design documents by asserting that federal funds would be awarded to complete the work, effectively treating anticipated third-party public funding as a justification for delivering deficient deliverables.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T16:53:07.457315+00:00
was attributed to: Case 85 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 85 Extraction

Engineer A Cost Allocation Rationalization
type: CostAllocationBiasProhibitionPrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
invoked by: Engineer A
applied to: Decision to submit incomplete dam design documents
balancing with: Faithful Agent Duty Principle
concept category: Principle
concrete expression: Engineer A rationalized submitting incomplete drawings and specifications in part because he believed federal grant funds, rather than local funds, would cover any increased costs resulting from the deficiencies.
confidence: 0.92
interpretation: The prohibition on cost-allocation bias required Engineer A to evaluate the adequacy of the deliverables against objective professional standards, not against assumptions about which party would bear remediation costs. The federal funding source did not lower the required standard of completeness.
invoked by: Engineer A Dam Design Engineer
principle class: Cost Allocation Bias Prohibition Principle
tension resolution: Engineer A improperly allowed cost-allocation assumptions to substitute for professional judgment about deliverable adequacy.
text references: Engineer A was confident that sufficient federal funds (and not local funding) would cover any potential increased costs
discovered in case: 85
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: facts
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T16:49:05.036482+00:00
first discovered in case: 85
match confidence: 0.0
matches existing: false
source text: Engineer A was confident that sufficient federal funds (and not local funding) would cover any potential increased costs
synthesis literal: appliedTo
synthesis literal: balancingWith
synthesis literal: concreteExpression
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: interpretation
synthesis literal: principleClass
synthesis literal: tensionResolution
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineer A rationalized submitting incomplete drawings and specifications in part because he believed federal grant funds, rather than local funds, would cover any increased costs resulting from the deficiencies.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T16:49:05.036482+00:00
was attributed to: Case 85 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 85 Extraction

Engineer A Public Welfare Deficient Dam Design
type: PublicWelfareParamountcyPrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
invoked by: Engineer A
applied to: Dam design drawings and specifications submitted to local public agency and federal approving authority
balancing with: Faithful Agent Duty Principle
balancing with: Schedule pressure
concept category: Principle
concrete expression: Engineer A submitted incomplete and partially unbuildable dam drawings and specifications, creating risk to the public who would rely on the dam, while concealing the deficiencies from the client, the approving agency, and other parties.
confidence: 0.93
interpretation: The paramount duty to public welfare required Engineer A to deliver complete, adequate, and buildable design documents for a dam, a structure whose failure could cause serious harm to the public. Submitting known-deficient sealed documents violated this paramount obligation.
invoked by: Engineer A Dam Design Engineer
principle class: Public Welfare Paramountcy Principle
tension resolution: Public welfare paramountcy was not honored. Engineer A allowed schedule pressure and cost-allocation assumptions to override the duty to deliver complete, safe design documents.
text references: Engineer A generally agrees with Hi-Lo's characterization
text references: Engineer C, owner of Hi-Lo Construction, that much of the design detail is lacking in the drawings and specifications and that Hi-Lo Construction declares that certain parts of the project are unbuildable without major changes.
discovered in case: 85
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: facts
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T16:49:05.036482+00:00
first discovered in case: 85
match confidence: 0.95
match reasoning: Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Public Welfare Paramountcy Principle'
matched ontology class: PublicWelfareParamountcyPrinciple
matched ontology label: Public Welfare Paramountcy Principle
matches existing: true
source text: much of the design detail is lacking in the drawings and specifications and that Hi-Lo Construction declares that certain parts of the project are unbuildable without major changes
synthesis literal: appliedTo
synthesis literal: balancingWith
synthesis literal: concreteExpression
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: interpretation
synthesis literal: principleClass
synthesis literal: tensionResolution
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineer A submitted incomplete and partially unbuildable dam drawings and specifications, creating risk to the public who would rely on the dam, while concealing the deficiencies from the client, the approving agency, and other parties.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T16:49:05.036482+00:00
was attributed to: Case 85 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 85 Extraction

Engineer B Competence Recognition Approval
type: CompetencePrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
invoked by: Engineer B
applied to: Review and approval of dam design drawings and specifications for federal funding purposes
balancing with: Faithful Agent Duty Principle
concept category: Principle
concrete expression: Engineer B approved Engineer A's incomplete dam design drawings without either possessing the competence to identify their inadequacy or taking action to ensure that a competent reviewer was assigned, resulting in approval of deficient work product.
confidence: 0.92
interpretation: The principle required Engineer B to recognize whether the review task exceeded personal competence and, if so, to notify a supervisor so that an appropriately qualified engineer could be assigned rather than proceeding with an inadequate review.
invoked by: Engineer B Federal Approving Engineer
principle class: Competence Principle
tension resolution: The Board found that failing to recognize a lack of competence and take appropriate action is a violation of the NSPE Code, even though lacking competence is not itself a violation.
text references: Engineers have an obligation to perform services within their area of competence
text references: If Engineer B was not able to perform the necessary reviews of Engineer A's work, Engineer B should have provided this information to a supervisor who would have assigned an appropriate engineer to perform the review
text references: Not possessing adequate competency to perform a task is not in and of itself a violation of the NSPE Code, but the failure to recognize the lack of competency and take appropriate action to address the situation is a violation of the NSPE Code
discovered in case: 85
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: discussion
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T16:53:07.457315+00:00
first discovered in case: 85
match confidence: 0.95
match reasoning: Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Competence Principle'
matched ontology class: CompetencePrinciple
matched ontology label: Competence Principle
matches existing: true
source text: Not possessing adequate competency to perform a task is not in and of itself a violation of the NSPE Code, but the failure to recognize the lack of competency and take appropriate action to address the situation is a violation of the NSPE Code.
synthesis literal: appliedTo
synthesis literal: balancingWith
synthesis literal: concreteExpression
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: interpretation
synthesis literal: principleClass
synthesis literal: tensionResolution
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineer B approved Engineer A's incomplete dam design drawings without either possessing the competence to identify their inadequacy or taking action to ensure that a competent reviewer was assigned, resulting in approval of deficient work product.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T16:53:07.457315+00:00
was attributed to: Case 85 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 85 Extraction

Engineer C Bid Adequacy Reflection
type: BidAdequacyReflectionObligation
type: NamedIndividual
obligated party: Engineer C
case context: Engineer C, a licensed engineer and owner of Hi-Lo Construction, submitted the low bid on the dam project. As a licensed engineer, Engineer C had the background to evaluate the bidding documents and identify their inadequacies, but submitted a bid that did not reflect those deficiencies.
compliance status: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.88
derived from principle: Engineer C Bid Transparency Obligation
obligation class: Bid Adequacy Reflection Obligation
obligation statement: Engineer C was obligated, upon identifying deficiencies and unbuildable elements in the dam project bidding documents, to either include appropriate bid items for additional services needed to complete the work or to seek clarification from the owner or Engineer A before submitting a bid, rather than submitting a low bid that ignored the known inadequacies.
temporal scope: During bid preparation and before bid submission
text references: Engineer C could have requested further clarification from the owner or Engineer A in order to better understand the engineering drawings.
text references: Engineer C had no one to fault but himself for the problems Engineer C encountered in attempting to build the project.
text references: If the engineering documents were incomplete or inadequate, then Engineer C's bid should have reflected that fact and contained appropriate bid items for additional services required to complete the work for the benefit of the owner.
discovered in case: 85
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: discussion
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T16:54:40.172403+00:00
first discovered in case: 85
match confidence: 0.0
matches existing: false
source text: If the engineering documents were incomplete or inadequate, then Engineer C's bid should have reflected that fact and contained appropriate bid items for additional services required to complete the work for the benefit of the owner.
synthesis literal: caseContext
synthesis literal: complianceStatus
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: obligationClass
synthesis literal: obligationStatement
synthesis literal: temporalScope
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineer C was obligated, upon identifying deficiencies and unbuildable elements in the dam project bidding documents, to either include appropriate bid items for additional services needed to complete the work or to seek clarification from the owner or Engineer A before submitting a bid, rather than submitting a low bid that ignored the known inadequacies.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T16:54:40.172403+00:00
was attributed to: Case 85 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 85 Extraction

Engineer C Engineer Contractor
type: EngineerContractor
type: NamedIndividual
adheres to principle: Engineer C Bid Transparency Obligation
adheres to principle: Engineer C Contractor Collegial Notification Observation
adheres to principle: Engineer C Professional Competence Bid Evaluation
has obligation: Engineer C Bid Adequacy Reflection
has obligation: Engineer C Contractor Deficiency Notification
actor: Engineer C
case involvement: Engineer C, as owner of Hi-Lo Construction and a licensed engineer, submitted the low bid on the dam project. The Board found that Engineer C, possessing both engineering and contracting expertise, had an obligation to evaluate the adequacy of the design documents before bidding, to include appropriate bid items for additional services if documents were incomplete, or to request clarification, and bore responsibility for the problems encountered in attempting to build the project.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.88
has license: Professional Engineer
other attribute: role_dual: Engineer and contractor, owner of Hi-Lo Construction
role category: provider_client
role class: Engineer Contractor
text references: As an engineer and a contractor presumably, Engineer C had the necessary background and experience to carefully evaluate the engineering drawings as well as other aspects of the work in order to make an informed decision as to whether to bid on the project
text references: Engineer C had no one to fault but himself for the problems Engineer C encountered in attempting to build the project
text references: Engineer C submitted the low bid on the project, presumably knowing inadequacies of the documents as well as the obvious risks involved
text references: Engineer C's actions in bidding on an unbuildable contract is also very troubling
discovered in case: 85
discovered in pass: 1
discovered in section: discussion
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T16:46:55.513806+00:00
first discovered in case: 85
match confidence: 0.0
matches existing: false
source text: Engineer C's actions in bidding on an unbuildable contract is also very troubling
synthesis literal: caseInvolvement
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: roleCategory
synthesis literal: roleClass
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineer C, as owner of Hi-Lo Construction and a licensed engineer, submitted the low bid on the dam project. The Board found that Engineer C, possessing both engineering and contracting expertise, had an obligation to evaluate the adequacy of the design documents before bidding, to include appropriate bid items for additional services if documents were incomplete, or to request clarification, and bore responsibility for the problems encountered in attempting to build the project.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T16:46:55.513806+00:00
was attributed to: Case 85 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 85 Extraction

Unbuildability Declaration
type: Event
type: NamedIndividual
initiates: Engineer C Unbuildable Contract Bid
caused by action: Reactive Incompleteness Acknowledgment
causes state change: The project's constructability was formally placed in question, creating an impasse that prevented construction from proceeding as documented and exposing the full scope of the document deficiencies.
concept category: Event
event type: outcome
initiates text: Constructability Impasse
initiates text: Project Dispute State
initiates text: Public Safety Risk
severity: critical
temporal extent: instant
temporal marker: During the pre-construction conference
temporal sequence: 13
terminates text: Construction Start Permissible State
synthesis literal: causesStateChange
synthesis literal: description
synthesis literal: eventType
synthesis literal: severity
synthesis literal: temporalExtent
synthesis literal: temporalMarker
synthesis literal: temporalSequence
comment: At the pre-construction conference, Engineer C declared that portions of the dam project were unbuildable, surfacing the practical construction consequences of the document deficiencies.
has time: During the pre-construction conference
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 85 Extraction

Engineer A Federal Funding Assumption
type: ClientFundingAssumptionState
type: NamedIndividual
activates obligation: Engineer A Public Funds Misrepresentation
affects: Engineer A
affects: Federal Agency
active period: From Engineer A's decision to submit incomplete drawings through the pre-construction conference
affected parties: Engineer A
affected parties: Federal funding agency
affected parties: Hi-Lo Construction
affected parties: Local public agency
concept category: State
confidence: 0.88
principle transformation: Transforms faithful-agent and honest-communication principles into an obligation to disclose and obtain authorization for any assumption about third-party funding that the professional uses to justify delivering a deficient or incomplete work product.
state class: Client Funding Assumption State
subject: Engineer A's undisclosed assumption that federal funds would cover cost overruns arising from the incomplete design
terminated by: Not resolved within the described text
text references: Engineer A was confident that sufficient federal funds (and not local funding) would cover any potential increased costs
triggering event: Engineer A decides not to disclose incompleteness, relying on an internal assumption that federal funds will absorb any resulting cost increases
urgency level: medium
discovered in case: 85
discovered in pass: 1
discovered in section: facts
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T16:46:12.006396+00:00
first discovered in case: 85
match confidence: 0.0
matches existing: false
source text: Engineer A was confident that sufficient federal funds (and not local funding) would cover any potential increased costs
synthesis literal: activePeriod
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: stateClass
synthesis literal: subject
synthesis literal: terminatedBy
synthesis literal: textReferences
synthesis literal: triggeringEvent
synthesis literal: urgencyLevel
comment: Engineer A's undisclosed assumption that federal funds would cover cost overruns arising from the incomplete design
generated at time: 2026-06-04T16:46:12.006396+00:00
was attributed to: Case 85 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 85 Extraction

Engineer A Honesty Concealment of Deficiency
type: Honesty
type: NamedIndividual
invoked by: Engineer A
applied to: Communications with local public agency, federal approving authority, and bidding process
balancing with: Desire to maintain client relationship
balancing with: Schedule pressure
concept category: Principle
concrete expression: Engineer A concealed the known incompleteness of the drawings and specifications from the client, the federal approving engineer, and the bidding contractors, allowing all parties to proceed under the false impression that the documents were adequate.
confidence: 0.91
interpretation: Honesty required Engineer A to communicate the known deficiencies in the deliverables to affected parties. Silence in the face of known deficiency, when parties are relying on the documents as complete, constitutes a form of professional dishonesty.
invoked by: Engineer A Dam Design Engineer
principle class: Honesty
tension resolution: Honesty was not upheld. Engineer A allowed the deficient documents to proceed through approval and bidding without disclosure.
text references: Engineer A generally agrees with Hi-Lo's characterization
text references: did not inform anyone as to their incompleteness
discovered in case: 85
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: facts
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T16:49:05.036482+00:00
first discovered in case: 85
match confidence: 0.95
match reasoning: Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Honesty'
matched ontology class: Honesty
matched ontology label: Honesty
matches existing: true
source text: did not inform anyone as to their incompleteness
synthesis literal: appliedTo
synthesis literal: balancingWith
synthesis literal: concreteExpression
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: interpretation
synthesis literal: principleClass
synthesis literal: tensionResolution
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineer A concealed the known incompleteness of the drawings and specifications from the client, the federal approving engineer, and the bidding contractors, allowing all parties to proceed under the false impression that the documents were adequate.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T16:49:05.036482+00:00
was attributed to: Case 85 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 85 Extraction

Engineer B Competence Review Limit
type: CompetenceConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
constrained entity: Engineer B
case context: Engineer B approved Engineer A's materially incomplete dam design documents. The Board noted that lacking competence is not itself a violation, but failing to recognize and address that lack of competence is.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.92
constraint class: Competence Constraint
constraint statement: Engineer B was constrained from approving Engineer A's dam design documents without possessing adequate competence to perform the necessary technical review, and was required to escalate to a supervisor if that competence was lacking.
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; professional engineering standards
temporal scope: During the review and approval of Engineer A's submitted drawings and specifications
text references: Engineers have an obligation to perform services within their area of competence
text references: If Engineer B was not able to perform the necessary reviews of Engineer A's work, Engineer B should have provided this information to a supervisor who would have assigned an appropriate engineer to perform the review
text references: Not possessing adequate competency to perform a task is not in and of itself a violation of the NSPE Code, but the failure to recognize the lack of competency and take appropriate action to address the situation is a violation of the NSPE Code
discovered in case: 85
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: discussion
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T16:56:15.795068+00:00
first discovered in case: 85
match confidence: 0.95
match reasoning: Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Competence Constraint'
matched ontology class: CompetenceConstraint
matched ontology label: Competence Constraint
matches existing: true
source text: Engineers have an obligation to perform services within their area of competence
synthesis literal: caseContext
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: constraintClass
synthesis literal: constraintStatement
synthesis literal: severity
synthesis literal: source
synthesis literal: temporalScope
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineer B was constrained from approving Engineer A's dam design documents without possessing adequate competence to perform the necessary technical review, and was required to escalate to a supervisor if that competence was lacking.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T16:56:15.795068+00:00
was attributed to: Case 85 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 85 Extraction

Engineer B Federal Review Approval Competence
type: ProfessionalCompetencePrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
invoked by: Engineer B
applied to: Federal agency review and approval of dam design documents
balancing with: Reliance on Engineer A's professional seal
concept category: Principle
concrete expression: Engineer B reviewed and approved the signed and sealed drawings and specifications on behalf of the federal funding agency, yet the documents were materially incomplete and contained unbuildable elements, raising questions about the adequacy of the review.
confidence: 0.8
interpretation: Professional competence in the approving role required Engineer B to conduct a sufficiently thorough review to identify material deficiencies before approving documents that would enable a public project to proceed to bidding and construction.
invoked by: Engineer B Federal Approving Engineer
principle class: Professional Competence
tension resolution: The case raises the question of whether Engineer B's approval was adequate given the magnitude of the deficiencies that a contractor identified at the pre-construction conference.
text references: The signed and sealed drawings and specifications are ultimately approved by Engineer B of the engineering staff of the federal agency funding the project
text references: much of the design detail is lacking in the drawings and specifications and that Hi-Lo Construction declares that certain parts of the project are unbuildable without major changes
discovered in case: 85
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: facts
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T16:49:05.036482+00:00
first discovered in case: 85
match confidence: 0.95
match reasoning: Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Professional Competence'
matched ontology class: ProfessionalCompetencePrinciple
matched ontology label: Professional Competence
matches existing: true
source text: The signed and sealed drawings and specifications are ultimately approved by Engineer B of the engineering staff of the federal agency funding the project
synthesis literal: appliedTo
synthesis literal: balancingWith
synthesis literal: concreteExpression
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: interpretation
synthesis literal: principleClass
synthesis literal: tensionResolution
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineer B reviewed and approved the signed and sealed drawings and specifications on behalf of the federal funding agency, yet the documents were materially incomplete and contained unbuildable elements, raising questions about the adequacy of the review.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T16:49:05.036482+00:00
was attributed to: Case 85 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 85 Extraction

Engineer C Professional Competence Bid Evaluation
type: ProfessionalCompetencePrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
invoked by: Engineer C
applied to: Evaluation of dam project bidding documents prior to bid submission
balancing with: Competitive bidding pressures
concept category: Principle
concrete expression: Engineer C, as both a licensed engineer and a contractor, was expected to apply professional engineering competence to evaluate the bidding documents and identify their inadequacies before submitting a bid, using the technical background and experience that the dual role conferred.
confidence: 0.87
interpretation: The principle required Engineer C to bring engineering competence to bear on the bid evaluation process, not merely to assess the documents as a lay contractor would, because the dual role carried the professional obligation to recognize technical deficiencies.
invoked by: Engineer C Engineer Contractor
principle class: Professional Competence
tension resolution: The Board found that Engineer C's engineering background and experience created a professional obligation to evaluate the documents competently, and that failure to act on identified inadequacies was not excused by competitive considerations.
text references: As an engineer and a contractor presumably, Engineer C had the necessary background and experience to carefully evaluate the engineering drawings as well as other aspects of the work in order to make an informed decision as to whether to bid on the project
text references: Engineer C had no one to fault but himself for the problems Engineer C encountered in attempting to build the project
discovered in case: 85
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: discussion
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T16:53:07.457315+00:00
first discovered in case: 85
match confidence: 0.95
match reasoning: Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Professional Competence'
matched ontology class: ProfessionalCompetencePrinciple
matched ontology label: Professional Competence
matches existing: true
source text: As an engineer and a contractor presumably, Engineer C had the necessary background and experience to carefully evaluate the engineering drawings as well as other aspects of the work in order to make an informed decision as to whether to bid on the project.
synthesis literal: appliedTo
synthesis literal: balancingWith
synthesis literal: concreteExpression
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: interpretation
synthesis literal: principleClass
synthesis literal: tensionResolution
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineer C, as both a licensed engineer and a contractor, was expected to apply professional engineering competence to evaluate the bidding documents and identify their inadequacies before submitting a bid, using the technical background and experience that the dual role conferred.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T16:53:07.457315+00:00
was attributed to: Case 85 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 85 Extraction

RFP Response Submission
type: Action
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
event role context: Design Engineer, firm principal
foreseen unintended effects: Commitment to deliverables within time parameters that may prove difficult to meet
fulfills obligation text: Obligation to perform services within area of competence by representing the firm as capable
guided by principle: Engineer A Professional Competence Dam Drawings
guided by principle: Engineer C Professional Competence Bid Evaluation
guided by principle text: Honest representation to client
guided by principle text: Professional competence
has agent: Engineer A
has mental state: deliberate
initiates text: Client Reliance on Engineer A
initiates text: Design Contract Obligation Active
intended outcome: Win the design contract for the dam project
requires capability text: Dam design expertise
requires capability text: Project scoping and scheduling judgment
temporal extent: instant
temporal marker: Pre-contract phase, prior to contract award
temporal sequence: 2
within competence: true
synthesis literal: description
synthesis literal: eventRoleContext
synthesis literal: foreseenUnintendedEffects
synthesis literal: hasAgent
synthesis literal: hasMentalState
synthesis literal: intendedOutcome
synthesis literal: temporalExtent
synthesis literal: temporalMarker
synthesis literal: temporalSequence
synthesis literal: withinCompetence
comment: Engineer A's firm decided to respond to the local public agency's RFP for dam design, submitting an impressive brochure and completing a personal interview, thereby implicitly committing to deliver a complete and competent design within the project's stated time parameters.
has time: Pre-contract phase, prior to contract award
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 85 Extraction

Defense Industry Engineer (BER 82-5)
type: Agent
type: NamedIndividual
has role: Defense Industry Engineer Whistleblower

Engineer A Cost Allocation Neutrality
type: CostAllocationNeutralityObligation
type: NamedIndividual
defeasible under: Engineer A Federal Funding Assumption
obligated party: Engineer A
case context: Engineer A rationalized submitting incomplete drawings and specifications in part because he believed federal grant funds would cover any increased costs, rather than basing his submission decision on the professional adequacy of the documents.
compliance status: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.87
derived from principle: Engineer A Cost Allocation Bias
derived from principle: Engineer A Cost Allocation Rationalization
obligation class: Cost Allocation Neutrality Obligation
obligation statement: Engineer A was obligated to make the decision to submit complete and adequate drawings and specifications without regard to his assumption that federal funds rather than local funds would absorb any cost overruns resulting from the deficiencies.
temporal scope: At the time of deciding to submit the incomplete drawings and specifications
text references: Engineer A was confident that sufficient federal funds (and not local funding) would cover any potential increased costs
discovered in case: 85
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: facts
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T16:50:13.568162+00:00
first discovered in case: 85
match confidence: 0.0
matches existing: false
source text: Engineer A was confident that sufficient federal funds (and not local funding) would cover any potential increased costs
synthesis literal: caseContext
synthesis literal: complianceStatus
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: obligationClass
synthesis literal: obligationStatement
synthesis literal: temporalScope
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineer A was obligated to make the decision to submit complete and adequate drawings and specifications without regard to his assumption that federal funds rather than local funds would absorb any cost overruns resulting from the deficiencies.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T16:50:13.568162+00:00
was attributed to: Case 85 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 85 Extraction

Engineer A Deadline Pressure Undisclosed
type: UndisclosedDeadlinePressureState
type: NamedIndividual
activates constraint: Engineer A Incomplete Deliverable Disclosure
activates constraint: Engineer A Incomplete Submission Disclosure
activates obligation: Engineer A Deadline Pressure Resistance
activates obligation: Engineer A Deliverable Completeness Disclosure
affects: Engineer A
affects: Engineer B
active period: During the design phase leading to submission of incomplete plans
affected parties: Engineer A
affected parties: Engineer B
affected parties: Owner
concept category: State
confidence: 0.88
principle transformation: Transforms general honesty and faithful-agent principles into a specific obligation to disclose when external pressures have compromised the professional's ability to deliver a complete and adequate work product.
state class: Undisclosed Deadline Pressure State
subject: Engineer A's time pressure as a stated cause of incomplete deliverable
terminated by: Not properly disclosed; Engineer A asserted it as a post-hoc justification rather than a disclosed constraint
text references: Engineer A was selected for his expertise, which presumably included Engineer A's ability to fully perform the work based on project time parameters
text references: Engineer A's bold assertion that the work was incomplete, but that this was due to time pressures
triggering event: Engineer A experienced time pressure that contributed to incomplete design drawings
urgency level: medium
discovered in case: 85
discovered in pass: 1
discovered in section: discussion
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T16:47:21.871867+00:00
first discovered in case: 85
match confidence: 0.0
matches existing: false
source text: Engineer A's bold assertion that the work was incomplete, but that this was due to time pressures
synthesis literal: activePeriod
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: stateClass
synthesis literal: subject
synthesis literal: terminatedBy
synthesis literal: textReferences
synthesis literal: triggeringEvent
synthesis literal: urgencyLevel
comment: Engineer A's time pressure as a stated cause of incomplete deliverable
generated at time: 2026-06-04T16:47:21.871867+00:00
was attributed to: Case 85 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 85 Extraction

Engineer A Deliverable Completeness Concealment
type: DeliverableCompletenessDisclosurePrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
invoked by: Engineer A
applied to: Signed and sealed dam drawings and specifications
balancing with: Schedule pressure from client deadline
concept category: Principle
concrete expression: Engineer A knew the drawings and specifications were incomplete and that parts of the project were unbuildable, yet submitted them under seal without disclosing these deficiencies to the local agency, the federal approving engineer, or any other party.
confidence: 0.95
interpretation: The obligation to disclose known incompleteness at the time of submission required Engineer A to inform the client and approving authority that the deliverables were deficient before or at the time of submission, not to allow them to proceed through approval and bidding as if complete.
invoked by: Engineer A Dam Design Engineer
principle class: Deliverable Completeness Disclosure Principle
tension resolution: Engineer A chose to honor the delivery deadline over the obligation to disclose incompleteness, a resolution that violated professional integrity.
text references: While much of the information was missing from the drawings and specifications
text references: he felt pressured to deliver the drawings and specifications on a specified date, but did not inform anyone as to their incompleteness
discovered in case: 85
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: facts
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T16:49:05.036482+00:00
first discovered in case: 85
match confidence: 0.0
matches existing: false
source text: he felt pressured to deliver the drawings and specifications on a specified date, but did not inform anyone as to their incompleteness
synthesis literal: appliedTo
synthesis literal: balancingWith
synthesis literal: concreteExpression
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: interpretation
synthesis literal: principleClass
synthesis literal: tensionResolution
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineer A knew the drawings and specifications were incomplete and that parts of the project were unbuildable, yet submitted them under seal without disclosing these deficiencies to the local agency, the federal approving engineer, or any other party.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T16:49:05.036482+00:00
was attributed to: Case 85 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 85 Extraction

Federal Grant Involvement
type: Event
type: NamedIndividual
initiates: Engineer A Federal Funding Assumption
initiates: Engineer A Federal Funds Assumption
causes state change: Federal funding and associated federal agency oversight became part of the project structure, introducing a second reviewing authority.
concept category: Event
event type: exogenous
initiates text: Federal Oversight Active
initiates text: Federal Review Requirement
severity: medium
temporal extent: interval
temporal marker: Pre-design phase, established before RFP issuance
temporal sequence: 1
synthesis literal: causesStateChange
synthesis literal: description
synthesis literal: eventType
synthesis literal: severity
synthesis literal: temporalExtent
synthesis literal: temporalMarker
synthesis literal: temporalSequence
comment: The dam project was partially funded by a federal grant, which brought federal oversight requirements and Engineer B's review role into the project.
has time: Pre-design phase, established before RFP issuance
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 85 Extraction

Engineer A Deliverable Completeness Disclosure
type: DeliverableCompletenessDisclosurePrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
invoked by: Engineer A
applied to: Dam design drawings and specifications submitted to the local public agency and federal agency
balancing with: Faithful Agent Duty Principle
concept category: Principle
concrete expression: Engineer A submitted incomplete design drawings and specifications for the dam project while asserting that the incompleteness was due to time pressures and an expectation of future federal funding, without disclosing the deficiency to the client or approving authority at the time of submission.
confidence: 0.95
interpretation: The principle required Engineer A to disclose the known incompleteness of the drawings at the time of submission rather than submitting deficient work while concealing its inadequacy.
invoked by: Engineer A Dam Design Engineer
principle class: Deliverable Completeness Disclosure Principle
tension resolution: The Board found no legitimate basis for Engineer A's conduct; the obligation to deliver complete work and to disclose incompleteness was not outweighed by time pressures or funding expectations.
text references: Engineer A had an obligation to provide a complete set of design drawings and specifications on the project in which Engineer A was engaged
text references: Engineer A's bold assertion that the work was incomplete, but that this was due to time pressures and his expectation that Federal funds would be awarded to complete the work is wholly unconvincing
discovered in case: 85
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: discussion
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T16:53:07.457315+00:00
first discovered in case: 85
match confidence: 0.0
matches existing: false
source text: Engineer A had an obligation to provide a complete set of design drawings and specifications on the project in which Engineer A was engaged.
synthesis literal: appliedTo
synthesis literal: balancingWith
synthesis literal: concreteExpression
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: interpretation
synthesis literal: principleClass
synthesis literal: tensionResolution
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineer A submitted incomplete design drawings and specifications for the dam project while asserting that the incompleteness was due to time pressures and an expectation of future federal funding, without disclosing the deficiency to the client or approving authority at the time of submission.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T16:53:07.457315+00:00
was attributed to: Case 85 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 85 Extraction

Engineer A Incomplete Deliverable Disclosure
type: ReportIntegrityConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
constrained entity: Engineer A
case context: Engineer A submitted signed and sealed dam drawings and specifications that he acknowledged were incomplete and unbuildable in significant parts. He did not inform the client, the federal approving engineer, or the contractors of this incompleteness at any point before the pre-construction conference.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.88
constraint class: Report Integrity Constraint
constraint statement: Engineer A was prohibited from submitting signed and sealed drawings and specifications that he knew to be materially incomplete without disclosing that incompleteness to the local public agency, the federal approving engineer, and the bidding contractors.
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics, Section II.2 and Section III.2
temporal scope: At the time of submission of the drawings and specifications and throughout the bid and pre-construction phases
text references: Engineer A generally agrees with Hi-Lo's characterization, but in his defense responds that he felt pressured to deliver the drawings and specifications on a specified date, but did not inform anyone as to their incompleteness.
discovered in case: 85
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: facts
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T16:51:16.118939+00:00
first discovered in case: 85
match confidence: 0.95
match reasoning: Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Report Integrity Constraint'
matched ontology class: ReportIntegrityConstraint
matched ontology label: Report Integrity Constraint
matches existing: true
source text: Engineer A generally agrees with Hi-Lo's characterization, but in his defense responds that he felt pressured to deliver the drawings and specifications on a specified date, but did not inform anyone as to their incompleteness.
synthesis literal: caseContext
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: constraintClass
synthesis literal: constraintStatement
synthesis literal: severity
synthesis literal: source
synthesis literal: temporalScope
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineer A was prohibited from submitting signed and sealed drawings and specifications that he knew to be materially incomplete without disclosing that incompleteness to the local public agency, the federal approving engineer, and the bidding contractors.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T16:51:16.118939+00:00
was attributed to: Case 85 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 85 Extraction

Engineer A Incomplete Drawings Submitted
type: IncompleteDeliverableSubmittedState
type: NamedIndividual
activated by event: Document Incompleteness Occurrence
activates constraint: Engineer A Incomplete Deliverable Disclosure
activates constraint: Engineer A Incomplete Submission Disclosure
activates obligation: Engineer A Deliverable Completeness Disclosure
affects: Engineer A
affects: Engineer B
terminated by event: Pre-Construction Conference
active period: From submission of drawings and specifications through the pre-construction conference at which deficiencies were identified
affected parties: Engineer A
affected parties: Engineer B (federal agency approver)
affected parties: Hi-Lo Construction
affected parties: Local public agency
concept category: State
confidence: 0.92
principle transformation: Transforms general honesty and completeness principles into concrete obligations to disclose known deficiencies in sealed professional documents before those documents are relied upon by contractors, agencies, or funding bodies.
state class: Incomplete Deliverable Submitted State
subject: Engineer A's signed and sealed drawings and specifications submitted for the dam project
terminated by: Deficiencies identified at pre-construction conference by Engineer C; resolution not described in the text
text references: Engineer A generally agrees with Hi-Lo's characterization
text references: certain parts of the project are unbuildable without major changes
text references: did not inform anyone as to their incompleteness
text references: much of the design detail is lacking in the drawings and specifications
triggering event: Engineer A submits signed and sealed drawings and specifications that he knows to be materially incomplete
urgency level: high
discovered in case: 85
discovered in pass: 1
discovered in section: facts
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T16:46:12.006396+00:00
first discovered in case: 85
match confidence: 0.78
match reasoning: Via class 'Incomplete Deliverable Submitted State': Deficient Work Product Submitted State captures the concept of a submitted work product containing errors, omissions, or deficiencies failing professional standards. The present state is a variant that emphasizes the professional's contemporaneous knowledge of incompleteness and the deliberate non-disclosure, which adds a distinct epistemic and honesty dimension not fully captured by the existing class. A medium-confidence match is appropriate; the new class is warranted to capture the non-disclosure element.
matched ontology class: DeficientWorkProductSubmittedState
matched ontology label: Deficient Work Product Submitted State
matches existing: true
source text: much of the design detail is lacking in the drawings and specifications
synthesis literal: activePeriod
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: stateClass
synthesis literal: subject
synthesis literal: terminatedBy
synthesis literal: textReferences
synthesis literal: triggeringEvent
synthesis literal: urgencyLevel
comment: Engineer A's signed and sealed drawings and specifications submitted for the dam project
generated at time: 2026-06-04T16:46:12.006396+00:00
was attributed to: Case 85 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 85 Extraction

Engineer A Incomplete Submission Disclosure
type: IncompleteDeliverableDisclosureConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
constrained entity: Engineer A
case context: Engineer A submitted incomplete dam design documents without disclosing their incompleteness to the client, the federal approving authority, or contractors who would rely on them for bidding.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.9
constraint class: Incomplete Deliverable Disclosure Constraint
constraint statement: Engineer A was required to disclose to the local public agency, the federal approving engineer, and bidding contractors that the submitted drawings and specifications were materially incomplete before or at the time of submission.
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics
temporal scope: At the time of submission of incomplete drawings and specifications
text references: Engineer A had an obligation to provide a complete set of design drawings and specifications on the project
text references: Engineer A's bold assertion that the work was incomplete, but that this was due to time pressures and his expectation that Federal funds would be awarded to complete the work is wholly unconvincing
discovered in case: 85
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: discussion
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T16:56:15.795068+00:00
first discovered in case: 85
match confidence: 0.0
matches existing: false
source text: Engineer A had an obligation to provide a complete set of design drawings and specifications on the project
synthesis literal: caseContext
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: constraintClass
synthesis literal: constraintStatement
synthesis literal: severity
synthesis literal: source
synthesis literal: temporalScope
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineer A was required to disclose to the local public agency, the federal approving engineer, and bidding contractors that the submitted drawings and specifications were materially incomplete before or at the time of submission.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T16:56:15.795068+00:00
was attributed to: Case 85 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 85 Extraction

Engineer A Professional Competence Dam Drawings
type: ProfessionalCompetencePrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
invoked by: Engineer A
applied to: Dam design drawings and specifications
balancing with: Schedule pressure
concept category: Principle
concrete expression: Engineer A produced drawings and specifications for a dam that were materially incomplete and contained elements that a contractor found unbuildable, indicating a failure to exercise the technical competence required to produce adequate design documents.
confidence: 0.9
interpretation: Professional competence required Engineer A to produce drawings and specifications that were complete, technically adequate, and constructable. The submission of documents that were neither complete nor buildable without major changes reflects a failure to meet this standard.
invoked by: Engineer A Dam Design Engineer
principle class: Professional Competence
tension resolution: Schedule pressure does not excuse a failure to meet minimum competence standards in sealed professional deliverables.
text references: Engineer A generally agrees with Hi-Lo's characterization
text references: certain parts of the project are unbuildable without major changes
text references: much of the design detail is lacking in the drawings and specifications
discovered in case: 85
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: facts
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T16:49:05.036482+00:00
first discovered in case: 85
match confidence: 0.95
match reasoning: Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Professional Competence'
matched ontology class: ProfessionalCompetencePrinciple
matched ontology label: Professional Competence
matches existing: true
source text: much of the design detail is lacking in the drawings and specifications and that Hi-Lo Construction declares that certain parts of the project are unbuildable without major changes
synthesis literal: appliedTo
synthesis literal: balancingWith
synthesis literal: concreteExpression
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: interpretation
synthesis literal: principleClass
synthesis literal: tensionResolution
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineer A produced drawings and specifications for a dam that were materially incomplete and contained elements that a contractor found unbuildable, indicating a failure to exercise the technical competence required to produce adequate design documents.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T16:49:05.036482+00:00
was attributed to: Case 85 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 85 Extraction

Local Agency Technical Review Capacity
type: ResourceConstrained
type: NamedIndividual
activated by event: Design Contract Award
activated by event: Document Incompleteness Occurrence
activated by event: Federal Review Completion
activates constraint: Engineer B Approving Review Verification
activates constraint: Engineer B Competence Review Limit
activates obligation: Engineer B Competence Limit Escalation
affects: Engineer A
affects: Engineer B
terminated by event: Federal Review Completion
active period: Throughout the design approval and pre-construction phase
affected parties: Engineer A
affected parties: Engineer B
affected parties: Local public agency
concept category: State
confidence: 0.87
principle transformation: Transforms the general duty of competence and professional review into a specific obligation to escalate or refuse approval when the reviewer cannot adequately evaluate the submission.
state class: Resource Constrained
subject: Local public agency's inability to independently review the drawings and specifications
terminated by: Not resolved within the described text
text references: The local public agency does not have the in-house technical resources to review the drawings and specifications
triggering event: Local agency awards contract without in-house technical capacity to evaluate the deliverable
urgency level: medium
discovered in case: 85
discovered in pass: 1
discovered in section: facts
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T16:46:12.006396+00:00
first discovered in case: 85
match confidence: 0.95
match reasoning: Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Resource Constrained'
matched ontology class: ResourceConstrained
matched ontology label: Resource Constrained
matches existing: true
source text: The local public agency does not have the in-house technical resources to review the drawings and specifications
synthesis literal: activePeriod
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: stateClass
synthesis literal: subject
synthesis literal: terminatedBy
synthesis literal: textReferences
synthesis literal: triggeringEvent
synthesis literal: urgencyLevel
comment: Local public agency's inability to independently review the drawings and specifications
generated at time: 2026-06-04T16:46:12.006396+00:00
was attributed to: Case 85 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 85 Extraction

Federal Agency
type: Agent
type: NamedIndividual
has role: Federal Agency Funding Authority

Engineer A Competence Dam Drawings
type: CompetenceObligation
type: NamedIndividual
obligated party: Engineer A
case context: Engineer A produced drawings and specifications for a dam that were materially incomplete and contained elements a contractor found unbuildable, indicating that the work product did not meet the professional standard of care.
compliance status: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.91
derived from principle: Engineer A Professional Competence Dam Drawings
obligation class: Competence Obligation
obligation statement: Engineer A was obligated to produce drawings and specifications that were complete, technically adequate, and buildable, and to refrain from submitting work products that he knew did not meet the standard of care for dam design.
temporal scope: Throughout the design and production of the drawings and specifications
text references: Engineer A generally agrees with Hi-Lo's characterization
text references: much of the design detail is lacking in the drawings and specifications and that Hi-Lo Construction declares that certain parts of the project are 'unbuildable' without major changes
discovered in case: 85
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: facts
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T16:50:13.568162+00:00
first discovered in case: 85
match confidence: 0.95
match reasoning: Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Competence Obligation'
matched ontology class: CompetenceObligation
matched ontology label: Competence Obligation
matches existing: true
source text: much of the design detail is lacking in the drawings and specifications and that Hi-Lo Construction declares that certain parts of the project are 'unbuildable' without major changes
synthesis literal: caseContext
synthesis literal: complianceStatus
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: obligationClass
synthesis literal: obligationStatement
synthesis literal: temporalScope
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineer A was obligated to produce drawings and specifications that were complete, technically adequate, and buildable, and to refrain from submitting work products that he knew did not meet the standard of care for dam design.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T16:50:13.568162+00:00
was attributed to: Case 85 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 85 Extraction

Engineer A Transparency Deficient Submission
type: TransparencyPrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
invoked by: Engineer A
applied to: Submission of dam design documents to local public agency and federal approving authority
balancing with: Schedule pressure
concept category: Principle
concrete expression: Engineer A failed to conduct the professional engagement transparently by submitting incomplete drawings and specifications without disclosing their deficiencies to the client, the federal approving authority, or other stakeholders who relied on the documents.
confidence: 0.88
interpretation: Transparency required Engineer A to make the limitations and incompleteness of the deliverables visible to all parties who would rely on them, enabling informed decision-making by the client and approving authority.
invoked by: Engineer A Dam Design Engineer
principle class: Transparency Principle
tension resolution: Transparency was not maintained. The concealment of known deficiencies prevented the client and approving authority from making informed decisions about whether to accept, reject, or supplement the documents.
text references: The local public agency does not have the in-house technical resources to review the drawings and specifications.
text references: did not inform anyone as to their incompleteness
discovered in case: 85
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: facts
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T16:49:05.036482+00:00
first discovered in case: 85
match confidence: 0.95
match reasoning: Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Transparency Principle'
matched ontology class: TransparencyPrinciple
matched ontology label: Transparency Principle
matches existing: true
source text: did not inform anyone as to their incompleteness
synthesis literal: appliedTo
synthesis literal: balancingWith
synthesis literal: concreteExpression
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: interpretation
synthesis literal: principleClass
synthesis literal: tensionResolution
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineer A failed to conduct the professional engagement transparently by submitting incomplete drawings and specifications without disclosing their deficiencies to the client, the federal approving authority, or other stakeholders who relied on the documents.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T16:49:05.036482+00:00
was attributed to: Case 85 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 85 Extraction

Engineer B Competence Gap Review
type: CompetenceState
type: NamedIndividual
activated by event: Document Incompleteness Occurrence
activated by event: Federal Review Completion
activates constraint: Engineer B Approving Review Verification
activates constraint: Engineer B Competence Review Limit
activates obligation: Engineer B Competence Limit Escalation
affects: Engineer A
affects: Engineer B
terminated by event: Federal Review Completion
active period: During Engineer B's review and approval of Engineer A's plans
affected parties: Engineer A
affected parties: Engineer B
affected parties: Owner
concept category: State
confidence: 0.9
principle transformation: Transforms the general duty of competence and professional review into a specific obligation to escalate or refuse approval when the reviewer cannot adequately evaluate the submission.
state class: Competence State
subject: Engineer B's capacity to review Engineer A's incomplete plans
terminated by: Not resolved; the Board notes the failure to recognize and address the competence gap
text references: Engineers have an obligation to perform services within their area of competence
text references: If Engineer B was not able to perform the necessary reviews of Engineer A's work, Engineer B should have provided this information to a supervisor
text references: Not possessing adequate competency to perform a task is not in and of itself a violation of the NSPE Code, but the failure to recognize the lack of competency and take appropriate action to address the situation is a violation of the NSPE Code
triggering event: Engineer B was assigned to review Engineer A's design drawings without confirmed competence to perform that review
urgency level: high
discovered in case: 85
discovered in pass: 1
discovered in section: discussion
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T16:47:21.871867+00:00
first discovered in case: 85
match confidence: 0.95
match reasoning: Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Competence State'
matched ontology class: CompetenceState
matched ontology label: Competence State
matches existing: true
source text: Engineers have an obligation to perform services within their area of competence
synthesis literal: activePeriod
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: stateClass
synthesis literal: subject
synthesis literal: terminatedBy
synthesis literal: textReferences
synthesis literal: triggeringEvent
synthesis literal: urgencyLevel
comment: Engineer B's capacity to review Engineer A's incomplete plans
generated at time: 2026-06-04T16:47:21.871867+00:00
was attributed to: Case 85 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 85 Extraction

Engineer B Unreviewed Incomplete Approval
type: UnreviewedIncompleteDesignState
type: NamedIndividual
activated by event: Document Incompleteness Occurrence
activated by event: Federal Review Completion
activates constraint: Engineer B Approving Review Verification
activates constraint: Engineer B Competence Review Limit
activates obligation: Engineer B Competence Limit Escalation
affects: Engineer B
affects: Engineer C
terminated by event: Federal Review Completion
active period: From Engineer B's review through approval of the incomplete plans
affected parties: Engineer B
affected parties: Engineer C
affected parties: Owner
affected parties: Public
concept category: State
confidence: 0.87
principle transformation: Transforms the general duty of competence and professional review into a specific obligation to escalate or refuse approval when the reviewer cannot adequately evaluate the submission.
state class: Unreviewed Incomplete Design State
subject: Engineer B's approval of Engineer A's materially incomplete plans
terminated by: Not corrected within the case; the Board identifies this as a troubling violation
text references: Engineer B's approval of Engineer A's incomplete plans is troubling
text references: If Engineer B was not able to perform the necessary reviews of Engineer A's work, Engineer B should have provided this information to a supervisor who would have assigned an appropriate engineer to perform the review
triggering event: Engineer B approved Engineer A's incomplete design drawings without detecting or acting on the deficiencies
urgency level: high
discovered in case: 85
discovered in pass: 1
discovered in section: discussion
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T16:47:21.871867+00:00
first discovered in case: 85
match confidence: 0.0
matches existing: false
source text: Engineer B's approval of Engineer A's incomplete plans is troubling
synthesis literal: activePeriod
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: stateClass
synthesis literal: subject
synthesis literal: terminatedBy
synthesis literal: textReferences
synthesis literal: triggeringEvent
synthesis literal: urgencyLevel
comment: Engineer B's approval of Engineer A's materially incomplete plans
generated at time: 2026-06-04T16:47:21.871867+00:00
was attributed to: Case 85 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 85 Extraction

Engineer A Incomplete Deliverable
type: IncompleteDeliverableSubmittedState
type: NamedIndividual
activated by event: Document Incompleteness Occurrence
activates constraint: Engineer A Incomplete Deliverable Disclosure
activates constraint: Engineer A Incomplete Submission Disclosure
activates obligation: Engineer A Deliverable Completeness Disclosure
affects: Engineer A
affects: Engineer B
affects: Engineer C
active period: From submission of incomplete plans through the Board's analysis
affected parties: Engineer A
affected parties: Engineer B
affected parties: Engineer C
affected parties: Owner
affected parties: Public
concept category: State
confidence: 0.95
principle transformation: Transforms general honesty and completeness principles into concrete obligations to disclose known deficiencies in sealed professional documents before those documents are relied upon by contractors, agencies, or funding bodies.
state class: Incomplete Deliverable Submitted State
subject: Engineer A's submission of incomplete design drawings and specifications
terminated by: Not resolved within the case; the Board finds a clear code violation
text references: Engineer A had an obligation to provide a complete set of design drawings and specifications on the project
text references: Engineer A's bold assertion that the work was incomplete, but that this was due to time pressures and his expectation that Federal funds would be awarded to complete the work is wholly unconvincing
text references: Engineer A's comment about Federal funds borders on fraud and misrepresentation and is a clear violation of the NSPE Code
triggering event: Engineer A delivered incomplete design drawings and specifications while asserting the incompleteness was due to time pressures and an expectation of federal funding
urgency level: high
discovered in case: 85
discovered in pass: 1
discovered in section: discussion
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T16:47:21.871867+00:00
first discovered in case: 85
match confidence: 0.0
matches existing: false
source text: Engineer A had an obligation to provide a complete set of design drawings and specifications on the project
synthesis literal: activePeriod
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: stateClass
synthesis literal: subject
synthesis literal: terminatedBy
synthesis literal: textReferences
synthesis literal: triggeringEvent
synthesis literal: urgencyLevel
comment: Engineer A's submission of incomplete design drawings and specifications
generated at time: 2026-06-04T16:47:21.871867+00:00
was attributed to: Case 85 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 85 Extraction

Engineer A Undisclosed Deadline Pressure
type: UndisclosedDeadlinePressureState
type: NamedIndividual
activates constraint: Engineer A Incomplete Deliverable Disclosure
activates constraint: Engineer A Incomplete Submission Disclosure
activates obligation: Engineer A Deadline Pressure Resistance
activates obligation: Engineer A Deliverable Completeness Disclosure
affects: Engineer A
affects: Engineer B
terminated by event: Pre-Construction Conference
active period: From the point at which Engineer A recognized the deliverable was incomplete due to deadline pressure through the pre-construction conference
affected parties: Engineer A
affected parties: Engineer B
affected parties: Hi-Lo Construction
affected parties: Local public agency
concept category: State
confidence: 0.9
principle transformation: Transforms general honesty and faithful-agent principles into a specific obligation to disclose when external pressures have compromised the professional's ability to deliver a complete and adequate work product.
state class: Undisclosed Deadline Pressure State
subject: Engineer A's internal awareness that deadline pressure caused the incompleteness of the deliverable
terminated by: Engineer A's acknowledgment at the pre-construction conference that he felt pressured
text references: did not inform anyone as to their incompleteness
text references: he felt pressured to deliver the drawings and specifications on a specified date
triggering event: Engineer A experiences deadline pressure and delivers incomplete drawings without disclosing the pressure or its effect
urgency level: high
discovered in case: 85
discovered in pass: 1
discovered in section: facts
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T16:46:12.006396+00:00
first discovered in case: 85
match confidence: 0.0
matches existing: false
source text: he felt pressured to deliver the drawings and specifications on a specified date
synthesis literal: activePeriod
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: stateClass
synthesis literal: subject
synthesis literal: terminatedBy
synthesis literal: textReferences
synthesis literal: triggeringEvent
synthesis literal: urgencyLevel
comment: Engineer A's internal awareness that deadline pressure caused the incompleteness of the deliverable
generated at time: 2026-06-04T16:46:12.006396+00:00
was attributed to: Case 85 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 85 Extraction

Engineer B Approving Review Verification
type: AIOutputVerificationConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
constrained entity: Engineer B
case context: Engineer B, as the federal agency approving engineer, approved drawings and specifications that were materially incomplete and unbuildable in significant parts. The local public agency lacked in-house technical resources to conduct its own review, making Engineer B's review the primary safeguard against deficient documents proceeding to bid.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.72
constraint class: AI Output Verification Constraint
constraint statement: Engineer B was required to conduct a sufficiently thorough independent technical review of the submitted dam drawings and specifications to identify material deficiencies before approving them, and was prohibited from approving documents that were materially incomplete without that review.
severity: high
source: Federal agency engineering review standards and NSPE Code of Ethics, Section II.2
temporal scope: During the federal agency review and approval phase
text references: The local public agency does not have the in-house technical resources to review the drawings and specifications.
text references: The signed and sealed drawings and specifications are ultimately approved by Engineer B of the engineering staff of the federal agency funding the project.
discovered in case: 85
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: facts
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T16:51:16.118939+00:00
first discovered in case: 85
match confidence: 0.95
match reasoning: Individual typed as existing ontology class 'AI Output Verification Constraint'
matched ontology class: AIOutputVerificationConstraint
matched ontology label: AI Output Verification Constraint
matches existing: true
source text: The signed and sealed drawings and specifications are ultimately approved by Engineer B of the engineering staff of the federal agency funding the project.
synthesis literal: caseContext
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: constraintClass
synthesis literal: constraintStatement
synthesis literal: severity
synthesis literal: source
synthesis literal: temporalScope
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineer B was required to conduct a sufficiently thorough independent technical review of the submitted dam drawings and specifications to identify material deficiencies before approving them, and was prohibited from approving documents that were materially incomplete without that review.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T16:51:16.118939+00:00
was attributed to: Case 85 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 85 Extraction

Engineer C Bid Transparency Obligation
type: BidTransparencyPrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
invoked by: Engineer C
applied to: Low bid submission on dam construction contract with deficient design documents
balancing with: Competitive bidding pressures
concept category: Principle
concrete expression: Engineer C, as a licensed engineer and contractor, submitted a low bid on the dam project without including bid items for additional services to address known document inadequacies and without seeking clarification from the owner or Engineer A, thereby concealing identified deficiencies from the owner through the bidding process.
confidence: 0.88
interpretation: The principle required Engineer C to reflect document inadequacies in the bid by including appropriate additional service items or to seek clarification before bidding, rather than submitting a low bid while accepting the risks of inadequate documents.
invoked by: Engineer C Engineer Contractor
principle class: Bid Transparency Principle
tension resolution: The Board found that Engineer C had no one to fault but himself for resulting construction difficulties, because the professional obligation to disclose document deficiencies through the bid was not overridden by competitive bidding considerations.
text references: Engineer C could have requested further clarification from the owner or Engineer A in order to better understand the engineering drawings
text references: Engineer C had no one to fault but himself for the problems Engineer C encountered in attempting to build the project. Engineer C submitted the low bid on the project, presumably knowing inadequacies of the documents as well as the obvious risks involved
text references: If the engineering documents were incomplete or inadequate, then Engineer C's bid should have reflected that fact and contained appropriate bid items for additional services required to complete the work for the benefit of the owner
discovered in case: 85
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: discussion
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T16:53:07.457315+00:00
first discovered in case: 85
match confidence: 0.0
matches existing: false
source text: Engineer C submitted the low bid on the project, presumably knowing inadequacies of the documents as well as the obvious risks involved.
synthesis literal: appliedTo
synthesis literal: balancingWith
synthesis literal: concreteExpression
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: interpretation
synthesis literal: principleClass
synthesis literal: tensionResolution
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineer C, as a licensed engineer and contractor, submitted a low bid on the dam project without including bid items for additional services to address known document inadequacies and without seeking clarification from the owner or Engineer A, thereby concealing identified deficiencies from the owner through the bidding process.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T16:53:07.457315+00:00
was attributed to: Case 85 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 85 Extraction

Incomplete Work Submission
type: Action
type: NamedIndividual
initiates: Engineer A Incomplete Deliverable
concept category: Action
event role context: Design Engineer
foreseen unintended effects: Risk of increased project costs
foreseen unintended effects: Submission of documents insufficient to support construction
guided by principle: Engineer A Deliverable Completeness Concealment
guided by principle: Engineer A Deliverable Completeness Disclosure
guided by principle: Engineer A Honesty Concealment of Deficiency
guided by principle: Engineer A Public Funds Misrepresentation
guided by principle text: Completeness of professional deliverables
guided by principle text: Honest representation to client
guided by principle text: Public fund stewardship
has agent: Engineer A
has mental state: deliberate
initiates text: Incomplete Documents in Circulation
initiates text: Public Safety Risk Latent
initiates text: Unjustified Expenditure of Public Funds Risk
intended outcome: Meet the contractual delivery deadline and avoid conflict with the client over schedule
requires capability text: Conformance with applicable engineering standards
requires capability text: Dam design to completion
requires capability text: Scheduling judgment to flag infeasible deadlines
temporal extent: instant
temporal marker: Design phase, at the deadline for deliverable submission
temporal sequence: 5
violates obligation: Engineer A Competence Dam Drawings
violates obligation: Engineer A Complete Design Delivery
violates obligation: Engineer A Public Funds Misrepresentation
violates obligation text: Obligation to avoid deceptive acts
violates obligation text: Obligation to perform services within area of competence
violates obligation text: Obligation to provide complete design drawings and specifications
within competence: false
synthesis literal: description
synthesis literal: eventRoleContext
synthesis literal: foreseenUnintendedEffects
synthesis literal: hasAgent
synthesis literal: hasMentalState
synthesis literal: intendedOutcome
synthesis literal: temporalExtent
synthesis literal: temporalMarker
synthesis literal: temporalSequence
synthesis literal: withinCompetence
comment: Engineer A decided to submit drawings and specifications that he knew to be incomplete by the specified deadline, citing time pressure as justification, rather than requesting an extension or otherwise seeking relief from the schedule constraint.
has time: Design phase, at the deadline for deliverable submission
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 85 Extraction

Non-Disclosure of Incompleteness
type: Action
type: NamedIndividual
initiates: Engineer A Deadline Pressure Undisclosed
initiates: Engineer A Undisclosed Deadline Pressure
concept category: Action
event role context: Design Engineer
foreseen unintended effects: Client and federal agency proceed without knowledge of deficiencies
foreseen unintended effects: Contractor awarded work based on deficient documents
foreseen unintended effects: Increased risk of cost overruns charged to federal funds
guided by principle: Engineer A Public Funds Misrepresentation
guided by principle: Engineer A Transparency Deficient Submission
guided by principle: Engineer C Bid Transparency Obligation
guided by principle text: Honest representation to client
guided by principle text: Public fund stewardship
guided by principle text: Transparency with clients and public agencies
has agent: Engineer A
has mental state: deliberate
initiates text: Misrepresentation of Deliverable Completeness
initiates text: Stakeholder Uninformed of Deficiencies
intended outcome: Avoid accountability for incomplete work and preserve the client relationship by assuming federal funds would absorb additional costs
requires capability text: Ethical obligation to disclose known deficiencies
requires capability text: Professional judgment to communicate limitations to client
temporal extent: interval
temporal marker: Design phase, concurrent with and following submission of incomplete documents
temporal sequence: 6
violates obligation: Engineer A Competence Dam Drawings
violates obligation: Engineer A Complete Design Delivery
violates obligation: Engineer A Deliverable Completeness Disclosure
violates obligation: Engineer A Public Funds Misrepresentation
violates obligation text: Obligation of honest disclosure to client and funding agency
violates obligation text: Obligation to avoid deceptive acts
violates obligation text: Obligation to provide complete design drawings and specifications
violates obligation text: Public fund stewardship
within competence: true
synthesis literal: description
synthesis literal: eventRoleContext
synthesis literal: foreseenUnintendedEffects
synthesis literal: hasAgent
synthesis literal: hasMentalState
synthesis literal: intendedOutcome
synthesis literal: temporalExtent
synthesis literal: temporalMarker
synthesis literal: temporalSequence
synthesis literal: withinCompetence
comment: Engineer A decided not to inform the local public agency, the federal funding agency, or any other stakeholder that the submitted drawings and specifications were incomplete, privately rationalizing that federal funds would cover any resulting cost overruns.
has time: Design phase, concurrent with and following submission of incomplete documents
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 85 Extraction

Engineer B Competence Limit Escalation
type: CompetenceLimitEscalationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
obligated party: Engineer B
case context: Engineer B, employed by the federal funding agency, reviewed and approved Engineer A's signed and sealed but materially incomplete dam design drawings and specifications. The Board found that failure to recognize a competence gap and take corrective action is a Code violation.
compliance status: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.9
derived from principle: Engineer B Competence Recognition Approval
obligation class: Competence Limit Escalation Obligation
obligation statement: Engineer B was obligated, upon recognizing any inability to perform a competent review of Engineer A's dam design documents, to inform a supervisor so that a qualified engineer could be assigned to perform the review, rather than approving documents that were materially incomplete.
temporal scope: During the review and approval process for the design documents
text references: Engineers have an obligation to perform services within their area of competence. If Engineer B was not able to perform the necessary reviews of Engineer A's work, Engineer B should have provided this information to a supervisor who would have assigned an appropriate engineer to perform the review.
text references: Not possessing adequate competency to perform a task is not in and of itself a violation of the NSPE Code, but the failure to recognize the lack of competency and take appropriate action to address the situation is a violation of the NSPE Code.
discovered in case: 85
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: discussion
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T16:54:40.172403+00:00
first discovered in case: 85
match confidence: 0.78
match reasoning: Via class 'Competence Limit Escalation Obligation': The canonical Competence Obligation covers the duty to practice within areas of competence. This class specializes that obligation by focusing on the affirmative duty to escalate when a competence gap is recognized, rather than simply declining to perform. The Mentorship Gap Competence Obligation from prior extractions addresses a related but distinct scenario. This is a variant of the canonical Competence Obligation with a specific escalation-action requirement.
matched ontology class: CompetenceObligation
matched ontology label: Competence Obligation
matches existing: true
source text: Engineers have an obligation to perform services within their area of competence. If Engineer B was not able to perform the necessary reviews of Engineer A's work, Engineer B should have provided this information to a supervisor who would have assigned an appropriate engineer to perform the review.
synthesis literal: caseContext
synthesis literal: complianceStatus
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: obligationClass
synthesis literal: obligationStatement
synthesis literal: temporalScope
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineer B was obligated, upon recognizing any inability to perform a competent review of Engineer A's dam design documents, to inform a supervisor so that a qualified engineer could be assigned to perform the review, rather than approving documents that were materially incomplete.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T16:54:40.172403+00:00
was attributed to: Case 85 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 85 Extraction

Engineer A Public Funds Misrepresentation
type: PublicFundsStewardshipPrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
invoked by: Engineer A
applied to: Federal grant funding for dam project completion
balancing with: Faithful Agent Duty Principle
concept category: Principle
concrete expression: Engineer A's assertion that incomplete work was acceptable because federal funds would remedy the deficiency constituted a misrepresentation to the public funding authority and an unjustified claim on public resources.
confidence: 0.88
interpretation: The principle required Engineer A to complete the work to applicable standards without relying on anticipated future public funding to remedy known deficiencies, and prohibited misrepresentations to the federal funding authority about the completeness of the work product.
invoked by: Engineer A Dam Design Engineer
principle class: Public Funds Stewardship Principle
tension resolution: The Board found that Engineer A's conduct bordered on fraud and misrepresentation, with no legitimate competing obligation that could justify reliance on public funds to remedy self-created deficiencies.
text references: Engineer A's comment about Federal funds borders on fraud and misrepresentation and is a clear violation of the NSPE Code
text references: the issue does not allege a danger to public health or safety, but is premised upon a claim of unsatisfactory plans and the unjustified expenditure of public funds
discovered in case: 85
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: discussion
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T16:53:07.457315+00:00
first discovered in case: 85
match confidence: 0.0
matches existing: false
source text: Engineer A's comment about Federal funds borders on fraud and misrepresentation and is a clear violation of the NSPE Code.
synthesis literal: appliedTo
synthesis literal: balancingWith
synthesis literal: concreteExpression
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: interpretation
synthesis literal: principleClass
synthesis literal: tensionResolution
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineer A's assertion that incomplete work was acceptable because federal funds would remedy the deficiency constituted a misrepresentation to the public funding authority and an unjustified claim on public resources.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T16:53:07.457315+00:00
was attributed to: Case 85 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 85 Extraction

Reactive Incompleteness Acknowledgment
type: Action
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
event role context: Design Engineer
foreseen unintended effects: Acknowledgment exposes Engineer A to professional and legal scrutiny
foreseen unintended effects: Disclosure at this stage provides no remedial benefit to the design process
guided by principle: Engineer A Public Funds Misrepresentation
guided by principle: Engineer A Transparency Deficient Submission
guided by principle: Engineer C Bid Transparency Obligation
guided by principle text: Honest representation to client
guided by principle text: Public fund stewardship
guided by principle text: Transparency with clients and public agencies
has agent: Engineer A
has mental state: reactive
initiates text: Incompleteness Publicly Acknowledged
initiates text: Project Delay Risk Active
intended outcome: Respond to Engineer C's challenge by acknowledging the known deficiencies while deflecting responsibility to time pressure and anticipated federal funding
requires capability text: Professional candor
requires capability text: Timely disclosure of known deficiencies
temporal extent: instant
temporal marker: Pre-construction conference, after contract award to Hi-Lo Construction
temporal sequence: 14
terminates text: Stakeholder Uninformed of Deficiencies
violates obligation: Engineer A Competence Dam Drawings
violates obligation: Engineer A Complete Design Delivery
violates obligation: Engineer A Deliverable Completeness Disclosure
violates obligation: Engineer A Public Funds Misrepresentation
violates obligation text: Obligation of honest disclosure to client and funding agency
violates obligation text: Obligation to avoid deceptive acts
violates obligation text: Obligation to provide complete design drawings and specifications
within competence: true
synthesis literal: description
synthesis literal: eventRoleContext
synthesis literal: foreseenUnintendedEffects
synthesis literal: hasAgent
synthesis literal: hasMentalState
synthesis literal: intendedOutcome
synthesis literal: temporalExtent
synthesis literal: temporalMarker
synthesis literal: temporalSequence
synthesis literal: withinCompetence
comment: At the pre-construction conference, Engineer A acknowledged the incompleteness of the drawings and specifications only after Engineer C raised the issue and declared portions of the project unbuildable, rather than proactively disclosing the deficiencies to any stakeholder at any earlier point.
has time: Pre-construction conference, after contract award to Hi-Lo Construction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 85 Extraction

Bid Advertisement
type: Event
type: NamedIndividual
caused by action: Incomplete Documents Approval
causes state change: The project entered the public procurement phase, exposing contractors to the deficient documents as the basis for their bids.
concept category: Event
event type: automatic_trigger
initiates text: Contractor Exposure to Deficient Documents
initiates text: Open Bidding State
severity: medium
temporal extent: interval
temporal marker: After federal approval, prior to bid submission deadline
temporal sequence: 9
terminates text: Pre-Bid Design Phase
synthesis literal: causesStateChange
synthesis literal: description
synthesis literal: eventType
synthesis literal: severity
synthesis literal: temporalExtent
synthesis literal: temporalMarker
synthesis literal: temporalSequence
comment: The dam project was advertised for bids to the public following federal approval of the incomplete documents, initiating the contractor selection process.
has time: After federal approval, prior to bid submission deadline
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 85 Extraction

Engineer A Complete Design Delivery
type: CompleteDesignDeliveryObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer A Deadline Pressure Resistance
obligated party: Engineer A
prevails over: Engineer A Cost Allocation Neutrality
case context: Engineer A was retained to produce full design drawings and specifications for a dam project funded in part by federal grants. Engineer A submitted incomplete and partially unbuildable documents under seal, asserting that time pressures and expected federal funds justified the incompleteness.
compliance status: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.92
derived from principle: Engineer A Deliverable Completeness Disclosure
obligation class: Complete Design Delivery Obligation
obligation statement: Engineer A was obligated to provide a complete and buildable set of design drawings and specifications for the dam project, conforming to applicable engineering standards, and was not permitted to submit incomplete documents under seal on the basis of time pressure or anticipated federal funding.
temporal scope: At the time of submission of design documents
text references: Engineer A was fully required to provide the complete design on the project.
text references: Engineer A's bold assertion that the work was incomplete, but that this was due to time pressures and his expectation that Federal funds would be awarded to complete the work is wholly unconvincing.
text references: It is clear that Engineer A had an obligation to provide a complete set of design drawings and specifications on the project in which Engineer A was engaged.
discovered in case: 85
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: discussion
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T16:54:40.172403+00:00
first discovered in case: 85
match confidence: 0.0
matches existing: false
source text: It is clear that Engineer A had an obligation to provide a complete set of design drawings and specifications on the project in which Engineer A was engaged.
synthesis literal: caseContext
synthesis literal: complianceStatus
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: obligationClass
synthesis literal: obligationStatement
synthesis literal: temporalScope
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineer A was obligated to provide a complete and buildable set of design drawings and specifications for the dam project, conforming to applicable engineering standards, and was not permitted to submit incomplete documents under seal on the basis of time pressure or anticipated federal funding.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T16:54:40.172403+00:00
was attributed to: Case 85 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 85 Extraction

Federal Review Completion
type: Event
type: NamedIndividual
caused by action: Incomplete Documents Approval
causes state change: The incomplete documents acquired an official federal approval status, removing a gatekeeping barrier and allowing the deficient project to advance to public bidding.
concept category: Event
event type: outcome
initiates text: Bid Advertisement Permissible State
initiates text: Federally Approved Deficient Documents State
severity: high
temporal extent: instant
temporal marker: Post-submission, prior to bid advertisement
temporal sequence: 8
terminates text: Federal Review Pending State
synthesis literal: causesStateChange
synthesis literal: description
synthesis literal: eventType
synthesis literal: severity
synthesis literal: temporalExtent
synthesis literal: temporalMarker
synthesis literal: temporalSequence
comment: Engineer B, acting as the federal funding agency's engineering staff reviewer, completed a review of the incomplete documents and approved them without identifying or flagging the deficiencies.
has time: Post-submission, prior to bid advertisement
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 85 Extraction

Design Contract Award
type: Event
type: NamedIndividual
caused by action: RFP Response Submission
causes state change: Engineer A's firm transitioned from bidder status to contracted design engineer for the dam project.
concept category: Event
event type: outcome
initiates text: Active Design Contract
initiates text: Professional Responsibility Incumbent on Engineer A
severity: routine
temporal extent: instant
temporal marker: Early project phase, after RFP response and interview
temporal sequence: 3
terminates text: Open Competitive Bidding State for Design Services
synthesis literal: causesStateChange
synthesis literal: description
synthesis literal: eventType
synthesis literal: severity
synthesis literal: temporalExtent
synthesis literal: temporalMarker
synthesis literal: temporalSequence
comment: Engineer A's firm was awarded the design contract by the local public agency following submission of an impressive brochure and completion of a personal interview.
has time: Early project phase, after RFP response and interview
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 85 Extraction

Engineer A Deadline Pressure Resistance
type: DeadlinePressureResistanceObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer A Complete Design Delivery
defeasible under: Engineer A Undisclosed Deadline Pressure
obligated party: Engineer A
case context: Engineer A cited schedule pressure as the reason for submitting incomplete drawings and specifications, but did not communicate the incompleteness or request additional time from the client.
compliance status: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.88
derived from principle: Engineer A Honesty Concealment of Deficiency
obligation class: Deadline Pressure Resistance Obligation
obligation statement: Engineer A was obligated to communicate to the local public agency that the specified delivery date was incompatible with producing complete and buildable drawings and specifications, and to refrain from submitting incomplete sealed documents merely to meet the schedule.
temporal scope: Prior to or at the time of the scheduled delivery of the drawings and specifications
text references: Engineer A generally agrees with Hi-Lo's characterization, but in his defense responds that he felt pressured to deliver the drawings and specifications on a specified date, but did not inform anyone as to their incompleteness
discovered in case: 85
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: facts
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T16:50:13.568162+00:00
first discovered in case: 85
match confidence: 0.0
matches existing: false
source text: Engineer A generally agrees with Hi-Lo's characterization, but in his defense responds that he felt pressured to deliver the drawings and specifications on a specified date, but did not inform anyone as to their incompleteness
synthesis literal: caseContext
synthesis literal: complianceStatus
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: obligationClass
synthesis literal: obligationStatement
synthesis literal: temporalScope
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineer A was obligated to communicate to the local public agency that the specified delivery date was incompatible with producing complete and buildable drawings and specifications, and to refrain from submitting incomplete sealed documents merely to meet the schedule.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T16:50:13.568162+00:00
was attributed to: Case 85 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 85 Extraction

Engineer A Deficient Work Product
type: DeficientWorkProductSubmittedState
type: NamedIndividual
activated by event: Bid Advertisement
activated by event: Contract Award to Contractor
activated by event: Document Incompleteness Occurrence
activates constraint: Engineer A Non-Deception Submission
activates constraint: Engineer B Approving Review Verification
activates obligation: Engineer A Deliverable Completeness Disclosure
activates obligation: Engineer C Unbuildable Bid Notification
affects: Engineer A
affects: Engineer B
affects: Federal Agency
terminated by event: Contract Award to Contractor
terminated by event: Design Contract Award
terminated by event: Document Incompleteness Occurrence
terminated by event: Pre-Construction Conference
active period: From submission through identification of deficiencies at pre-construction conference
affected parties: Engineer A
affected parties: Engineer B
affected parties: Federal funding agency
affected parties: Hi-Lo Construction
affected parties: Local public agency
concept category: State
confidence: 0.93
principle transformation: Transforms the general duty of honesty and competence into a specific obligation to disclose known document deficiencies at the bid stage rather than proceeding silently and later attributing construction failures to the design engineer.
state class: Deficient Work Product Submitted State
subject: The signed and sealed drawings and specifications submitted by Engineer A
terminated by: Deficiencies identified at pre-construction conference; corrective action not described
text references: Engineer A generally agrees with Hi-Lo's characterization
text references: certain parts of the project are unbuildable without major changes
text references: much of the design detail is lacking in the drawings and specifications
triggering event: Drawings and specifications are submitted, approved, advertised for bid, and contracted despite material incompleteness
urgency level: high
discovered in case: 85
discovered in pass: 1
discovered in section: facts
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T16:46:12.006396+00:00
first discovered in case: 85
match confidence: 0.95
match reasoning: Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Deficient Work Product Submitted State'
matched ontology class: DeficientWorkProductSubmittedState
matched ontology label: Deficient Work Product Submitted State
matches existing: true
source text: much of the design detail is lacking in the drawings and specifications
synthesis literal: activePeriod
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: stateClass
synthesis literal: subject
synthesis literal: terminatedBy
synthesis literal: textReferences
synthesis literal: triggeringEvent
synthesis literal: urgencyLevel
comment: The signed and sealed drawings and specifications submitted by Engineer A
generated at time: 2026-06-04T16:46:12.006396+00:00
was attributed to: Case 85 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 85 Extraction

Engineer A Public Funds Misrepresentation
type: PublicFundsMisrepresentationAvoidanceObligation
type: NamedIndividual
obligated party: Engineer A
case context: Engineer A submitted incomplete dam design documents and asserted that incompleteness was attributable to time pressures and that federal grant funds would remedy the deficiency, a representation the Board characterized as bordering on fraud and misrepresentation.
compliance status: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.9
derived from principle: Engineer A Public Funds Misrepresentation
obligation class: Public Funds Misrepresentation Avoidance Obligation
obligation statement: Engineer A was obligated to refrain from representing to the client and federal funding agency that incomplete design documents were acceptable because federal funds would be awarded to complete the work, when that representation served to conceal Engineer A's failure to deliver a complete design.
temporal scope: At and after submission of incomplete design documents
text references: Engineer A's bold assertion that the work was incomplete, but that this was due to time pressures and his expectation that Federal funds would be awarded to complete the work is wholly unconvincing.
text references: Engineer A's comment about Federal funds borders on fraud and misrepresentation and is a clear violation of the NSPE Code.
discovered in case: 85
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: discussion
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T16:54:40.172403+00:00
first discovered in case: 85
match confidence: 0.0
matches existing: false
source text: Engineer A's comment about Federal funds borders on fraud and misrepresentation and is a clear violation of the NSPE Code.
synthesis literal: caseContext
synthesis literal: complianceStatus
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: obligationClass
synthesis literal: obligationStatement
synthesis literal: temporalScope
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineer A was obligated to refrain from representing to the client and federal funding agency that incomplete design documents were acceptable because federal funds would be awarded to complete the work, when that representation served to conceal Engineer A's failure to deliver a complete design.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T16:54:40.172403+00:00
was attributed to: Case 85 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 85 Extraction

Low Bid Submission
type: Action
type: NamedIndividual
initiates: Engineer C Unbuildable Contract Bid
concept category: Action
event role context: Owner, Hi-Lo Construction
foreseen unintended effects: Exposure to cost overruns and constructability problems arising from deficient documents
foreseen unintended effects: Risk of contract performance on an unbuildable design
guided by principle: Engineer C Bid Transparency Obligation
guided by principle: Engineer C Professional Competence Bid Evaluation
guided by principle text: Honest representation to client
guided by principle text: Informed risk assessment before bidding
guided by principle text: Professional competence
has agent: Engineer C
has mental state: deliberate
initiates text: Construction Contract Awarded on Deficient Documents
initiates text: Contractor Exposed to Unbuildable Conditions
intended outcome: Win the construction contract by submitting the lowest bid
requires capability text: Bid preparation reflecting actual project risks
requires capability text: Construction document review and evaluation
requires capability text: Engineering judgment to identify unbuildable or incomplete design elements
temporal extent: instant
temporal marker: Bidding phase, prior to contract award
temporal sequence: 10
violates obligation: Engineer C Bid Adequacy Reflection
violates obligation text: Obligation to make an informed professional judgment before committing to contract performance
violates obligation text: Obligation to perform services within area of competence
within competence: false
synthesis literal: description
synthesis literal: eventRoleContext
synthesis literal: foreseenUnintendedEffects
synthesis literal: hasAgent
synthesis literal: hasMentalState
synthesis literal: intendedOutcome
synthesis literal: temporalExtent
synthesis literal: temporalMarker
synthesis literal: temporalSequence
synthesis literal: withinCompetence
comment: Engineer C, as owner of Hi-Lo Construction, decided to submit the low bid on the dam project based on documents that, upon review, should have revealed incompleteness and unbuildable elements, without seeking clarification from the owner or Engineer A and without adjusting the bid to reflect the additional work required.
has time: Bidding phase, prior to contract award
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 85 Extraction

Pre-Construction Conference
type: Event
type: NamedIndividual
causes state change: All key parties were assembled in a formal setting where document deficiencies became the subject of open acknowledgment, moving the incompleteness from a concealed state to a disclosed state.
concept category: Event
event type: automatic_trigger
initiates text: Construction Start Pending State
initiates text: Disclosed Incompleteness State
severity: high
temporal extent: instant
temporal marker: After contract award, before construction commencement
temporal sequence: 12
terminates text: Non-Disclosure of Incompleteness State
synthesis literal: causesStateChange
synthesis literal: description
synthesis literal: eventType
synthesis literal: severity
synthesis literal: temporalExtent
synthesis literal: temporalMarker
synthesis literal: temporalSequence
comment: A pre-construction conference was convened bringing together Engineer A, Engineer C, and the agency, at which the deficiencies in the project documents were first openly discussed.
has time: After contract award, before construction commencement
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 85 Extraction

Contract Award to Contractor
type: Event
type: NamedIndividual
initiates: Engineer C Unbuildable Contract Bid
caused by action: Low Bid Submission
causes state change: Engineer C's firm transitioned from bidder to awarded contractor, taking on construction responsibility under documents that were deficient.
concept category: Event
event type: automatic_trigger
initiates text: Active Construction Contract
initiates text: Contractor Bound to Deficient Documents
severity: medium
temporal extent: instant
temporal marker: After bid submission deadline, prior to pre-construction conference
temporal sequence: 11
terminates text: Open Bidding State
synthesis literal: causesStateChange
synthesis literal: description
synthesis literal: eventType
synthesis literal: severity
synthesis literal: temporalExtent
synthesis literal: temporalMarker
synthesis literal: temporalSequence
comment: Hi-Lo Construction, owned by Engineer C, was identified as the winning low bidder and awarded the construction contract for the dam project.
has time: After bid submission deadline, prior to pre-construction conference
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 85 Extraction

Engineer C Unbuildable Contract Bid
type: UnbuildableContractBidState
type: NamedIndividual
activated by event: Bid Advertisement
activated by event: Contract Award to Contractor
activated by event: Document Incompleteness Occurrence
activates constraint: Engineer A Non-Deception Submission
activates constraint: Engineer B Approving Review Verification
activates obligation: Engineer A Deliverable Completeness Disclosure
activates obligation: Engineer C Unbuildable Bid Notification
affects: Engineer A
affects: Engineer C
terminated by event: Contract Award to Contractor
terminated by event: Design Contract Award
terminated by event: Document Incompleteness Occurrence
terminated by event: Pre-Construction Conference
active period: From Engineer C's review of bidding documents through submission of the low bid
affected parties: Engineer A
affected parties: Engineer C
affected parties: Owner
concept category: State
confidence: 0.85
principle transformation: Transforms the general duty of honesty and competence into a specific obligation to disclose known document deficiencies at the bid stage rather than proceeding silently and later attributing construction failures to the design engineer.
state class: Unbuildable Contract Bid State
subject: Engineer C's bid on a project with known or apparent document deficiencies
terminated by: Not resolved; Engineer C encountered construction problems attributable to the incomplete documents
text references: Engineer C had no one to fault but himself for the problems Engineer C encountered in attempting to build the project
text references: Engineer C submitted the low bid on the project, presumably knowing inadequacies of the documents as well as the obvious risks involved
text references: Engineer C's actions in bidding on an 'unbuildable' contract is also very troubling
text references: Engineer C's bid should have reflected that fact and contained appropriate bid items for additional services required to complete the work for the benefit of the owner
triggering event: Engineer C reviewed bidding documents that were incomplete or inadequate and submitted a low bid without reflecting the deficiencies or seeking clarification
urgency level: medium
discovered in case: 85
discovered in pass: 1
discovered in section: discussion
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T16:47:21.871867+00:00
first discovered in case: 85
match confidence: 0.0
matches existing: false
source text: Engineer C's actions in bidding on an 'unbuildable' contract is also very troubling
synthesis literal: activePeriod
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: stateClass
synthesis literal: subject
synthesis literal: terminatedBy
synthesis literal: textReferences
synthesis literal: triggeringEvent
synthesis literal: urgencyLevel
comment: Engineer C's bid on a project with known or apparent document deficiencies
generated at time: 2026-06-04T16:47:21.871867+00:00
was attributed to: Case 85 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 85 Extraction

Incomplete Documents Approval
type: Action
type: NamedIndividual
initiates: Engineer B Unreviewed Incomplete Approval
concept category: Action
event role context: Federal Agency Engineering Staff Reviewer
foreseen unintended effects: Federal funds committed to a project with deficient design basis
foreseen unintended effects: Incomplete documents advanced to bidding without correction
guided by principle: Engineer A Public Funds Misrepresentation
guided by principle: Engineer B Federal Review Approval Competence
guided by principle text: Competence in professional review
guided by principle text: Honest representation to client
guided by principle text: Responsible stewardship of federal funds
has agent: Engineer B
has mental state: deliberate
initiates text: Federal Approval of Deficient Documents
initiates text: Project Cleared for Bidding
intended outcome: Complete the federal review and approval process to allow the project to proceed to bidding
requires capability text: Ability to identify incomplete or non-conforming engineering documents
requires capability text: Dam design review expertise
requires capability text: Judgment to escalate review beyond personal competence
temporal extent: instant
temporal marker: Review phase, prior to project advertisement for bids
temporal sequence: 7
terminates text: Federal Review Process Active
violates obligation: Engineer A Public Funds Misrepresentation
violates obligation: Engineer B Competence Limit Escalation
violates obligation text: Obligation to perform services within area of competence
violates obligation text: Obligation to recognize limits of competency and escalate appropriately
violates obligation text: Public fund stewardship
within competence: false
synthesis literal: description
synthesis literal: eventRoleContext
synthesis literal: foreseenUnintendedEffects
synthesis literal: hasAgent
synthesis literal: hasMentalState
synthesis literal: intendedOutcome
synthesis literal: temporalExtent
synthesis literal: temporalMarker
synthesis literal: temporalSequence
synthesis literal: withinCompetence
comment: Engineer B, acting on behalf of the federal funding agency's engineering staff, decided to approve Engineer A's incomplete drawings and specifications without flagging identified or identifiable deficiencies or escalating the review to a more competent reviewer.
has time: Review phase, prior to project advertisement for bids
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 85 Extraction

Engineer A Dam Design Engineer
type: DamDesignEngineer
type: NamedIndividual
adheres to principle: Engineer A Cost Allocation Bias
adheres to principle: Engineer A Cost Allocation Rationalization
adheres to principle: Engineer A Deliverable Completeness Concealment
adheres to principle: Engineer A Deliverable Completeness Disclosure
adheres to principle: Engineer A Faithful Agent Duty Limits
adheres to principle: Engineer A Honesty Concealment of Deficiency
adheres to principle: Engineer A Professional Competence Dam Drawings
adheres to principle: Engineer A Professional Integrity Deceptive Acts
adheres to principle: Engineer A Public Funds Misrepresentation
adheres to principle: Engineer A Public Welfare Deficient Dam Design
adheres to principle: Engineer A Transparency Deficient Submission
has obligation: Engineer A Competence Dam Drawings
has obligation: Engineer A Complete Design Delivery
has obligation: Engineer A Cost Allocation Neutrality
has obligation: Engineer A Deadline Pressure Resistance
has obligation: Engineer A Deliverable Completeness Disclosure
has obligation: Engineer A Public Funds Misrepresentation
has obligation: Engineer A Responsible Charge Seal
has obligation: Engineer A Safety Obligation Dam Design
actor: Engineer A
case involvement: Responded to RFP, was awarded the contract, and produced incomplete drawings and specifications for the dam project while concealing their incompleteness due to schedule pressure, confident that federal funds would cover cost overruns.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.92
has license: Professional Engineer
has specialty: Dam and hydraulic infrastructure design
other attribute: misconduct: Delivered knowingly incomplete drawings and specifications without disclosing incompleteness to client or funding agency
role category: provider_client
role class: Dam Design Engineer
text references: Engineer A generally agrees with Hi-Lo's characterization, but in his defense responds that he felt pressured to deliver the drawings and specifications on a specified date, but did not inform anyone as to their incompleteness
text references: Engineer A's firm's impressive brochure and personal interview results in the award of a contract for the design, drawings, and specifications
discovered in case: 85
discovered in pass: 1
discovered in section: facts
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T16:46:00.156208+00:00
first discovered in case: 85
match confidence: 0.82
match reasoning: Via class 'Dam Design Engineer': Design Engineer exists in the previously extracted classes and covers the core obligation of producing original plans and specifications with professional accountability. Dam Design Engineer is a specialization by infrastructure type, warranting a medium-confidence match to that parent class.
matched ontology class: DesignEngineer
matched ontology label: Design Engineer
matches existing: true
source text: Engineer A's firm's impressive brochure and personal interview results in the award of a contract for the design, drawings, and specifications
synthesis literal: caseInvolvement
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: roleCategory
synthesis literal: roleClass
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Responded to RFP, was awarded the contract, and produced incomplete drawings and specifications for the dam project while concealing their incompleteness due to schedule pressure, confident that federal funds would cover cost overruns.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T16:46:00.156208+00:00
was attributed to: Case 85 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 85 Extraction

Document Incompleteness Occurrence
type: Event
type: NamedIndividual
initiates: Engineer A Deficient Work Product
initiates: Engineer A Incomplete Deliverable
initiates: Engineer A Incomplete Drawings Submitted
caused by action: Incomplete Work Submission
causes state change: Project documentation entered a deficient state, with gaps that made construction guidance unreliable and portions of the project potentially unbuildable.
concept category: Event
event type: outcome
initiates text: Contractor Exposure to Ambiguity
initiates text: Deficient Documentation State
initiates text: Public Safety Risk
severity: high
temporal extent: interval
temporal marker: Design phase, prior to document submission for review
temporal sequence: 4
terminates text: Complete Design Deliverable Expected State
synthesis literal: causesStateChange
synthesis literal: description
synthesis literal: eventType
synthesis literal: severity
synthesis literal: temporalExtent
synthesis literal: temporalMarker
synthesis literal: temporalSequence
comment: Engineer A's drawings and specifications were produced in a knowingly incomplete state, creating a condition of deficient project documentation that would affect all downstream project phases.
has time: Design phase, prior to document submission for review
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 85 Extraction

Engineer A Deliverable Completeness Disclosure
type: DeliverableCompletenessDisclosureObligation
type: NamedIndividual
obligated party: Engineer A
prevails over: Engineer A Deadline Pressure Resistance
case context: Engineer A submitted signed and sealed dam drawings and specifications that he knew were incomplete and contained unbuildable elements, without disclosing those deficiencies to any party, citing schedule pressure as justification.
compliance status: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.92
derived from principle: Engineer A Deliverable Completeness Disclosure
derived from principle: Engineer A Transparency Deficient Submission
obligation class: Deliverable Completeness Disclosure Obligation
obligation statement: Engineer A was obligated to disclose to the local public agency client, the federal approving engineer, and the bidding contractors that the drawings and specifications were materially incomplete and that certain elements were unbuildable, before or at the time of submitting the sealed documents.
temporal scope: At or before the time of submitting the signed and sealed drawings and specifications
text references: Engineer A generally agrees with Hi-Lo's characterization, but in his defense responds that he felt pressured to deliver the drawings and specifications on a specified date, but did not inform anyone as to their incompleteness
discovered in case: 85
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: facts
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T16:50:13.568162+00:00
first discovered in case: 85
match confidence: 0.78
match reasoning: Via class 'Deliverable Completeness Disclosure Obligation': The concept is a variant of Complete Technical Reporting Obligation and Report Completeness Obligation, but those address omissions within a report rather than the duty to disclose that a deliverable itself is materially incomplete at the time of submission. The present obligation is sufficiently distinct to warrant a separate class focused on the completeness of the deliverable artifact rather than the completeness of findings within a report.
matched ontology class: CompleteOptionsAdvisoryObligation
matched ontology label: Complete Technical Reporting Obligation
matches existing: true
source text: Engineer A generally agrees with Hi-Lo's characterization, but in his defense responds that he felt pressured to deliver the drawings and specifications on a specified date, but did not inform anyone as to their incompleteness
synthesis literal: caseContext
synthesis literal: complianceStatus
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: obligationClass
synthesis literal: obligationStatement
synthesis literal: temporalScope
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineer A was obligated to disclose to the local public agency client, the federal approving engineer, and the bidding contractors that the drawings and specifications were materially incomplete and that certain elements were unbuildable, before or at the time of submitting the sealed documents.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T16:50:13.568162+00:00
was attributed to: Case 85 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 85 Extraction

Engineer C
type: Agent
type: NamedIndividual
has role: Engineer C Contractor
has role: Engineer C Engineer Contractor

Engineer B
type: Agent
type: NamedIndividual
employed by: Federal Agency
has role: Engineer B Federal Approving Engineer
reviews work of: Engineer A

Engineer A
type: Agent
type: NamedIndividual
has client: Engineer C
has role: Engineer A Dam Design Engineer
work reviewed by: Engineer B