ProEthica Case 86 Ontology
type: Ontology
created: 2026-06-05T09:49:00.621538
title: Public Welfare—Client Action Following Engineers Services
imports: cases
imports: intermediate

BER Case No. 97-13
type: NamedIndividual
comment: The Board cited this case as a more recent example of balancing client confidentiality against public safety obligations, and distinguished it from the current case because the engineer's findings were based on speculation and he lacked structural engineering expertise, justifying a more cautious approach.
was generated by: ProEthica Case 86 Extraction

Case 86 Timeline
type: NamedIndividual
type: TemporalEntity
action count: 8
event count: 7
total elements: 15
synthesis literal: hasTimepoints
synthesis literal: temporalConsistency
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 86 Extraction

Case No. 89-7
type: NamedIndividual
comment: The Board cited this case to illustrate the fundamental ethical tension between an engineer's duty of confidentiality to a client and the paramount obligation to protect public health and safety, and to show how the current case differs from a situation where confidentiality and lack of expertise warranted a more measured approach.
was generated by: ProEthica Case 86 Extraction

CausalLink_Authority Reporting Decision
type: NamedIndividual
analyzes action: Authority Reporting Decision
comment: Reporting to authorities fulfils the paramount obligation to public welfare and the duty to disclose known violations, but it violates faithfulness to the client, and this tension matters because the action is causally terminal in the chain, meaning it produces consequences for the client that cannot be undone once taken.
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 86 Extraction

CausalLink_Client Contact Decision
type: NamedIndividual
analyzes action: Client Contact Decision
comment: Contacting the client first fulfils faithfulness to the client by giving the responsible party an opportunity to correct the violation before authorities are involved, and this step is causally upstream of both compliance monitoring and authority reporting, so its normative weight lies in how it shapes which corrective path is ultimately taken.
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 86 Extraction

CausalLink_Compliance Monitoring Decision
type: NamedIndividual
analyzes action: Compliance Monitoring Decision
comment: Monitoring whether the client actually follows through on corrective action fulfils the obligation to protect public health and welfare because, without verification, the client contact decision could produce only a hollow promise, leaving the illegal fill and its environmental harm unaddressed.
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 86 Extraction

CausalLink_Confidential Non-Disclosure De
type: NamedIndividual
comment: Because this decision flows from the discovery of a structural deficiency and forecloses any downstream corrective action, honoring client confidentiality at the cost of public safety reporting means that a known hazard remains unaddressed, which is precisely why the violation of the paramount obligation to protect public health and welfare carries serious normative weight in this causal position.
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 86 Extraction

CausalLink_Field Notes Retention Decision
type: NamedIndividual
analyzes action: Field Notes Retention Decision
comment: Because the bridge inspection deficiency finding triggers this decision, retaining the field notes fulfills both the duty to document professional observations and the duty of faithfulness to the client by preserving an accurate record, and this matters causally because those notes constitute the evidentiary foundation that any subsequent safety or compliance action would depend upon.
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 86 Extraction

CausalLink_Professional Service Completio
type: NamedIndividual
comment: By completing the wetland delineation competently and faithfully, Engineer A establishes the factual baseline that makes the subsequent violation discovery possible, meaning that fulfilling these obligations is what creates the causal conditions under which the engineer later faces harder ethical choices about reporting.
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 86 Extraction

CausalLink_Public Authority Non-Reporting
type: NamedIndividual
comment: Although this decision is guided by the obligation to hold paramount public health and safety, it fulfills only client faithfulness and violates no listed obligation, which reflects the normative judgment that in this causal context the engineer's discretion not to escalate to public authorities is treated as permissible rather than required, even though the guiding principle of public welfare shapes how that discretion must be exercised.
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 86 Extraction

CausalLink_Violation Observation Decision
type: NamedIndividual
analyzes action: Violation Observation Decision
comment: The decision to recognize and register the illegal wetland fill as a violation matters because it is the cognitive and moral threshold that activates the engineer's downstream obligations, and failing to treat the observation as ethically significant would have broken the causal chain leading to client contact and potential corrective action.
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 86 Extraction

Conclusion_1
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 1
conclusion number: 1
conclusion text: Engineer A should contact the client and inquire about the actions the client has taken and point out the action is a violation of the law and that steps need to be take to remedy the violation or obtain a variance from the proper authorities.
conclusion type: board_explicit
extraction reasoning: Parsed from imported case text (no LLM)
was generated by: ProEthica Case 86 Extraction

Conclusion_101
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 1 f
cites provision: I 1
answers question1: 101
answers question2: 102
answers question3: 403
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: II.1.f.
conclusion number: 101
conclusion text: Beyond the Board's finding that Engineer A must contact the client and identify the violation, the post-engagement nature of the discovery does not diminish Engineer A's ethical duty to act. The obligation to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public is not bounded by the temporal limits of a professional engagement. Engineer A's incidental observation while driving past the property is sufficient to trigger the duty because the violation is substantial, visible, and unambiguous to a trained environmental engineer who personally delineated the wetlands. The accidental character of the discovery is ethically irrelevant: what matters is that Engineer A now possesses knowledge of a significant ongoing environmental law violation, and that knowledge carries professional responsibility regardless of how or when it was acquired. Waiting for a formal re-assessment before acting would allow continued irreversible ecological harm and would be inconsistent with the public welfare obligation.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
was generated by: ProEthica Case 86 Extraction

Conclusion_102
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 4
cites provision: II 1 c
cites provision: II 1 f
cites provision: II 4
cites provision: I 1
answers question1: 104
answers question2: 202
answers question3: 402
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: II.1.c.
cited provision3: II.1.f.
cited provision4: II.4.
cited provision5: III.4.
conclusion number: 102
conclusion text: The Board's graduated-response framework — requiring Engineer A to contact the client before escalating to regulatory authorities — is ethically sound as a first step, but it is not an indefinite shield against escalation. If the client refuses to remediate the violation, denies its existence, or provides an implausible or unverifiable claim that permits are pending, Engineer A's obligation shifts decisively toward regulatory reporting. At that point, client confidentiality cannot be invoked to suppress disclosure of an ongoing, substantial violation of federal and state environmental law. The confidentiality duty under the Code protects legitimate business information; it does not protect a client's active commission of illegal conduct that causes ongoing public and environmental harm. Providing Engineer A's wetland delineation report and technical findings to regulators in that circumstance would not constitute an impermissible breach of confidentiality but would instead represent the proper exercise of Engineer A's professional and ethical responsibility to the public. The faithful-agent duty, which survives engagement completion in attenuated form, yields entirely when the client's conduct crosses into clear illegality causing irreversible harm.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
synthesis literal: citationProvenance
was generated by: ProEthica Case 86 Extraction

Conclusion_103
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 1
cites provision: II 1 f
cites provision: I 1
answers question1: 301
answers question2: 302
answers question3: 303
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: II.1.f.
cited provision3: III.1.
conclusion number: 103
conclusion text: From both deontological and virtue ethics perspectives, Engineer A's ethical obligations in this case are reinforced by the convergence of multiple independent duties rather than resting on any single principle. Deontologically, Engineer A bears a categorical duty to report violations of law that endanger public welfare, a duty that is not contingent on the existence of an active client relationship or on the client's consent. From a virtue ethics standpoint, professional integrity and civic courage require Engineer A to confront the client directly rather than rationalizing inaction on the grounds that the engagement has ended. From a consequentialist standpoint, the cumulative and potentially irreversible ecological harm caused by more than half an acre of unpermitted wetland fill — combined with the deterrent value of consistent professional reporting — substantially outweighs any relational or reputational cost Engineer A might incur by escalating the matter. The convergence of all three ethical frameworks on the same course of action — contact the client, demand remediation, and escalate to authorities if the client fails to act — provides strong justification for the Board's conclusion and underscores that no legitimate ethical theory supports Engineer A's silence.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
synthesis literal: citationProvenance
was generated by: ProEthica Case 86 Extraction

Conclusion_201
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 4
cites provision: I 1
answers question1: 101
answers question2: 403
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: II.4.
conclusion number: 201
conclusion text: The post-engagement nature of Engineer A's discovery does not weaken or eliminate the duty to act. The ethical obligation to protect public welfare is not contractually bounded by the scope or duration of a professional engagement. Engineer A's duty arises from his status as a licensed engineer with direct knowledge of a substantial ongoing violation of federal and state law, not from any residual contractual relationship with the client. The completion of the wetland delineation services terminated Engineer A's faithful-agent duties in the transactional sense, but it did not extinguish his broader professional obligation to the public. An engineer who happens upon clear evidence of an environmental law violation is no less obligated to act because the violation was discovered after the engagement ended than one who discovers it during active service. If anything, the post-engagement context slightly simplifies the analysis by removing any argument that client loyalty during an active engagement should temper the response.
conclusion type: question_response
synthesis literal: citationProvenance
was generated by: ProEthica Case 86 Extraction

Conclusion_202
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 1 f
cites provision: I 1
answers question1: 102
answers question2: 401
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: II.1.f.
conclusion number: 202
conclusion text: Engineer A's incidental observation while driving past the property is a legally and ethically sufficient factual basis to trigger a reporting obligation, provided the observation is clear and unambiguous to a qualified professional. Engineer A is an environmental engineer who performed wetland delineation on this specific site. He possesses direct, site-specific knowledge of the pre-existing wetland boundaries and conditions. When such a professional observes more than half an acre of fill material placed across a portion of wetlands he personally delineated, that observation carries substantial evidentiary weight. No formal re-assessment is required before the duty to contact the client is activated. However, Engineer A should be careful not to overstate certainty about permit status — the client may theoretically have obtained permits unknown to Engineer A — which is precisely why the Board's graduated response of contacting the client first is appropriate. The incidental nature of the discovery is irrelevant to the strength of the duty; what matters is the quality and reliability of the observation, which here is high given Engineer A's expertise and prior site familiarity.
conclusion type: question_response
was generated by: ProEthica Case 86 Extraction

Conclusion_203
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 1 f
cites provision: I 1
answers question1: 103
answers question2: 401
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: II.1.f.
conclusion number: 203
conclusion text: Engineer A has no affirmative duty to monitor the client's property after completing wetland delineation services. No provision of the NSPE Code of Ethics imposes a post-engagement surveillance obligation on engineers, and imposing such a duty would be practically unworkable and professionally unreasonable. The ethical obligation in this case arises solely from the accidental discovery of the violation — that is, from Engineer A's actual knowledge of a substantial and ongoing breach of federal and state environmental law. The triggering condition is knowledge, not monitoring. Had Engineer A never driven past the property, he would have had no residual obligation to inquire about compliance. The accidental nature of the discovery does not, however, diminish the strength of the duty once knowledge is acquired. Once an engineer has direct, reliable knowledge of a substantial public welfare violation, the source of that knowledge — whether systematic monitoring or pure chance — is ethically irrelevant to the obligation to respond.
conclusion type: question_response
was generated by: ProEthica Case 86 Extraction

Conclusion_204
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 4
cites provision: II 1 c
cites provision: II 1 f
cites provision: I 1
answers question1: 104
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: II.1.c.
cited provision3: II.1.f.
cited provision4: III.4.
conclusion number: 204
conclusion text: If the client refuses to remediate the violation or obtain a variance, Engineer A's obligation escalates to reporting the violation to the appropriate regulatory authorities. The more difficult sub-question is whether Engineer A may proactively provide his wetland delineation report and technical findings to regulators. The answer is yes, and doing so does not constitute an impermissible disclosure of confidential client information under these circumstances. Code provision II.1.c. protects confidential client information, but confidentiality protections do not extend to shielding ongoing violations of federal and state law from regulatory enforcement. The wetland delineation report documents the pre-violation condition of the site and is directly relevant to establishing the nature and extent of the illegal fill. Providing it to regulators in the context of reporting a substantial environmental law violation falls within the recognized exception that confidentiality obligations yield when public welfare is at stake. Furthermore, Code provision II.1.f. affirmatively requires engineers with knowledge of violations to report to appropriate professional bodies, and by extension to regulatory authorities when the violation involves public welfare. Withholding the technical report in this context would undermine the very reporting obligation the Code imposes.
conclusion type: question_response
synthesis literal: citationProvenance
was generated by: ProEthica Case 86 Extraction

Conclusion_205
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 1
cites provision: II 4
cites provision: I 1
answers question1: 201
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: II.4.
cited provision3: III.1.
conclusion number: 205
conclusion text: The faithful-agent principle yields entirely to the public welfare obligation when the client's conduct constitutes a substantial, ongoing violation of federal and state environmental law. During an active engagement, the faithful-agent duty is robust and requires engineers to subordinate personal preferences to the client's legitimate interests. However, Code provision II.4. makes clear that faithful agency operates within the bounds of law and ethics — it does not require or permit an engineer to become complicit in a client's illegal conduct. The tipping point is reached when the client's actions cross from business decisions Engineer A may disagree with into clear violations of law that cause ongoing harm to a protected public resource. Unpermitted fill across more than half an acre of wetlands is not a borderline case; it is a substantial violation that triggers the paramount public welfare obligation under Code provision I.1. At that point, the faithful-agent duty does not merely yield — it is extinguished with respect to any conduct that would shield the violation from correction.
conclusion type: question_response
synthesis literal: citationProvenance
was generated by: ProEthica Case 86 Extraction

Conclusion_206
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 4
cites provision: II 1 c
cites provision: II 1 f
cites provision: I 1
answers question1: 202
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: II.1.c.
cited provision3: II.1.f.
cited provision4: III.4.
conclusion number: 206
conclusion text: Client confidentiality cannot be legitimately invoked to avoid reporting a clear and ongoing environmental law violation that Engineer A personally observed. Code provision II.1.c. and III.4. protect confidential business information, but these provisions have never been interpreted to require engineers to remain silent about active, substantial violations of law that endanger public welfare. The confidentiality obligation is a professional duty owed to clients in the context of legitimate business activities; it is not a shield that immunizes clients from regulatory accountability for illegal conduct. An engineer who witnessed a client dumping toxic waste could not ethically invoke confidentiality to justify silence, and the same logic applies here. The unpermitted fill of protected wetlands is an ongoing environmental harm affecting a public resource regulated under federal and state law. Engineer A's post-engagement status does not strengthen the confidentiality argument — if anything, it weakens any claim that loyalty to the former client should override the public interest.
conclusion type: question_response
synthesis literal: citationProvenance
was generated by: ProEthica Case 86 Extraction

Conclusion_207
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 1 f
cites provision: I 1
answers question1: 203
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: II.1.f.
conclusion number: 207
conclusion text: The graduated-response principle — requiring Engineer A to contact the client before escalating to regulatory authorities — does not fatally conflict with the environmental law compliance principle, but it does carry a meaningful caveat when irreversible ecological harm is ongoing. The Board's conclusion correctly identifies client contact as the appropriate first step, and this sequence respects the possibility that the client may have obtained permits unknown to Engineer A, or may voluntarily remediate upon being informed of the legal exposure. However, the graduated-response principle is not absolute. If Engineer A's observation reveals that fill activity is actively ongoing and accelerating, or that the ecological damage is clearly irreversible and worsening by the day, the ethical calculus shifts toward more immediate regulatory notification. In the facts as presented — where the fill appears to have already been installed — the graduated response of client contact first is appropriate. But Engineer A should not allow the client-contact step to become an indefinite delay mechanism. If the client is unresponsive or dismissive, escalation to regulatory authorities should follow promptly, without extended waiting periods that allow further harm to accumulate.
conclusion type: question_response
was generated by: ProEthica Case 86 Extraction

Conclusion_208
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 1
cites provision: II 1 f
cites provision: I 1
answers question1: 301
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: II.1.f.
cited provision3: III.1.
conclusion number: 208
conclusion text: From a deontological perspective, Engineer A has a categorical duty to report the unpermitted wetland fill, and this duty is not meaningfully constrained by prior confidentiality obligations arising from the completed engagement. Deontological ethics grounds duties in the nature of the act and the agent's role, not in consequences or relational loyalties. Engineer A's role as a licensed professional engineer carries with it a categorical commitment to public welfare that is independent of any particular client relationship. The fact that the violation was discovered entirely outside the scope of the completed engagement actually strengthens the deontological case for reporting: Engineer A has no competing duty of active service to the client that might create a genuine conflict. The prior engagement created a confidentiality obligation with respect to legitimately confidential business information, but deontological reasoning would not extend that obligation to cover ongoing illegal conduct harming a public resource. The categorical imperative — that Engineer A should act only on principles he could will to be universal law — clearly supports disclosure: a universal rule that engineers report substantial environmental law violations they personally observe is both coherent and socially necessary.
conclusion type: question_response
synthesis literal: citationProvenance
was generated by: ProEthica Case 86 Extraction

Conclusion_209
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 1 f
cites provision: I 1
answers question1: 302
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: II.1.f.
conclusion number: 209
conclusion text: From a consequentialist standpoint, the cumulative environmental harm caused by allowing unpermitted fill to remain on more than half an acre of protected wetlands substantially outweighs any professional or relational costs Engineer A incurs by escalating the matter to regulatory authorities. Wetlands provide irreplaceable ecological services — flood mitigation, water filtration, wildlife habitat, and carbon sequestration — and their destruction is frequently permanent or requires decades of costly restoration. The harm to the public from inaction is concrete, ongoing, and potentially irreversible. By contrast, the costs to Engineer A of escalating — potential reputational friction with the former client, possible loss of future referrals from that client — are modest, speculative, and entirely private in nature. A consequentialist analysis also accounts for systemic effects: engineers who report violations reinforce the regulatory framework that protects wetlands broadly, while engineers who remain silent signal that professional observers can be relied upon to look away, undermining deterrence. On any reasonable consequentialist calculus, the obligation to escalate — following the graduated response of client contact first — is clear.
conclusion type: question_response
was generated by: ProEthica Case 86 Extraction

Conclusion_210
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 1
cites provision: I 1
answers question1: 303
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: III.1.
conclusion number: 210
conclusion text: From a virtue ethics perspective, Engineer A demonstrates professional integrity and civic courage by proactively confronting the client about the illegal fill rather than rationalizing non-involvement on the grounds that the original engagement has concluded. The virtue ethics framework asks what a person of good professional character would do, and it identifies the relevant virtues as honesty, courage, integrity, and civic responsibility. An engineer of good character who personally observes a substantial environmental law violation does not retreat into technical arguments about the scope of completed engagements or the limits of post-engagement duties. Instead, such an engineer recognizes that professional licensure carries an ongoing civic obligation — one that does not clock out when a project closes. The temptation to rationalize inaction ('it's not my project anymore,' 'I don't want to damage the relationship,' 'I'm not certain about the permit status') represents precisely the kind of moral evasion that virtue ethics identifies as a failure of character. Contacting the client directly and clearly, pointing out the violation, and following through with regulatory escalation if necessary, is the conduct of a professionally virtuous engineer.
conclusion type: question_response
synthesis literal: citationProvenance
was generated by: ProEthica Case 86 Extraction

Conclusion_211
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 4
cites provision: II 4
cites provision: I 1
answers question1: 304
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: II.4.
cited provision3: III.4.
conclusion number: 211
conclusion text: The faithful-agent duty Engineer A owed the client during the active engagement does not survive the completion of that engagement in any form that would constrain the obligation to disclose the observed violation to public authorities. Post-engagement, the faithful-agent duty dissolves into a narrower residual obligation: the duty not to use confidential information acquired during the engagement to actively harm the former client's legitimate business interests. That residual duty does not extend to protecting the former client from regulatory accountability for ongoing illegal conduct. Reporting a substantial environmental law violation to regulatory authorities is not an act of aggression against a former client's legitimate interests — it is compliance with a legal and ethical obligation that exists independently of the prior relationship. The deontological framing reinforces this conclusion: the faithful-agent duty is grounded in the trust relationship of an active engagement, and once that engagement ends, the duty's foundation dissolves. What remains is the engineer's permanent, role-based duty to the public.
conclusion type: question_response
synthesis literal: citationProvenance
was generated by: ProEthica Case 86 Extraction

Conclusion_212
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 1 f
cites provision: I 1
answers question1: 401
answers question2: 103
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: II.1.f.
conclusion number: 212
conclusion text: If Engineer A had never driven past the client's property and therefore never observed the unpermitted fill, he would have had no residual post-engagement obligation to monitor or inquire about the site's compliance status. The ethical duty is triggered by knowledge, not by the passage of time or the nature of the prior engagement. The accidental nature of the discovery does not affect the strength of the disclosure duty once knowledge is acquired — the duty is equally strong whether Engineer A observed the violation by chance, by deliberate site visit, or through a third-party report. This conclusion has an important implication: engineers should not feel that accidental discoveries create a weaker or more discretionary duty than deliberate ones. The source of knowledge is irrelevant; the fact of knowledge is determinative. Equally, engineers should not feel that the absence of a monitoring obligation means they may deliberately avoid acquiring knowledge of violations — willful blindness is not an ethical defense.
conclusion type: question_response
was generated by: ProEthica Case 86 Extraction

Conclusion_213
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 1 f
cites provision: I 1
answers question1: 402
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: II.1.f.
conclusion number: 213
conclusion text: If the client provided a plausible but unverified explanation that permits were pending or had been verbally approved, Engineer A would be ethically permitted to defer regulatory escalation temporarily, but only briefly and conditionally. The graduated-response principle supports giving the client a reasonable opportunity to demonstrate compliance. However, given the scale of the violation — more than half an acre of unpermitted fill — Engineer A should not accept an unverified verbal assurance as a basis for indefinite deferral. The appropriate response would be to request documentary evidence of the pending or approved permits within a defined, short timeframe. If the client cannot produce such evidence promptly, or if the explanation proves implausible upon reflection, Engineer A's obligation to escalate to regulatory authorities is restored in full. Engineer A should also consider that regulatory agencies can independently verify permit status, and that reporting the observation while noting the client's claimed explanation is itself a responsible course of action that protects both the public interest and Engineer A's professional integrity.
conclusion type: question_response
was generated by: ProEthica Case 86 Extraction

Conclusion_214
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 1 f
cites provision: II 4
cites provision: I 1
answers question1: 403
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: II.4.
cited provision3: II.1.f.
conclusion number: 214
conclusion text: If the unpermitted fill had been installed during the active engagement rather than after its completion, Engineer A's ethical obligations would have been materially stronger in their immediacy and urgency, though not categorically different in their ultimate direction. During an active engagement, Engineer A would have had direct professional responsibility for the site, ongoing communication with the client, and a heightened duty to address violations discovered in the course of professional services. The active faithful-agent relationship would have created a stronger initial obligation to counsel the client privately and urgently before any external escalation. However, the active engagement would not have permitted Engineer A to remain silent indefinitely — the public welfare obligation would still have required escalation if the client refused to remediate. The primary difference is one of process and urgency: during an active engagement, the client-contact step would carry greater weight and a stronger expectation of immediate response, while the post-engagement context slightly accelerates the timeline for escalation given the absence of an ongoing professional relationship that might facilitate resolution.
conclusion type: question_response
synthesis literal: citationProvenance
was generated by: ProEthica Case 86 Extraction

Conclusion_215
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 1
cites provision: II 1 f
cites provision: I 1
answers question1: 404
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: II.1.f.
cited provision3: III.1.
conclusion number: 215
conclusion text: If Engineer A had reported the violation directly to regulatory authorities without first contacting the client, that sequence of action would represent a deviation from the graduated-response principle embedded in the Board's conclusion, and could constitute a separate ethical concern — though not necessarily a clear ethical breach. The graduated-response principle reflects the professional norm that engineers should give clients an opportunity to correct violations before escalating externally, particularly when there is a plausible possibility that the client is unaware of the legal requirements or believes permits are in order. Bypassing the client-contact step eliminates this opportunity and may expose the client to regulatory consequences that could have been avoided through voluntary compliance. However, the ethical weight of this concern is context-dependent: if Engineer A had reason to believe the client was aware of the violation and was actively concealing it, or if the fill activity was ongoing and accelerating, direct regulatory reporting without prior client contact might be justified. In the facts as presented, the Board's graduated approach — client contact first — is the ethically preferred sequence, and departing from it without compelling justification would reflect a failure to apply professional judgment proportionately.
conclusion type: question_response
synthesis literal: citationProvenance
was generated by: ProEthica Case 86 Extraction

Conclusion_301
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 4
cites provision: I 1
answers question1: 201
answers question2: 304
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: II.4.
conclusion number: 301
conclusion text: The tension between faithful agency toward the client and the public welfare obligation is resolved in this case by a clear hierarchical ordering: the duty to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public supersedes the duty of loyal service to the client once the client's conduct crosses into substantial, ongoing violation of federal and state environmental law. The faithful agent duty is not eliminated — it survives the completion of the engagement in the form of a graduated response requirement that obligates Engineer A to contact the client before escalating to authorities — but it is subordinated. The faithful agent principle functions here as a procedural constraint on how Engineer A discharges the public welfare obligation, not as a substantive barrier to discharging it at all. This case teaches that faithful agency is a bounded duty: it governs the manner and sequence of Engineer A's response but cannot be invoked to justify inaction in the face of a clear, ongoing, and substantial environmental violation.
conclusion type: principle_synthesis
synthesis literal: citationProvenance
was generated by: ProEthica Case 86 Extraction

Conclusion_302
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 4
cites provision: II 1 c
cites provision: I 1
answers question1: 202
answers question2: 104
cited provision1: II.1.c.
cited provision2: III.4.
cited provision3: I.1.
conclusion number: 302
conclusion text: The principle of client confidentiality does not shield the client's unpermitted wetland fill from disclosure, and this case clarifies the outer boundary of that principle with precision. Confidentiality protections under the NSPE Code attach to business affairs, technical processes, and professional information entrusted to the engineer in the course of the engagement. They do not extend to independently observable, ongoing violations of law that the engineer perceives through his own senses entirely outside the scope of any confidential communication. Engineer A's incidental observation while driving past the property is not derived from confidential client information — it is a direct perception of a physical condition on land that is visible from a public road. Accordingly, the confidentiality principle is not genuinely in tension with the disclosure duty here; rather, the two principles operate in different domains. This case teaches that confidentiality is a relational and informational principle, not a territorial one, and that it cannot be stretched to immunize a client's illegal conduct from an engineer's professional reporting obligations.
conclusion type: principle_synthesis
synthesis literal: citationProvenance
was generated by: ProEthica Case 86 Extraction

Conclusion_303
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 1 a
cites provision: II 1 f
cites provision: I 1
answers question1: 203
answers question2: 204
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: II.1.a.
cited provision3: II.1.f.
conclusion number: 303
conclusion text: The graduated response principle and the environmental law compliance principle are not in fundamental conflict in this case, but their interaction reveals an important limiting condition: the graduated response sequence — contact the client first, then escalate to authorities if the client fails to act — is ethically defensible only so long as the ongoing harm is not so immediate and irreversible that the delay inherent in client notification would itself constitute a failure to protect the public. In the present facts, the fill has already been installed; the acute act of violation is complete even if its ecological consequences are ongoing. This means the graduated response does not sacrifice urgent prevention in the way it might if fill were actively being deposited in real time. The case therefore teaches that the graduated response principle retains its validity in post-hoc discovery scenarios but would yield to a more immediate escalation duty if the violation were actively ongoing and causing accelerating irreversible harm at the moment of discovery. Engineer A's obligation to contact the client first is thus context-sensitive, not absolute, and the environmental law compliance principle sets the ceiling on how much procedural deference to the client is permissible.
conclusion type: principle_synthesis
was generated by: ProEthica Case 86 Extraction

DP1
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP1
decision question: Should Engineer A report the client's unpermitted wetland fill to federal and state regulatory authorities after the engagement has concluded, or treat the observation as confidential information from a prior client relationship?
focus: Engineer A Post-Engagement Disclosure of Observed Wetland Fill Violation
option1: Engineer A reports the observed unpermitted wetland fill to the appropriate federal and state regulatory agencies, treating the post-engagement observation as triggering a mandatory public welfare disclosure duty.
option2: Engineer A contacts the former client to demand voluntary remediation and permit compliance within a defined period, deferring regulatory reporting unless the client fails to act, on the grounds that a graduated response preserves the professional relationship and may achieve compliance without formal enforcement.
option3: Engineer A declines to report the violation, reasoning that the observation arose from proximity to a former client project and that residual confidentiality obligations to a former client shield incidentally acquired information from mandatory disclosure.
role label: Engineer
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 86 Extraction

DP2
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP2
decision question: Does Engineer A's confidentiality duty from the prior wetland delineation engagement shield the directly observed, unpermitted wetland fill from disclosure, or does the nature of the observation as an established fact override any residual confidentiality interest?
focus: Engineer A Confidentiality Scope Relative to Directly Observed Wetland Violation
option1: Engineer A determines that the directly observed, unpermitted fill is an independently established fact rather than confidential client information, and proceeds to report it to regulatory authorities without treating the prior engagement as a bar to disclosure.
option2: Engineer A treats all knowledge of the site and client activities, including the observed fill, as protected by the confidentiality obligation arising from the prior engagement, and declines to report on the grounds that professional loyalty to a former client extends to incidentally acquired observations.
option3: Engineer A defers any disclosure decision and consults legal counsel to determine whether the prior engagement creates enforceable confidentiality obligations that would expose Engineer A to liability for reporting the observed violation, treating the legal question as a prerequisite to any ethical action.
role label: Engineer
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 86 Extraction

DP3
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP3
decision question: Should Engineer A disclose the observed wetland fill violations to relevant regulatory authorities, or treat the observations as outside the scope of the engagement and maintain confidentiality toward the client?
focus: Engineer A observed apparent wetland fill violations during a bridge inspection engagement. The core tension is whether Engineer A must disclose those observations to regulatory authorities or other relevant parties, given that the wetland findings fall outside the strict scope of the bridge assignment but within Engineer A's professional expertise.
option1: Disclose the observed wetland fill violations to the appropriate regulatory agency, treating the public welfare obligation as paramount over client confidentiality when an apparent environmental law violation is detected.
option2: Inform the client of the observed wetland conditions and strongly recommend that the client self-report to regulators or take corrective action, without Engineer A independently contacting regulatory authorities.
option3: Treat the wetland observations as outside the contracted scope of the bridge inspection and refrain from reporting, on the basis that Engineer A was not retained to assess wetland compliance and lacks sufficient certainty to make a formal violation allegation.
role label: Engineer A
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 86 Extraction

DP4
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP4
decision question: Should Engineer A treat client confidentiality as an absolute bar to disclosing the wetland violation observations, or recognize that confidentiality obligations have limits when public welfare and legal compliance are at stake?
focus: Engineer A faces the question of whether client confidentiality obligations have limits when the information at issue involves an apparent violation of environmental law. The case requires Engineer A to determine whether the general duty to protect client confidences yields to the public interest in environmental compliance.
option1: Conclude that the duty of client confidentiality does not extend to concealing apparent violations of environmental law, and proceed with disclosure to the appropriate authority consistent with the public welfare paramount principle.
option2: Consult with legal counsel to determine whether the confidentiality obligation or the public disclosure obligation takes precedence under applicable law and professional codes before taking any action, thereby avoiding premature breach of either duty.
option3: Treat the confidentiality obligation as controlling unless there is evidence of imminent danger to persons, reasoning that environmental fill violations, while serious, do not rise to the level of immediate physical harm that would override client confidentiality.
role label: Engineer A
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 86 Extraction

DP5
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP5
decision question: Should Engineer A preserve and make available the bridge inspection field notes for use in subsequent proceedings, or treat those notes as confidential internal documents belonging to the client engagement?
focus: During the bridge inspection, Engineer A generated field notes that may be relevant to subsequent proceedings or regulatory inquiries. The question is whether Engineer A must preserve and potentially produce those field notes, or whether they may be treated as internal working documents subject to the client's confidentiality interests.
option1: Retain all bridge inspection field notes in their original form and make them available in response to any lawful regulatory or legal request, treating preservation as a professional obligation independent of client preference.
option2: Treat the field notes as work product belonging to the client, return or transfer them to the client upon project completion, and defer to the client's decisions about retention and disclosure.
option3: Retain the field notes independently but decline to produce them to third parties without client consent, balancing the preservation duty against the confidentiality obligation until a formal legal or regulatory demand resolves the conflict.
role label: Engineer A
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 86 Extraction

Engineer A Bridge Field Notes Alteration
type: FieldNotesPreservationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
case context: Engineer A agreed at client request to exclude the speculative wall condition observation from the final report but retained the information in engineering notes. The prohibition on altering those notes was absolute regardless of client preference.
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.88
constrained entity: Engineer A (bridge inspection context)
constraint class: Field Notes Preservation Obligation
constraint statement: Engineer A was prohibited from altering the engineering notes documenting the observed defective bridge wall condition, even after agreeing not to include that information in the final written report.
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case No. 97-13
temporal scope: From the time of the observation through the conclusion of the engagement and beyond
text references: Engineer A stated that he would retain the information from his engineering notes but not include it in the final report, as requested.
text references: However, under no circumstance would it be appropriate for Engineer A to alter his field notes.
discovered in case: 86
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: discussion
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T17:35:44.662063+00:00
first discovered in case: 86
match confidence: 0.0
matches existing: false
source text: However, under no circumstance would it be appropriate for Engineer A to alter his field notes.
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 altering the engineering notes documenting the observed defective bridge wall condition, even after agreeing not to include that information in the final written report.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T17:35:44.662063+00:00
was attributed to: Case 86 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 86 Extraction

I.1.
type: NamedIndividual
comment: Hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public.
was generated by: ProEthica Case 86 Extraction

II.1.a.
type: NamedIndividual
comment: If engineers' judgment is overruled under circumstances that endanger life or property, they shall notify their employer or client and such other authority as may be appropriate.
was generated by: ProEthica Case 86 Extraction

II.1.c.
type: NamedIndividual
comment: Engineers shall not reveal facts, data, or information without the prior consent of the client or employer except as authorized or required by law or this Code.
was generated by: ProEthica Case 86 Extraction

II.1.f.
type: NamedIndividual
comment: Engineers having knowledge of any alleged violation of this Code shall report thereon to appropriate professional bodies and, when relevant, also to public authorities, and cooperate with the proper authorities in furnishing such information or assistance as may be required.
was generated by: ProEthica Case 86 Extraction

II.4.
type: NamedIndividual
comment: Engineers shall act for each employer or client as faithful agents or trustees.
was generated by: ProEthica Case 86 Extraction

III.1.
type: NamedIndividual
comment: Engineers shall be guided in all their relations by the highest standards of honesty and integrity.
was generated by: ProEthica Case 86 Extraction

III.4.
type: NamedIndividual
comment: Engineers shall not disclose, without consent, confidential information concerning the business affairs or technical processes of any present or former client or employer, or public body on which they serve.
was generated by: ProEthica Case 86 Extraction

Police Officer B fatal accident before scheduled overhaul of the bridge begins
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: Three months prior to the beginning of the scheduled overhaul of the bridge, while traveling across the bridge, Police Officer B lost control of his patrol car.
from entity text: Police Officer B fatal accident
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: scheduled overhaul of the bridge begins
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: scheduled overhaul of the bridge begins
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 86 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_1
type: NamedIndividual
comment: This question arose because Engineer A's professional role as wetland delineation expert placed her in a position to recognize a clear legal violation, but her engagement with the client had already concluded, leaving her obligations to the client, to regulators, and to the public in direct conflict. The question could not be resolved by a single principle because the data of a completed engagement, a confirmed violation, and no ongoing duty of care triggered at least three competing warrants with incompatible conclusions.
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 86 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_10
type: NamedIndividual
comment: This question arose because the temporal and contractual gap between the completed delineation service and the violation discovery places Engineer A in a structural position where two well-grounded deontological warrants, faithful agency to a former client and paramount public welfare, both have legitimate claims on the same facts. The question is not merely practical but categorical, asking whether any rebuttal condition, such as scope exclusion or post-engagement status, can defeat what deontological theory treats as an unconditional duty once a confirmed legal violation is known.
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 86 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_11
type: NamedIndividual
comment: This question arose because the Illegal Wetland Fill event occurred after Engineer A's professional service was complete, placing Engineer A in a state where no active engagement duty compelled monitoring yet the confirmed violation created a public welfare obligation that the NSPE Code treats as paramount. The consequentialist framing sharpens the question by demanding an explicit comparison of aggregate environmental harm against professional costs, a comparison that neither the faithful agent warrant nor the public welfare warrant resolves on its own without a weighing framework.
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 86 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_12
type: NamedIndividual
comment: The question emerged because Engineer A occupies a post-engagement position that sits outside the normal active-service framework that most professional ethics codes address directly. Virtue ethics language about integrity and civic courage enters the analysis precisely because the deontological structure leaves a gap: the rules do not cleanly resolve whether a former consultant who witnesses a client's illegal act is obligated to act or permitted to remain silent, so the question shifts to what a person of good professional character would do.
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 86 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_13
type: NamedIndividual
comment: This question arose because the temporal boundary of the engagement creates a gap in standard deontological reasoning. The faithful-agent duty is well-defined during active service, but its survival after completion is not settled, and the discovery of a confirmed environmental violation after that boundary forces a direct confrontation between residual client loyalty and the unconditional public-welfare obligation.
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 86 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_14
type: NamedIndividual
comment: This question arose because the scenario separates two normally linked elements, namely the existence of knowledge and the manner of its acquisition, and asks whether the disclosure duty is triggered by the knowledge itself or by the professional relationship that produced it. The accidental discovery exposes a gap in standard warrant structures, which assume that an engineer's obligations flow from deliberate professional engagement rather than from incidental observation after that engagement has closed.
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 86 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_15
type: NamedIndividual
comment: This question arose because Engineer A's situation sits at the intersection of two structurally sound but directionally opposed argument chains. One chain runs from confirmed violation through graduated response to permissible temporary deference, and the other runs from confirmed violation through scale-proportionate verification to mandatory independent confirmation before any deference. The client's unverified explanation does not resolve the contest between these chains; it intensifies it by introducing a factual gap that each warrant treats differently.
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 86 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_16
type: NamedIndividual
comment: This question arose because the base case establishes Engineer A's obligation in a post-engagement posture, leaving open whether the relational context of an active engagement would alter the weight or direction of competing warrants rather than merely their sequence. The question forces analysis of whether the faithful agent obligation during active service is a strengthening conduit for public welfare enforcement or a competing constraint that delays or redirects it.
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 86 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_17
type: NamedIndividual
comment: This question arose because the Board's conclusion implicitly embedded a sequencing norm, client contact before regulatory reporting, into its ethical reasoning, but that norm was never explicitly stated as a binding procedural requirement. Once the sequence is read as obligatory rather than advisory, a new question opens about whether inverting it constitutes a separate ethical breach or merely a deviation from best practice.
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 86 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_2
type: NamedIndividual
comment: This question arose because the sequence of events placed the violation discovery in a temporal gap between the end of formal engagement and any new contractual duty, creating a structural ambiguity in which the data clearly supports a confirmed violation but the warrant authorizing disclosure is contested by the argument that post-engagement conduct falls outside the engineer's professional jurisdiction. The question persists because no single principle in the NSPE Code of Ethics explicitly resolves whether public welfare obligations are time-bounded by contract or are continuous with the engineer's knowledge and expertise.
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 86 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_3
type: NamedIndividual
comment: This question emerged because the data, an incidental observation by a qualified engineer who had previously delineated the same site, sits at the boundary between casual perception and professional judgment. The question could not be resolved by applying a single warrant because Engineer A's expertise makes the observation more credible than a layperson's report, yet the absence of a formal engagement makes the evidentiary basis weaker than a commissioned inspection, leaving the sufficiency of the factual predicate genuinely contested.
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 86 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_4
type: NamedIndividual
comment: This question emerged because the data sequence, a completed professional service followed by an accidental observation of a violation on the same property, sits at the boundary between two distinct warrant structures. The scope-limitation warrant treats completion as a clean ethical terminus, while the public welfare warrant treats Engineer A's specialized knowledge and prior involvement as generating a residual duty that discovery merely confirms rather than creates.
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 86 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_5
type: NamedIndividual
comment: This question arose because Engineer A's reporting obligation, once triggered by the confirmed violation, does not specify whether passive notification to authorities is sufficient or whether active submission of the technical report is required. The client's refusal to remediate removes the graduated response option and forces a direct collision between the Engineer A Wetland Regulatory Escalation obligation and the Engineer A Wetland Confidentiality Limit constraint, making the scope and method of permissible disclosure the central unresolved issue.
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 86 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_6
type: NamedIndividual
comment: This question arose because Engineer A occupies two roles simultaneously: a former trusted agent of the client whose engagement has ended, and a licensed engineer with an ongoing public welfare obligation that does not expire with the contract. The data of a confirmed, unpermitted, federally regulated wetland fill forces a direct confrontation between those two role-based warrants, and neither the NSPE Code nor general professional norms specify a precise threshold at which the faithful agent duty fully yields, leaving the tipping point genuinely contested.
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 86 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_7
type: NamedIndividual
comment: This question arose because the temporal gap between service completion and violation discovery creates a structural ambiguity in which Engineer A is neither an active agent of the client nor a fully independent third-party observer. The competing warrants of post-engagement disclosure duty and client confidentiality both have legitimate claims on Engineer A's conduct, and neither is clearly overridden by the facts alone, forcing the question of which principle governs when a former engineer witnesses a former client breaking environmental law.
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 86 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_8
type: NamedIndividual
comment: This question arose because two legitimate professional principles, proportionality in escalation and strict compliance with environmental law, were designed for different risk profiles and collide when the violation is both ongoing and ecologically irreversible. Engineer A's situation forces a determination of whether the procedural protection afforded to the client by graduated response can survive contact with the urgency condition embedded in the environmental law compliance principle.
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 86 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_9
type: NamedIndividual
comment: This question arose because the data of an observed but not yet formally re-assessed violation placed two legitimate professional principles in direct conflict. The fact-based disclosure threshold protects against premature or inaccurate reporting, but the public welfare obligation loses its practical force if the harm it is meant to prevent becomes permanent before the threshold is satisfied.
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 86 Extraction

Question_1
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 1
question text: What are Engineer A’s ethical obligations under these facts?
question type: board_explicit
was generated by: ProEthica Case 86 Extraction

Question_101
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 101
question text: Does Engineer A's ethical obligation to report the violation change depending on whether the unpermitted fill was installed during or after the professional engagement, and does the post-engagement nature of the discovery weaken or eliminate any duty to act?
question type: implicit
was generated by: ProEthica Case 86 Extraction

Question_102
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 102
question text: Is Engineer A's incidental observation while driving by the property sufficient factual basis to trigger a reporting obligation, or must he conduct a more formal re-assessment of the site before concluding that a substantial violation has occurred?
question type: implicit
was generated by: ProEthica Case 86 Extraction

Question_103
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 103
question text: Does Engineer A have any affirmative duty to monitor the client's property after completing wetland delineation services, or does the ethical obligation arise solely from the accidental discovery of the violation?
question type: implicit
was generated by: ProEthica Case 86 Extraction

Question_104
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 104
question text: If the client refuses to remediate the violation or obtain a variance, does Engineer A's obligation to report to authorities extend to proactively providing his wetland delineation report and technical findings to regulators, and would doing so constitute an impermissible disclosure of confidential client information?
question type: implicit
was generated by: ProEthica Case 86 Extraction

Question_201
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 201
question text: Does the principle of faithful agency toward the client conflict with the public welfare obligation when the client's unpermitted wetland fill constitutes a substantial violation of federal and state law, and at what point does the faithful agent duty yield entirely to the public welfare obligation?
question type: principle_tension
was generated by: ProEthica Case 86 Extraction

Question_202
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 202
question text: Does the principle of client confidentiality conflict with the post-engagement disclosure duty, and can Engineer A legitimately invoke confidentiality protections to avoid reporting a clear and ongoing environmental law violation that he personally observed?
question type: principle_tension
was generated by: ProEthica Case 86 Extraction

Question_203
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 203
question text: Does the graduated response principle—requiring Engineer A to contact the client before escalating to authorities—conflict with the environmental law compliance principle when the ongoing fill activity may be causing irreversible ecological harm that demands immediate regulatory intervention?
question type: principle_tension
was generated by: ProEthica Case 86 Extraction

Question_204
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 204
question text: Does the fact-based disclosure threshold principle—requiring Engineer A to be confident in his factual findings before disclosing—conflict with the public welfare obligation when waiting to confirm the violation through formal re-assessment could allow further irreversible environmental damage to occur?
question type: principle_tension
was generated by: ProEthica Case 86 Extraction

Question_301
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 301
question text: From a deontological perspective, does Engineer A have a categorical duty to report the unpermitted wetland fill to regulatory authorities regardless of any prior confidentiality obligations to the client, given that the violation was discovered entirely outside the scope of the completed engagement?
question type: theoretical
was generated by: ProEthica Case 86 Extraction

Question_302
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 302
question text: From a consequentialist standpoint, does the cumulative environmental harm caused by allowing unpermitted fill to remain on more than half an acre of protected wetlands outweigh any professional or relational costs Engineer A incurs by escalating the matter to regulatory authorities without the client's consent?
question type: theoretical
was generated by: ProEthica Case 86 Extraction

Question_303
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 303
question text: From a virtue ethics perspective, does Engineer A demonstrate professional integrity and civic courage by proactively confronting the client about the illegal fill rather than rationalizing non-involvement on the grounds that the original engagement has concluded?
question type: theoretical
was generated by: ProEthica Case 86 Extraction

Question_304
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 304
question text: From a deontological perspective, does the faithful-agent duty Engineer A owed the client during the active engagement survive the completion of that engagement, and if so, to what extent does it constrain Engineer A's obligation to disclose the observed violation to public authorities?
question type: theoretical
was generated by: ProEthica Case 86 Extraction

Question_401
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 401
question text: If Engineer A had never driven past the client's property and therefore never observed the unpermitted fill, would Engineer A have had any residual post-engagement obligation to monitor or inquire about the site's compliance status, and does the accidental nature of the discovery affect the strength of the disclosure duty?
question type: counterfactual
was generated by: ProEthica Case 86 Extraction

Question_402
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 402
question text: What if Engineer A had contacted the client and the client provided a plausible but unverified explanation that permits were pending or had been verbally approved — would Engineer A be ethically permitted to defer regulatory escalation, or does the scale of the violation require independent verification before any deference is granted?
question type: counterfactual
was generated by: ProEthica Case 86 Extraction

Question_403
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 403
question text: Would Engineer A's ethical obligations have been materially different if the unpermitted fill had been installed during the active engagement rather than after its completion — specifically, would the ongoing client relationship have strengthened, weakened, or simply redirected the duty to report?
question type: counterfactual
was generated by: ProEthica Case 86 Extraction

Question_404
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 404
question text: If Engineer A had reported the violation directly to regulatory authorities without first contacting the client, would that sequence of action violate the graduated-response principle embedded in the Board's conclusion, and could it expose Engineer A to a separate ethical breach for bypassing the client notification step?
question type: counterfactual
was generated by: ProEthica Case 86 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_1
type: NamedIndividual
comment: Because Engineer A had personally delineated the wetlands and could recognize the unpermitted fill as a clear violation without any further formal assessment, the board concluded that the public welfare obligation was immediately triggered and required Engineer A to contact the client as a first step toward remediation.
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 86 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_10
type: NamedIndividual
comment: Because Engineer A directly observed the illegal fill and the violation was ongoing and substantial, the board concluded that confidentiality protections could not legitimately be invoked to justify silence, drawing an analogy to the principle that an engineer who witnessed a client dumping toxic waste could not ethically use confidentiality to avoid reporting it.
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 86 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_11
type: NamedIndividual
comment: Because the fill appeared to be a completed act rather than an active and escalating one, the board found that contacting the client first was appropriate and did not fatally compromise the public welfare obligation, provided Engineer A treated client contact as a prompt step rather than an open-ended waiting period before regulatory escalation.
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 86 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_12
type: NamedIndividual
comment: Because the violation was discovered after the engagement closed and involved harm to a public resource rather than confidential business information, the board concluded that no prior confidentiality obligation survived in a form that could constrain Engineer A's categorical duty to report, grounded in the universal principle that engineers must disclose substantial environmental violations they personally observe.
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 86 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_13
type: NamedIndividual
comment: Given that the fill covered more than half an acre of protected wetlands and the damage was potentially permanent, the board found that no reasonable consequentialist calculus could justify inaction, because the public harm was concrete and the engineer's costs were speculative and private, and because consistent reporting by professional observers produces systemic benefits that compound the individual case for disclosure.
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 86 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_14
type: NamedIndividual
comment: Because Engineer A personally observed a substantial violation on a property he had professionally delineated and possessed the expertise to recognize it, the board concluded that a professionally virtuous engineer would confront the client directly and follow through with regulatory escalation if necessary, and that any retreat into scope or relationship arguments would constitute the kind of moral evasion that virtue ethics identifies as a failure of character.
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 86 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_15
type: NamedIndividual
comment: Because the engagement had concluded before Engineer A observed the violation, the board found that the faithful-agent duty had already dissolved into a narrow residual obligation not to weaponize confidential information against the former client, and that this residual duty could not be stretched to cover protection from regulatory accountability for ongoing illegal conduct, leaving Engineer A's permanent role-based public duty as the controlling obligation.
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 86 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_16
type: NamedIndividual
comment: Given that Engineer A personally observed the unpermitted fill while driving past the property and possessed the wetland expertise to recognize it as a substantial violation, the board concluded that the disclosure duty was fully triggered, because the ethical obligation attaches to the fact of knowledge and not to the circumstances that produced it, and willful avoidance of such knowledge would not serve as a defense.
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 86 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_17
type: NamedIndividual
comment: Given that the client offered an unverified verbal assurance and the fill covered more than half an acre of protected wetland, the board concluded that Engineer A could defer escalation only briefly and conditionally, because the graduated response principle permits a reasonable opportunity for voluntary compliance but the scale of the violation prevents indefinite reliance on an unsubstantiated claim.
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 86 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_18
type: NamedIndividual
comment: Given that the fill was installed after the engagement ended and Engineer A had no continuing professional relationship with the client, the board concluded that the ethical obligations were directionally identical to those in an active engagement but procedurally adjusted, because the absence of an ongoing relationship reduces the leverage and appropriateness of extended private negotiation and slightly compresses the timeline for regulatory escalation.
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 86 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_19
type: NamedIndividual
comment: Given that the facts did not reveal active concealment or rapidly escalating harm, the board concluded that reporting directly to regulators without first contacting the client would deviate from the graduated response principle and reflect disproportionate professional judgment, though it would not necessarily constitute a clear ethical breach if compelling circumstances had justified the departure.
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 86 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_2
type: NamedIndividual
comment: Because Engineer A had personally delineated the wetlands and could reliably identify the unpermitted fill as a clear violation, the board concluded that neither the post-engagement timing nor the accidental nature of the discovery diminished the duty to act, since what matters is the engineer's present knowledge of an ongoing violation rather than the circumstances under which that knowledge was acquired.
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 86 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_20
type: NamedIndividual
comment: Given that the client's unpermitted fill was substantial, ongoing, and in clear violation of federal and state environmental law, the board concluded that the faithful agent duty could not function as a substantive barrier to disclosure but only as a procedural guide requiring client contact first, because the NSPE Code's hierarchy places public welfare paramount and the faithful agent principle is bounded by that superior obligation.
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 86 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_21
type: NamedIndividual
comment: Because Engineer A perceived the fill through his own senses while driving past on a public road rather than through any client communication, the board concluded that confidentiality protections never attached to that knowledge in the first place, and the faithful-agent and non-disclosure provisions could not be stretched to immunize a client's illegal conduct from reporting obligations that arose from an entirely independent observation.
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 86 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_22
type: NamedIndividual
comment: Because the fill had already been installed and the harm, though ongoing, was not actively escalating at the moment Engineer A discovered it, the board concluded that the graduated response sequence remained ethically valid and that Engineer A was obligated to contact the client first before escalating to regulators, with the understanding that this procedural deference to the client would have been displaced entirely if the violation had been in active progress causing accelerating irreversible damage.
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 86 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_3
type: NamedIndividual
comment: Because the client's unpermitted fill constitutes active illegal conduct causing irreversible ecological harm rather than a confidential business matter, the board concluded that Engineer A's duty to provide his wetland delineation report and technical findings to regulators is not an impermissible breach of confidentiality but is instead the proper exercise of professional responsibility once the client fails to remedy the violation.
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 86 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_4
type: NamedIndividual
comment: Because the scale of the unpermitted fill, the irreversibility of the ecological harm, and the absence of any active client relationship all pointed in the same direction across deontological, consequentialist, and virtue ethics analysis, the board concluded that the convergence of all three frameworks provides unusually strong justification for requiring Engineer A to contact the client, demand remediation, and escalate to authorities if the client fails to act.
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 86 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_5
type: NamedIndividual
comment: Because the wetland delineation engagement had concluded before Engineer A observed the unpermitted fill, the board concluded that the faithful-agent duty had terminated in its transactional sense and that Engineer A's obligation to act arose solely from his professional status and direct knowledge of an ongoing violation, making the public welfare obligation the clear and uncontested governing standard.
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 86 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_6
type: NamedIndividual
comment: Because Engineer A had personally delineated this specific wetland and observed more than half an acre of fill placed across it, the board concluded that his professional judgment was sufficient to trigger the duty to contact the client, without requiring formal re-assessment, though the board noted that Engineer A should not overstate certainty about permit status given the theoretical possibility of unknown permits.
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 86 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_7
type: NamedIndividual
comment: Because Engineer A had completed his engagement and had no contractual or ethical obligation to surveil the property, the board concluded that no affirmative monitoring duty existed, but that the accidental acquisition of direct knowledge of a substantial violation independently activated the disclosure obligation regardless of how that knowledge was obtained.
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 86 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_8
type: NamedIndividual
comment: Because the client refused to act and the delineation report was the precise technical document needed to establish the pre-violation baseline for regulators, the board concluded that providing it to authorities fell within the recognized exception to confidentiality when public welfare is at stake, and that withholding it would undermine the very reporting obligation the Code imposes.
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 86 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_9
type: NamedIndividual
comment: Because the unpermitted fill was a substantial and unambiguous violation of federal and state law rather than a borderline case, the board concluded that the faithful-agent duty did not merely yield to the public welfare obligation but was extinguished with respect to any conduct that would shield the violation from correction, given that II.4. itself conditions faithful agency on lawful and ethical bounds.
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 86 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/86#Action_Field_Notes_Retention_Decision

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: Illegal Wetland Fill

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: Violation Observation Decision

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: Professional Service Completion

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: Wetland Delineation Completed

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: Bridge Inspection Deficiency Found

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: Field Notes Retention Decision

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 (Case 97-13)

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: Client Contact Decision

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: Compliance Monitoring Decision

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: Illegal Wetland Fill

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: Violation Discovery

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: Client

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: Client Contact Decision

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: Authority Reporting Decision

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: Bridge Inspection Deficiency Found

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: Public Authority Non-Reporting Decision

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 (Case 97-13)

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: Precedent Case Referenced

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: Ethical Conclusion Reached

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: Violation Discovery

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: Client Contact Decision

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: Structural Deficiency Identified

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

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 (Case 89-7)

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/86#Action_Confidential_Non-Disclosure_Decision

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/86#Action_Violation_Observation_Decision

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/86#Action_Professional_Service_Completion

Defeasibility edge from interpretation
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=interpretation; confidence=0.7
generated at time: 2026-06-05T09:49:24.545816+00:00
value: Scope limitations can justify excluding observations from a formal report when those observations are speculative and outside the engineer's retained expertise, provided the information is preserved in field notes and communicated verbally to the appropriate party.

Defeasibility edge from interpretation
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=interpretation; confidence=0.7
generated at time: 2026-06-05T09:49:24.545169+00:00
value: Scope limitations can justify excluding observations from a formal report when those observations are speculative and outside the engineer's retained expertise, provided the information is preserved in field notes and communicated verbally to the appropriate party.

Defeasibility edge from interpretation
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=interpretation; confidence=0.82
generated at time: 2026-06-05T09:49:24.544852+00:00
value: Confidentiality protects information disclosed by a client in the course of a professional engagement. It does not protect a client from the consequences of illegal conduct that the engineer observes independently in a public or semi-public setting after the engagement has concluded.

Defeasibility edge from casecontext
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=casecontext; confidence=0.8
generated at time: 2026-06-05T09:49:24.545062+00:00
value: the client's subsequent unpermitted fill is a new, independently observed act that constitutes a substantial violation of law, not information confided during the engagement.

Defeasibility edge from interpretation
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=interpretation; confidence=0.92
generated at time: 2026-06-05T09:49:24.544380+00:00
value: The faithful agent duty is a genuine professional obligation but is expressly subordinate to the engineer's paramount duty to public welfare.

Defeasibility edge from casecontext
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=casecontext; confidence=0.72
generated at time: 2026-06-05T09:49:24.545376+00:00
value: the client's unpermitted fill of more than half an acre of wetlands is a substantial violation of law that rises to a public welfare concern, defeating the faithful agent duty

Defeasibility edge from casecontext
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=casecontext; confidence=0.9
generated at time: 2026-06-05T09:49:24.544640+00:00
value: the client's unpermitted fill of more than half an acre of wetlands is a substantial violation of law that rises to a public welfare concern, defeating the faithful agent duty under the defeasibility condition recognized in the NSPE Code.

Defeasibility edge from interpretation
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=interpretation; confidence=0.82
generated at time: 2026-06-05T09:49:24.545709+00:00
value: Confidentiality protects information disclosed by a client in the course of a professional engagement. It does not protect a client from the consequences of illegal conduct that the engineer observes independently in a public or semi-public setting after the engagement has concluded.

Defeasibility edge from obligationstatement
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=obligationstatement; confidence=0.78
generated at time: 2026-06-05T09:49:24.544959+00:00
value: the duty to report overrides any residual confidentiality interest.

Defeasibility edge from interpretation
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=interpretation; confidence=0.92
generated at time: 2026-06-05T09:49:24.545506+00:00
value: The faithful agent duty is a genuine professional obligation but is expressly subordinate to the engineer's paramount duty to public welfare.

Defeasibility edge from interpretation
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=interpretation; confidence=0.9
generated at time: 2026-06-05T09:49:24.544524+00:00
value: The faithful agent duty is a genuine professional obligation but is expressly subordinate to the engineer's paramount duty to public welfare. A client's illegal conduct that harms publicly protected resources falls outside the scope of legitimate client interests that the faithful agent duty is designed to protect.

Defeasibility edge from obligationstatement
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=obligationstatement; confidence=0.78
generated at time: 2026-06-05T09:49:24.544746+00:00
value: the duty to report those violations to appropriate authorities overrode any residual confidentiality interest.

Defeasibility edge from casecontext
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=casecontext; confidence=0.7
generated at time: 2026-06-05T09:49:24.545273+00:00
value: The graduated response required escalation to authorities if the client did not remediate.

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: Regulatory Authority Notified; Enforcement Action Possible

Fluent edge (terminates)
type: Derivation
comment: property=terminates; happening's terminates state text resolved to the case State(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select (Event Calculus fluent transition)
value: Conditional Deferral of Authority Reporting; Active Monitoring of Client Remediation

Fluent edge (initiates)
type: Derivation
comment: property=initiates; happening's initiates state text resolved to the case State(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select (Event Calculus fluent transition)
value: Public Safety Risk; Inspection Record Existing; Engineer Awareness of Deficiency

Fluent edge (initiates)
type: Derivation
comment: property=initiates; happening's initiates state text resolved to the case State(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select (Event Calculus fluent transition)
value: Public Safety Risk; Inspection Record Existing; Engineer Awareness of Deficiency

Fluent edge (initiates)
type: Derivation
comment: property=initiates; happening's initiates state text resolved to the case State(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select (Event Calculus fluent transition)
value: Client Notified of Violation; Remediation Demand Issued

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 Monitoring of Client Remediation; Conditional Deferral of Authority Reporting

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

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

Fluent edge (initiates)
type: Derivation
comment: property=initiates; happening's initiates state text resolved to the case State(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select (Event Calculus fluent transition)
value: Formal Ethical Duty Established; Remediation Demand Required; Compliance Monitoring Required; Authority Reporting Contingency Active

Fluent edge (terminates)
type: Derivation
comment: property=terminates; happening's terminates state text resolved to the case State(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select (Event Calculus fluent transition)
value: Ethical Ambiguity About Required Response

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: Unpermitted Fill Active; Environmental Violation Existing; Public Safety Risk; Regulatory Non-Compliance State

Fluent edge (initiates)
type: Derivation
comment: property=initiates; happening's initiates state text resolved to the case State(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select (Event Calculus fluent transition)
value: Unpermitted Fill Active; Environmental Violation Existing; Public Safety Risk; Regulatory Non-Compliance State

Fluent edge (initiates)
type: Derivation
comment: property=initiates; happening's initiates state text resolved to the case State(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select (Event Calculus fluent transition)
value: Unpermitted Fill Active; Environmental Violation Existing; Public Safety Risk; Regulatory Non-Compliance State

Fluent edge (initiates)
type: Derivation
comment: property=initiates; happening's initiates state text resolved to the case State(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select (Event Calculus fluent transition)
value: Unpermitted Fill Active; Environmental Violation Existing; Public Safety Risk; Regulatory Non-Compliance State

Fluent edge (initiates)
type: Derivation
comment: property=initiates; happening's initiates state text resolved to the case State(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select (Event Calculus fluent transition)
value: Unpermitted Fill Active; Environmental Violation Existing; Public Safety Risk; Regulatory Non-Compliance State

Fluent edge (initiates)
type: Derivation
comment: property=initiates; happening's initiates state text resolved to the case State(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select (Event Calculus fluent transition)
value: Professional Relationship with Client; Engineer Familiarity with Site 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: Public Safety Risk; Confidentiality Constraint Active; Engineer Awareness of Deficiency

Fluent edge (initiates)
type: Derivation
comment: property=initiates; happening's initiates state text resolved to the case State(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select (Event Calculus fluent transition)
value: Public Safety Risk; Confidentiality Constraint Active; Engineer Awareness of Deficiency

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: Engineer Awareness of Violation; Prior Professional Knowledge Active

Fluent edge (initiates)
type: Derivation
comment: property=initiates; happening's initiates state text resolved to the case State(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select (Event Calculus fluent transition)
value: Engineer Awareness of Violation; Prior Professional Knowledge Active

Fluent edge (terminates)
type: Derivation
comment: property=terminates; happening's terminates state text resolved to the case State(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select (Event Calculus fluent transition)
value: Violation Unknown to Engineer A

Fluent edge (terminates)
type: Derivation
comment: property=terminates; happening's terminates state text resolved to the case State(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select (Event Calculus fluent transition)
value: Violation Unknown to Engineer A

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: Knowledge of Client Violation; Obligation to Act on Observed Violation

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: Prior Professional Relationship Active; Wetland Baseline Documented

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

Normative edge (fulfillsObligation)
type: Derivation
comment: property=fulfillsObligation; action's fulfillsObligation text resolved to the case Obligation/Principle individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select (obligation-engagement grounding)
value: Hold Paramount Public Health Safety and Welfare; Obligation to Report Known Violations

Normative edge (fulfillsObligation)
type: Derivation
comment: property=fulfillsObligation; action's fulfillsObligation text resolved to the case Obligation/Principle individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select (obligation-engagement grounding)
value: Hold Paramount Public Health Safety and Welfare; Obligation to Report Known Violations

Normative edge (fulfillsObligation)
type: Derivation
comment: property=fulfillsObligation; action's fulfillsObligation text resolved to the case Obligation/Principle individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select (obligation-engagement grounding)
value: Hold Paramount Public Health Safety and Welfare; Obligation to Report Known Violations

Normative edge (fulfillsObligation)
type: Derivation
comment: property=fulfillsObligation; action's fulfillsObligation text resolved to the case Obligation/Principle individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select (obligation-engagement grounding)
value: Hold Paramount Public Health Safety and Welfare; Obligation to Report Known Violations

Normative edge (fulfillsObligation)
type: Derivation
comment: property=fulfillsObligation; action's fulfillsObligation text resolved to the case Obligation/Principle individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select (obligation-engagement grounding)
value: Hold Paramount Public Health Safety and Welfare; Obligation to Report Known Violations

Normative edge (fulfillsObligation)
type: Derivation
comment: property=fulfillsObligation; action's fulfillsObligation text resolved to the case Obligation/Principle individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select (obligation-engagement grounding)
value: Hold Paramount Public Health Safety and Welfare; Obligation to Report Known Violations

Normative edge (fulfillsObligation)
type: Derivation
comment: property=fulfillsObligation; action's fulfillsObligation text resolved to the case Obligation/Principle individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select (obligation-engagement grounding)
value: Hold Paramount Public Health Safety and Welfare; Obligation to Report Known Violations

Normative edge (fulfillsObligation)
type: Derivation
comment: property=fulfillsObligation; action's fulfillsObligation text resolved to the case Obligation/Principle individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select (obligation-engagement grounding)
value: Hold Paramount Public Health Safety and Welfare; Obligation to Report Known Violations

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: Hold Paramount Public Health Safety and Welfare

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: Hold Paramount Public Health Safety and Welfare

Normative edge (fulfillsObligation)
type: Derivation
comment: property=fulfillsObligation; action's fulfillsObligation text resolved to the case Obligation/Principle individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select (obligation-engagement grounding)
value: Faithfulness to Client

Normative edge (fulfillsObligation)
type: Derivation
comment: property=fulfillsObligation; action's fulfillsObligation text resolved to the case Obligation/Principle individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select (obligation-engagement grounding)
value: Faithfulness 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: Hold Paramount Public Health Safety and Welfare; Act as Faithful Agent or Trustee

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: Hold Paramount Public Health Safety and Welfare; Act as Faithful Agent or Trustee

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: Hold Paramount Public Health Safety and Welfare; Act as Faithful Agent or Trustee

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: Hold Paramount Public Health Safety and Welfare; Act as Faithful Agent or Trustee

Normative edge (raisesObligation)
type: Derivation
comment: property=raisesObligation; action's raisesObligation text resolved to the case Obligation/Principle individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select (obligation-engagement grounding)
value: Hold Paramount Public Health Safety and Welfare

Normative edge (fulfillsObligation)
type: Derivation
comment: property=fulfillsObligation; action's fulfillsObligation text resolved to the case Obligation/Principle individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select (obligation-engagement grounding)
value: Hold Paramount Public Health Safety and Welfare; Obligation to Follow Through on Corrective Action

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: Hold Paramount Public Health Safety and Welfare

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: Hold Paramount Public Health Safety and Welfare

Normative edge (fulfillsObligation)
type: Derivation
comment: property=fulfillsObligation; action's fulfillsObligation text resolved to the case Obligation/Principle individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select (obligation-engagement grounding)
value: Faithfulness to Client; Non-Disclosure of Confidential Client Information

Normative edge (fulfillsObligation)
type: Derivation
comment: property=fulfillsObligation; action's fulfillsObligation text resolved to the case Obligation/Principle individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select (obligation-engagement grounding)
value: Faithfulness to Client; Non-Disclosure of Confidential Client Information

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: Act as Faithful Agent or Trustee

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: Act as Faithful Agent or Trustee

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: Hold Paramount Public Health Safety and Welfare; Obligation to Report Known Violations

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: Hold Paramount Public Health Safety and Welfare; Obligation to Report Known Violations

Normative edge (fulfillsObligation)
type: Derivation
comment: property=fulfillsObligation; action's fulfillsObligation text resolved to the case Obligation/Principle individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select (obligation-engagement grounding)
value: Faithfulness to Client; Obligation to Document Professional Observations

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: Act as Faithful Agent or Trustee; Hold Paramount Public Health Safety and Welfare

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: Act as Faithful Agent or Trustee; Hold Paramount Public Health Safety and Welfare

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: Act as Faithful Agent or Trustee; Hold Paramount Public Health Safety and Welfare

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: Act as Faithful Agent or Trustee; Hold Paramount Public Health Safety and Welfare

Normative edge (fulfillsObligation)
type: Derivation
comment: property=fulfillsObligation; action's fulfillsObligation text resolved to the case Obligation/Principle individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select (obligation-engagement grounding)
value: Faithfulness to Client; Competent Service Delivery

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: Hold Paramount Public Health Safety and Welfare; Act as Faithful Agent or Trustee

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: Hold Paramount Public Health Safety and Welfare; Act as Faithful Agent or Trustee

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: Hold Paramount Public Health Safety and Welfare; Act as Faithful Agent or Trustee

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: Hold Paramount Public Health Safety and Welfare; Act as Faithful Agent or Trustee

Normative edge (fulfillsObligation)
type: Derivation
comment: property=fulfillsObligation; action's fulfillsObligation text resolved to the case Obligation/Principle individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select (obligation-engagement grounding)
value: Faithfulness 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: Hold Paramount Public Health Safety and Welfare; Act as Faithful Agent or Trustee

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: Hold Paramount Public Health Safety and Welfare; Act as Faithful Agent or Trustee

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: Hold Paramount Public Health Safety and Welfare; Act as Faithful Agent or Trustee

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: Hold Paramount Public Health Safety and Welfare; Act as Faithful Agent or Trustee

Normative edge (raisesObligation)
type: Derivation
comment: property=raisesObligation; action's raisesObligation text resolved to the case Obligation/Principle individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select (obligation-engagement grounding)
value: Obligation to Follow Through on Corrective Action

Normative edge (raisesObligation)
type: Derivation
comment: property=raisesObligation; action's raisesObligation text resolved to the case Obligation/Principle individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select (obligation-engagement grounding)
value: Obligation to Follow Through on Corrective Action

Normative edge (raisesObligation)
type: Derivation
comment: property=raisesObligation; action's raisesObligation text resolved to the case Obligation/Principle individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select (obligation-engagement grounding)
value: Obligation to Follow Through on Corrective Action

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: Hold Paramount Public Health Safety and Welfare

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: Hold Paramount Public Health Safety and Welfare

Normative edge (raisesObligation)
type: Derivation
comment: property=raisesObligation; action's raisesObligation text resolved to the case Obligation/Principle individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select (obligation-engagement grounding)
value: Hold Paramount Public Health Safety and Welfare

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 Wetland Delineation 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 Structural Inspection Sub-Consultant

Participant edge (invokedBy)
type: Derivation
comment: property=invokedBy; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Engineer A Structural Inspection Sub-Consultant; VWX Prime Consultant

Participant edge (invokedBy)
type: Derivation
comment: property=invokedBy; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Engineer A Structural Inspection Sub-Consultant; VWX Prime Consultant

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

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

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

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 Wetland Delineation 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 (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 Wetland Delineation 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 (invokedBy)
type: Derivation
comment: property=invokedBy; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Engineer A Public Responsibility

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 Wetland Delineation 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 Public Responsibility

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 Public Responsibility

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Participant edge (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 Public Responsibility

Actor relationship edge (employs)
type: Derivation
comment: relation_type=employs; property=employedBy
generated at time: 2026-06-05T09:49:01.145124+00:00
value: VWX Architects and Engineers retained the services of Engineer A, a civil engineer, as its sub-consultant

Actor relationship edge (has_client)
type: Derivation
comment: relation_type=has_client; property=hasClient
generated at time: 2026-06-05T09:49:01.139589+00:00
value: Engineer A performs wetland delineation services on the client's wetland site.

Actor relationship edge (has_client)
type: Derivation
comment: relation_type=has_client; property=hasClient
generated at time: 2026-06-05T09:49:01.144007+00:00
value: a public agency retained the services of VWX Architects and Engineers to perform a major scheduled overhaul of a bridge

Actor relationship edge (has_client)
type: Derivation
comment: relation_type=has_client; property=hasClient
generated at time: 2026-06-05T09:49:01.144913+00:00
value: a public agency retained the services of VWX Architects and Engineers to perform a major scheduled overhaul of a bridge

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

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

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: invokedBy: Engineer A Wetland Delineation Engineer

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: invokedBy: Engineer A Wetland Delineation Engineer

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: invokedBy: Engineer A Structural Inspection Sub-Consultant

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: invokedBy: Engineer A Structural Inspection Sub-Consultant

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: invokedBy: Engineer A Public Responsibility

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: invokedBy: Engineer A Public Responsibility

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: invokedBy: Engineer A Public Responsibility

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: invokedBy: Engineer A Public Responsibility

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: invokedBy: Engineer A Public Responsibility

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: invokedBy: Engineer A Wetland Delineation Engineer

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: invokedBy: Engineer A Wetland Delineation Engineer

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: invokedBy: Engineer A Wetland Delineation Engineer

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: invokedBy: Engineer A Wetland Delineation Engineer

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: invokedBy: Engineer A Wetland Delineation Engineer

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: invokedBy: Engineer A Wetland Delineation Engineer

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: invokedBy: Engineer A Structural Inspection Sub-Consultant

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: invokedBy: Engineer A Structural Inspection Sub-Consultant

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A, as an environmental engineer with specialized knowledge of wetland regulations, is obligated to report the observed unpermitted fill to the appropriate federal and state environmental authority, applying that specialized knowled

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A, drawing on specialized knowledge of wetland regulations, was obligated to report the client's substantial violation of federal and state environmental laws to the appropriate regulatory authority

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A's confidentiality obligations arising from the wetland delineation engagement did not extend to concealing the client's substantial violations of federal and state wetland laws

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A is obligated to recognize that any confidentiality duty arising from the prior wetland delineation engagement does not shield the client's subsequent, independently observed violation of federal and state wetland law from disclos

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A's faithful agent duty to the client arising from the wetland delineation engagement does not extend to remaining silent about the client's subsequent, independently observed violation of federal and state wetland law

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Because Engineer A personally observed the unpermitted wetland fill with domain expertise, the concern rose to the level of established fact, triggering a mandatory disclosure obligation

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A is obligated to disclose the directly observed wetland fill violation to the appropriate regulatory authority because the observation constitutes an established fact rather than a preliminary concern, triggering the mandatory dis

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Because Engineer A had domain expertise in wetland delineation and environmental law, Engineer A was obligated to disclose the observed wetland fill violation with directness and specificity

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: the appropriate first step is direct client contact to demand remediation, with escalation to regulatory authorities re

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: with escalation to regulatory authorities re

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: After contacting the client about the wetland fill violation and receiving assurances of remediation, Engineer A must monitor the client's actual remedial actions until Engineer A is sufficiently satisfied that the violation has been correc

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A's disclosure and reporting obligations to regulatory authorities are not extinguished by the conclusion of the wetland delineation engagement

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A's professional obligations to the public do not terminate upon completion of the wetland delineation engagement.

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A, upon discovering that the client has placed unpermitted fill on more than half an acre of wetlands in violation of federal and state law, faces an obligation to hold the welfare of the public and the protected environment paramo

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A's scope of work was limited to pavement damage, and the Board held it was appropriate not to include speculative structural observations outside that scope in the formal report

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: that duty did not authorize Engineer A to abandon follow-through o

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Because Engineer A had domain expertise in wetland delineation and environmental law, Engineer A was obligated to disclose the observed wetland fill violation

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A's confidentiality obligations arising from the wetland delineation engagement did not extend to concealing the client's substantial violations of federal and state wetland laws

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A, drawing on specialized knowledge of wetland regulations, was obligated to report the client's substantial violation of federal and state environmental laws to the appropriate regulatory authority

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: If the client failed to take adequate remedial steps after being contacted, Engineer A was obligated to report the unpermitted wetland fill violation to the appropriate federal or state regulatory authority.

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to contact the client directly upon discovering the unpermitted wetland fill, identify the specific violations of federal and state law, and require that immediate remedial steps be taken.

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to report the client's substantial violation of federal and state wetland laws to the appropriate regulatory authority if the client failed to remediate, notwithstanding the conclusion of the wetland delineation eng

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: After contacting the client and receiving assurances of remediation, Engineer A was obligated to monitor the client's actual remedial actions until sufficiently satisfied that the wetland violation had been fully corrected

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A's faithful agent duty to the client arising from the wetland delineation engagement does not extend to remaining silent about the client's subsequent, independently observed violation of federal and state wetland law

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Because Engineer A personally observed the unpermitted wetland fill with domain expertise, the concern rose to the level of established fact, triggering a mandatory disclosure obligation

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A, as an environmental engineer with specialized knowledge of wetland regulations, is obligated to report the observed unpermitted fill to the appropriate federal and state environmental authority

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A is obligated to report the client's unpermitted fill of more than half an acre of wetlands to the appropriate federal and state regulatory authority, because the violation is a substantial breach of law that implicates public wel

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A is obligated to recognize that any confidentiality duty arising from the prior wetland delineation engagement does not shield the client's subsequent, independently observed violation

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A is obligated to disclose the directly observed wetland fill violation to the appropriate regulatory authority because the observation constitutes an established fact

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A is obligated to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public by taking action in response to the observed unpermitted wetland fill

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to retain the observations about the defective bridge wall condition in engineering notes without alteration

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to exclude from the final written bridge inspection report the observation about the defective wall condition

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; Client

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; Client

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; Client; Public; Wetland ecosystem; Regulatory agencies

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; Client; Public; Wetland ecosystem; Regulatory agencies

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; Client; Wetland ecosystem; Downstream and adjacent property owners; Regulatory agencies

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; Client; Wetland ecosystem; Downstream and adjacent property owners; Regulatory agencies

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; Client; Regulatory agencies; 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; Client; Federal and state regulatory agencies

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; Client; Regulatory authorities; Public and environment

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; Client; Regulatory authorities; Public and environment

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; Client; Regulatory authorities

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; Client; Regulatory authorities

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; Client; Regulatory authorities; Public and environment affected by wetland destruction

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; Client; Regulatory authorities; Public and environment affected by wetland destruction

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

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

State edge (activatedByEvent)
type: Derivation
comment: property=activatedByEvent; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Violation is confirmed rather than speculative

State edge (activatedByEvent)
type: Derivation
comment: property=activatedByEvent; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Engineer A performed wetland delineation services for the client

State edge (activatesConstraint)
type: Derivation
comment: property=activatesConstraint; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Professional may not remain silent once a confirmed legal violation is identified

State edge (activatesConstraint)
type: Derivation
comment: property=activatesConstraint; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Remedial actions must comply with all applicable environmental laws and may require licensed engineer review

State edge (activatesObligation)
type: Derivation
comment: property=activatesObligation; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Obligation to contact client and identify the violation directly

State edge (activatesObligation)
type: Derivation
comment: property=activatesObligation; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Obligation to monitor situation until remediation is confirmed

State edge (terminatedByEvent)
type: Derivation
comment: property=terminatedByEvent; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Completion of wetland delineation services a few months prior to the observation

State edge (activatedByEvent)
type: Derivation
comment: property=activatedByEvent; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Engineer A observes substantial unpermitted fill on wetlands, confirming a concrete environmental and legal violation with no safeguards in place

State edge (activatedByEvent)
type: Derivation
comment: property=activatedByEvent; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Violation is confirmed rather than speculative

State edge (activatesConstraint)
type: Derivation
comment: property=activatesConstraint; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Professional may not remain silent once a confirmed legal violation is identified

State edge (activatesConstraint)
type: Derivation
comment: property=activatesConstraint; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Remedial actions must comply with all applicable environmental laws and may require licensed engineer review

State edge (activatesObligation)
type: Derivation
comment: property=activatesObligation; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Obligation to contact client and identify the violation directly

State edge (activatesObligation)
type: Derivation
comment: property=activatesObligation; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Obligation to monitor situation until remediation is confirmed

State edge (activatedByEvent)
type: Derivation
comment: property=activatedByEvent; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Client installs substantial fill material across more than half an acre of wetlands without authorization

State edge (activatedByEvent)
type: Derivation
comment: property=activatedByEvent; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Violation is confirmed rather than speculative

State edge (activatesConstraint)
type: Derivation
comment: property=activatesConstraint; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Professional may not remain silent once a confirmed legal violation is identified

State edge (activatesConstraint)
type: Derivation
comment: property=activatesConstraint; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Remedial actions must comply with all applicable environmental laws and may require licensed engineer review

State edge (activatesObligation)
type: Derivation
comment: property=activatesObligation; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Obligation to contact client and identify the violation directly

State edge (activatesObligation)
type: Derivation
comment: property=activatesObligation; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Obligation to monitor situation until remediation is confirmed

State edge (terminatedByEvent)
type: Derivation
comment: property=terminatedByEvent; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Removal of fill and site restoration, or regulatory authorization

State edge (activatesConstraint)
type: Derivation
comment: property=activatesConstraint; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Confidentiality does not override mandatory reporting when law is violated

State edge (activatesObligation)
type: Derivation
comment: property=activatesObligation; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Obligation to notify client of violation and demand remediation

State edge (activatedByEvent)
type: Derivation
comment: property=activatedByEvent; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Professional independently observes or learns of client conduct constituting a violation

State edge (activatesConstraint)
type: Derivation
comment: property=activatesConstraint; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Professional must not certify or endorse the altered site condition without disclosing the violation

State edge (activatesConstraint)
type: Derivation
comment: property=activatesConstraint; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Professional may not ignore a substantial known violation simply because the engagement has ended

State edge (activatesObligation)
type: Derivation
comment: property=activatesObligation; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Obligation to assess whether the violation creates a public safety or environmental risk

State edge (activatesObligation)
type: Derivation
comment: property=activatesObligation; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Duty to evaluate whether post-engagement reporting obligations are triggered

State edge (terminatedByEvent)
type: Derivation
comment: property=terminatedByEvent; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Professional reports violation to appropriate authority

State edge (activatedByEvent)
type: Derivation
comment: property=activatedByEvent; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Violation is confirmed rather than speculative

State edge (activatesConstraint)
type: Derivation
comment: property=activatesConstraint; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Professional may not remain silent once a confirmed legal violation is identified

State edge (activatesConstraint)
type: Derivation
comment: property=activatesConstraint; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Remedial actions must comply with all applicable environmental laws and may require licensed engineer review

State edge (activatesObligation)
type: Derivation
comment: property=activatesObligation; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Obligation to contact client and identify the violation directly

State edge (activatesObligation)
type: Derivation
comment: property=activatesObligation; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Obligation to monitor situation until remediation is confirmed

State edge (activatesObligation)
type: Derivation
comment: property=activatesObligation; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Obligation to monitor client's remediation progress

State edge (activatedByEvent)
type: Derivation
comment: property=activatedByEvent; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Engineer A drives by the client's property and observes substantial fill material installed across more than half an acre of wetlands without permits

State edge (activatesConstraint)
type: Derivation
comment: property=activatesConstraint; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Professional may not assist client in concealing or perpetuating the violation

State edge (activatesObligation)
type: Derivation
comment: property=activatesObligation; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Duty to consider whether continued professional silence constitutes complicity in ongoing violation

State edge (activatesObligation)
type: Derivation
comment: property=activatesObligation; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Obligation to evaluate post-engagement reporting duties triggered by confirmed regulatory violation

State edge (activatesObligation)
type: Derivation
comment: property=activatesObligation; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Duty to assess whether the violation creates a public safety or environmental risk requiring mandatory reporting

State edge (terminatedByEvent)
type: Derivation
comment: property=terminatedByEvent; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Fill or alteration is removed and site restored to compliant condition

State edge (activatesConstraint)
type: Derivation
comment: property=activatesConstraint; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Professional may not assist client in concealing or perpetuating the violation

State edge (activatesObligation)
type: Derivation
comment: property=activatesObligation; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Duty to consider whether continued professional silence constitutes complicity in ongoing violation

State edge (activatesObligation)
type: Derivation
comment: property=activatesObligation; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Obligation to evaluate post-engagement reporting duties triggered by confirmed regulatory violation

State edge (activatesObligation)
type: Derivation
comment: property=activatesObligation; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Duty to assess whether the violation creates a public safety or environmental risk requiring mandatory reporting

State edge (terminatedByEvent)
type: Derivation
comment: property=terminatedByEvent; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Fill or alteration is removed and site restored to compliant condition

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 few months after Engineer A completes the services, he drives by his client's property and notices that the client has installed a substantial amount of fill material.

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's actions appear to be obvious—contact the client and inquire directly about the actions the client has taken... If appropriate steps are not taken by the client, the engineer would have an obligation to bring this matter to the attention of the appropriate authorities.

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 actions appear to be obvious—contact the client and inquire directly about the actions the client has taken... If appropriate steps are not taken by the client, the engineer would have an obligation to bring this matter to the attention of the appropriate authorities.

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: If the client indicates that those steps will be taken, the engineer should monitor the situation until the engineer is sufficiently satisfied that the situation has been remedied.

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: If the client indicates that those steps will be taken, the engineer should monitor the situation until the engineer is sufficiently satisfied that the situation has been remedied.

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: If the client indicates that those steps will be taken, the engineer should monitor the situation until the engineer is sufficiently satisfied that the situation has been remedied... If appropriate steps are not taken by the client, the engineer would have an obligation to bring this matter to the attention of the appropriate authorities.

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: If the client indicates that those steps will be taken, the engineer should monitor the situation until the engineer is sufficiently satisfied that the situation has been remedied... If appropriate steps are not taken by the client, the engineer would have an obligation to bring this matter to the attention of the appropriate authorities.

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: While conducting the bridge inspection, and although not part of the scope of services for which he was retained, Engineer A noticed an apparent pre-existing defective condition in the wall close to where the accident involving Police Officer B occurred.

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 verbally reported this information to his client, who then verbally reported the information to the public agency.

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 verbally reported this information to his client, who then verbally reported the information to the public agency.

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 few months after Engineer A completes the services, he drives by his client's property and notices that the client has installed a substantial amount of fill material on more than ½ an acre across a portion of the wetlands without any permits, variances, or permissions.

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 few months after Engineer A completes the services, he drives by his client's property and notices that the client has installed a substantial amount of fill material on more than ½ an acre across a portion of the wetlands without any permits, variances, or permissions.

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 public agency contacted VWX Architects and Engineers which then contacted Engineer A and asked Engineer A not to include this additional information in his final report since it was not part of his scope of work.

Client Wetland Fill Violator
type: WetlandFillViolatorClient
type: NamedIndividual
actor: Client
case involvement: Commissioned wetland delineation services from Engineer A and subsequently installed substantial fill material on more than half an acre of the wetland site without any permits, variances, or permissions, constituting a substantial violation of federal and state environmental laws.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.88
has license: None identified
has specialty: Property owner or developer
role category: provider_client
role class: Wetland Fill Violator Client
text references: The installation of the fill material is a substantial violation of the federal and state laws and regulations.
text references: the client has installed a substantial amount of fill material on more than 1/2 an acre across a portion of the wetlands without any permits, variances, or permissions
text references: the client's wetland site
discovered in case: 86
discovered in pass: 1
discovered in section: facts
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T17:25:19.255251+00:00
first discovered in case: 86
match confidence: 0.75
match reasoning: Via class 'Wetland Fill Violator Client': The client here is the party that commissioned wetland delineation services and is the subject of the violation. The existing Client Role covers the party that commissions project work. This is a specialization adding the violation context, so matching to Client Role at medium confidence.
matched ontology class: ClientRole
matched ontology label: Client Role
matches existing: true
source text: the client's wetland site
synthesis literal: caseInvolvement
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: roleCategory
synthesis literal: roleClass
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Commissioned wetland delineation services from Engineer A and subsequently installed substantial fill material on more than half an acre of the wetland site without any permits, variances, or permissions, constituting a substantial violation of federal and state environmental laws.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T17:25:19.255251+00:00
was attributed to: Case 86 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 86 Extraction

Engineer A Bridge Field Notes Preservation
type: ResponsibilityDocumentationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
possessed by: Engineer A
capability class: Responsibility Documentation Capability
capability statement: Engineer A demonstrated the capability to preserve the bridge wall observation in engineering notes without alteration, maintaining an accurate contemporaneous record of the observation even after being asked not to include it in the final report.
case context: After observing an apparent pre-existing defective wall condition during bridge inspection and being asked by the client not to include it in the final report, Engineer A retained the observation in engineering notes without alteration.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.86
demonstrated through: Retention of the wall condition observation in engineering notes as a contemporaneous record, with explicit refusal to alter those notes despite the decision to exclude the observation from the formal report.
proficiency level: intermediate
text references: Engineer A stated that he would retain the information from his engineering notes but not include it in the final report, as requested.
text references: under no circumstance would it be appropriate for Engineer A to alter his field notes
discovered in case: 86
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: discussion
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T17:36:09.645175+00:00
first discovered in case: 86
match confidence: 0.0
matches existing: false
source text: Engineer A stated that he would retain the information from his engineering notes but not include it in the final report, as requested.
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 the capability to preserve the bridge wall observation in engineering notes without alteration, maintaining an accurate contemporaneous record of the observation even after being asked not to include it in the final report.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T17:36:09.645175+00:00
was attributed to: Case 86 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 86 Extraction

Engineer A Bridge Speculative Exclusion
type: ConcernVersusFactDisclosureConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
constrained entity: Engineer A
case context: Engineer A, retained solely to identify pavement damage, observed an apparent pre-existing defective wall condition near a fatal accident site. Without structural engineering expertise or testing, the observation was speculative and did not meet the threshold for mandatory inclusion in the final report, though it was appropriately preserved in engineering notes.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.9
constrained entity: Engineer A (bridge inspection context)
constraint class: Concern Versus Fact Disclosure Constraint
constraint statement: Because Engineer A's observation about the defective bridge wall condition was based on visual inspection alone, without structural engineering expertise or further testing, it constituted a preliminary concern rather than a confirmed factual finding, and Engineer A was not required to include it in the final written report.
severity: medium
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case No. 97-13
temporal scope: During and after the bridge inspection engagement
text references: Engineer A's observation appeared to be based upon a visual inspection without anything more, the facts did not indicate that Engineer A had expertise in structural engineering.
text references: While it might have been appropriate for Engineer A to note such information in his field notes, to place this information in a final report would not be responsible and could unnecessarily inflame the situation.
text references: there was nothing under the facts to indicate anything more than Engineer A's general surmise and speculation about the cause of the structural failure of the wall.
discovered in case: 86
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: discussion
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T17:35:44.662063+00:00
first discovered in case: 86
match confidence: 0.95
match reasoning: Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Concern Versus Fact Disclosure Constraint'
matched ontology class: ConcernVersusFactDisclosureConstraint
matched ontology label: Concern Versus Fact Disclosure Constraint
matches existing: true
source text: there was nothing under the facts to indicate anything more than Engineer A's general surmise and speculation about the cause of the structural failure of the wall.
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 Engineer A's observation about the defective bridge wall condition was based on visual inspection alone, without structural engineering expertise or further testing, it constituted a preliminary concern rather than a confirmed factual finding, and Engineer A was not required to include it in the final written report.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T17:35:44.662063+00:00
was attributed to: Case 86 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 86 Extraction

Engineer A Bridge Speculative Exclusion
type: ConcernVersusFactThresholdCapability
type: NamedIndividual
possessed by: Engineer A
capability class: Concern Versus Fact Threshold Capability
capability statement: Engineer A demonstrated the capability to recognize that the bridge wall observation was based on general surmise and visual inspection without structural engineering expertise, and to exclude that speculative finding from the formal written report while preserving it in engineering notes.
case context: While performing pavement inspection services as a sub-consultant on a bridge overhaul, Engineer A observed an apparent pre-existing defective wall condition near a fatal accident site but lacked structural engineering expertise to confirm the observation as a finding.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.85
demonstrated through: Decision to retain the wall condition observation in engineering notes but not include it in the final bridge inspection report, on the basis that the observation was speculative and outside Engineer A's structural engineering competence.
proficiency level: intermediate
text references: Engineer A stated that he would retain the information from his engineering notes but not include it in the final report, as requested
text references: Engineer A surmised that the defective condition may have been a contributing factor in the wall failure and noted this in his engineering notes.
text references: there was nothing under the facts to indicate anything more than Engineer A's general surmise and speculation about the cause of the structural failure of the wall
discovered in case: 86
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: discussion
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T17:36:09.645175+00:00
first discovered in case: 86
match confidence: 0.95
match reasoning: Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Concern Versus Fact Threshold Capability'
matched ontology class: ConcernVersusFactThresholdCapability
matched ontology label: Concern Versus Fact Threshold Capability
matches existing: true
source text: Engineer A surmised that the defective condition may have been a contributing factor in the wall failure and noted this in his engineering notes.
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 the capability to recognize that the bridge wall observation was based on general surmise and visual inspection without structural engineering expertise, and to exclude that speculative finding from the formal written report while preserving it in engineering notes.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T17:36:09.645175+00:00
was attributed to: Case 86 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 86 Extraction

Engineer A Confidentiality Limit Recognition
type: ConfidentialityScopeReasoningCapability
type: NamedIndividual
possessed by: Engineer A
capability class: Confidentiality Scope Reasoning Capability
capability statement: Engineer A possessed the capability to reason that any confidentiality obligation arising from the prior wetland delineation engagement did not extend to shielding the client's subsequent unpermitted fill activity from regulatory reporting.
case context: The prior engagement between Engineer A and the client for wetland delineation services created a potential confidentiality consideration that Engineer A was required to reason through before concluding that reporting was obligatory.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.87
demonstrated through: Recognizing that the prior professional engagement created no confidentiality duty that would bar disclosure of the client's violation of federal and state wetland laws to regulatory authorities.
proficiency level: advanced
text references: Engineer A performs wetland delineation services on the client's wetland site.
text references: The installation of the fill material is a substantial violation of the federal and state laws and regulations.
discovered in case: 86
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: facts
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T17:31:02.848953+00:00
first discovered in case: 86
match confidence: 0.95
match reasoning: Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Confidentiality Scope Reasoning Capability'
matched ontology class: ConfidentialityScopeReasoningCapability
matched ontology label: Confidentiality Scope Reasoning Capability
matches existing: true
source text: Engineer A performs wetland delineation services on the client's wetland site.
synthesis literal: capabilityClass
synthesis literal: capabilityStatement
synthesis literal: caseContext
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: demonstratedThrough
synthesis literal: proficiencyLevel
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineer A possessed the capability to reason that any confidentiality obligation arising from the prior wetland delineation engagement did not extend to shielding the client's subsequent unpermitted fill activity from regulatory reporting.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T17:31:02.848953+00:00
was attributed to: Case 86 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 86 Extraction

Engineer A Environmental Norm Awareness
type: NormAwarenessCapability
type: NamedIndividual
possessed by: Engineer A
capability class: Norm Awareness Capability
capability statement: Engineer A possessed the capability to recognize the applicable professional and legal norms governing environmental engineers who observe client violations of wetland law, including the duty to report and the limits of confidentiality in the face of public law violations.
case context: Engineer A was required to identify and apply the relevant professional norms governing post-engagement conduct and environmental compliance reporting.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.86
demonstrated through: Recognizing that professional engineering ethics norms and environmental law together created a reporting obligation upon observing the unpermitted fill activity.
proficiency level: advanced
text references: Engineer A is an environmental engineer.
text references: The installation of the fill material is a substantial violation of the federal and state laws and regulations.
discovered in case: 86
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: facts
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T17:31:02.848953+00:00
first discovered in case: 86
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: Engineer A is an environmental engineer.
synthesis literal: capabilityClass
synthesis literal: capabilityStatement
synthesis literal: caseContext
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: demonstratedThrough
synthesis literal: proficiencyLevel
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineer A possessed the capability to recognize the applicable professional and legal norms governing environmental engineers who observe client violations of wetland law, including the duty to report and the limits of confidentiality in the face of public law violations.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T17:31:02.848953+00:00
was attributed to: Case 86 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 86 Extraction

Engineer A Environmental Violation Reporting
type: EnvironmentalViolationReportingConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
constrained entity: Engineer A
case context: Engineer A is an environmental engineer who performed wetland delineation on the client's property. After completing the engagement, Engineer A directly observes the client has placed substantial unpermitted fill across more than half an acre of the delineated wetland in violation of federal and state law. Engineer A's specialized environmental engineering competence means the engineer can recognize the significance and illegality of the observed conduct.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.9
constraint class: Environmental Violation Reporting Constraint
constraint statement: Engineer A, as an environmental engineer with specialized knowledge of wetland regulations, is constrained to report the observed unpermitted fill of more than half an acre of wetlands to the appropriate federal and state environmental regulatory authorities because the fill constitutes a confirmed and substantial violation of applicable law.
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics, Section I.1 and Section III.2; federal wetland protection statutes; applicable state environmental regulations
temporal scope: Immediately upon confirming the nature and extent of the violation through direct observation
text references: Engineer A is an environmental engineer.
text references: The installation of the fill material is a substantial violation of the federal and state laws and regulations.
text references: he drives by his client's property and notices that the client has installed a substantial amount of fill material on more than 1/2 an acre across a portion of the wetlands without any permits, variances, or permissions
discovered in case: 86
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: facts
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T17:30:49.666256+00:00
first discovered in case: 86
match confidence: 0.0
matches existing: false
source text: Engineer A is an environmental engineer.
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, as an environmental engineer with specialized knowledge of wetland regulations, is constrained to report the observed unpermitted fill of more than half an acre of wetlands to the appropriate federal and state environmental regulatory authorities because the fill constitutes a confirmed and substantial violation of applicable law.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T17:30:49.666256+00:00
was attributed to: Case 86 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 86 Extraction

Engineer A Faithful Agent Boundary
type: ClientInstructionOverrideConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
constrained entity: Engineer A
case context: Engineer A completed wetland delineation services and owes a residual duty of loyalty to the former client. However, the client has committed a confirmed substantial violation of environmental law. The faithful agent duty cannot be invoked to justify silence in the face of confirmed illegality that harms public environmental resources.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.82
constraint class: Client Instruction Override Constraint
constraint statement: Engineer A's faithful agent duty to the former client does not extend to remaining silent about a confirmed violation of federal and state environmental law, and that duty cannot override Engineer A's obligation to hold public welfare paramount by reporting the violation.
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics, Section I.1 and Section IV.a; professional ethics principle that client loyalty is bounded by public welfare obligations
temporal scope: From the time Engineer A observes and confirms the violation
text references: Engineer A performs wetland delineation services on the client's wetland site.
text references: The installation of the fill material is a substantial violation of the federal and state laws and regulations.
text references: the client has installed a substantial amount of fill material on more than 1/2 an acre across a portion of the wetlands without any permits, variances, or permissions
discovered in case: 86
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: facts
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T17:30:49.666256+00:00
first discovered in case: 86
match confidence: 0.95
match reasoning: Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Client Instruction Override Constraint'
matched ontology class: ClientInstructionOverrideConstraint
matched ontology label: Client Instruction Override Constraint
matches existing: true
source text: Engineer A performs wetland delineation services on the client's wetland site.
synthesis literal: caseContext
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: constraintClass
synthesis literal: constraintStatement
synthesis literal: severity
synthesis literal: source
synthesis literal: temporalScope
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineer A's faithful agent duty to the former client does not extend to remaining silent about a confirmed violation of federal and state environmental law, and that duty cannot override Engineer A's obligation to hold public welfare paramount by reporting the violation.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T17:30:49.666256+00:00
was attributed to: Case 86 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 86 Extraction

Engineer A Post-Engagement Violation Detection
type: Post-EngagementViolationDetectionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
possessed by: Engineer A
capability class: Post-Engagement Violation Detection Capability
capability statement: Engineer A possessed the perceptual and professional awareness capability to recognize, while driving past the property after the engagement concluded, that the client had installed unpermitted fill material constituting a substantial legal violation.
case context: Engineer A had completed wetland delineation services and subsequently drove past the property, observing conditions that triggered recognition of a legal violation by the former client.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.85
demonstrated through: Observing fill material on more than half an acre of wetlands and recognizing the absence of permits as a substantial violation of federal and state law.
proficiency level: advanced
text references: A few months after Engineer A completes the services, he drives by his client's property and notices that the client has installed a substantial amount of fill material on more than 1/2 an acre across a portion of the wetlands without any permits, variances, or permissions.
discovered in case: 86
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: facts
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T17:31:02.848953+00:00
first discovered in case: 86
match confidence: 0.72
match reasoning: Via class 'Post-Engagement Violation Detection Capability': Ethical Perception covers the capability to recognize ethically salient features and dynamically assess environment. The post-engagement incidental observation of a violation is a variant of that general perceptual capability applied in a specific post-engagement context. The existing class is the closest match but does not fully capture the post-engagement and domain-specific legal recognition dimension, so this is treated as a variant warranting a new specialized class.
matched ontology class: EthicalPerception
matched ontology label: Ethical Perception
matches existing: true
source text: A few months after Engineer A completes the services, he drives by his client's property and notices that the client has installed a substantial amount of fill material on more than 1/2 an acre across a portion of the wetlands without any permits, variances, or permissions.
synthesis literal: capabilityClass
synthesis literal: capabilityStatement
synthesis literal: caseContext
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: demonstratedThrough
synthesis literal: proficiencyLevel
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineer A possessed the perceptual and professional awareness capability to recognize, while driving past the property after the engagement concluded, that the client had installed unpermitted fill material constituting a substantial legal violation.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T17:31:02.848953+00:00
was attributed to: Case 86 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 86 Extraction

Engineer A Public Safety Paramount Judgment
type: PublicSafetyParamountJudgmentCapability
type: NamedIndividual
possessed by: Engineer A
capability class: Public Safety Paramount Judgment Capability
capability statement: Engineer A possessed the ethical reasoning capability to recognize that the obligation to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public required taking affirmative action to report the client's wetland fill violation, overriding any residual duty of loyalty to the former client.
case context: Engineer A faced a tension between residual loyalty to a former client and the paramount public safety and environmental welfare obligation triggered by observing a substantial unpermitted wetland fill.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.83
demonstrated through: Weighing the competing considerations of client loyalty and public welfare and concluding that the substantial environmental violation required regulatory reporting regardless of the prior professional relationship.
proficiency level: advanced
text references: A few months after Engineer A completes the services, he drives by his client's property and notices that the client has installed a substantial amount of fill material on more than 1/2 an acre across a portion of the wetlands without any permits, variances, or permissions.
text references: The installation of the fill material is a substantial violation of the federal and state laws and regulations.
discovered in case: 86
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: facts
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T17:31:02.848953+00:00
first discovered in case: 86
match confidence: 0.74
match reasoning: Via class 'Public Safety Paramount Judgment Capability': Ethical Reasoning covers the capability to process ethical information, deliberate on choices, and exercise moral judgment. The public safety paramount judgment is a specific application of ethical reasoning in which the engineer must weigh competing duties and conclude that public welfare prevails. The existing class is the closest match but is more general. The present capability is a distinct and recurrent type of ethical reasoning in engineering ethics cases involving the paramount public safety duty, warranting a new specialized class.
matched ontology class: EthicalReasoning
matched ontology label: Ethical Reasoning
matches existing: true
source text: The installation of the fill material is a substantial violation of the federal and state laws and regulations.
synthesis literal: capabilityClass
synthesis literal: capabilityStatement
synthesis literal: caseContext
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: demonstratedThrough
synthesis literal: proficiencyLevel
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineer A possessed the ethical reasoning capability to recognize that the obligation to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public required taking affirmative action to report the client's wetland fill violation, overriding any residual duty of loyalty to the former client.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T17:31:02.848953+00:00
was attributed to: Case 86 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 86 Extraction

Engineer A Regulatory Authority Identification
type: RegulatoryReportingTriggerRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
possessed by: Engineer A
capability class: Regulatory Reporting Trigger Recognition Capability
capability statement: Engineer A possessed the capability to recognize that the observed unpermitted wetland fill triggered a mandatory reporting obligation and to identify the appropriate federal and state regulatory authorities to whom the violation must be reported.
case context: Upon observing the unpermitted fill, Engineer A was required to identify which regulatory bodies had jurisdiction and to whom the report should be directed.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.85
demonstrated through: Determining that the substantial fill violation required notification to both federal and state regulatory authorities with jurisdiction over wetland fill activity.
proficiency level: advanced
text references: The installation of the fill material is a substantial violation of the federal and state laws and regulations.
discovered in case: 86
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: facts
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T17:31:02.848953+00:00
first discovered in case: 86
match confidence: 0.95
match reasoning: Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Regulatory Reporting Trigger Recognition Capability'
matched ontology class: RegulatoryReportingTriggerRecognitionCapability
matched ontology label: Regulatory Reporting Trigger Recognition Capability
matches existing: true
source text: The installation of the fill material is a substantial violation of the federal and state laws and regulations.
synthesis literal: capabilityClass
synthesis literal: capabilityStatement
synthesis literal: caseContext
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: demonstratedThrough
synthesis literal: proficiencyLevel
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineer A possessed the capability to recognize that the observed unpermitted wetland fill triggered a mandatory reporting obligation and to identify the appropriate federal and state regulatory authorities to whom the violation must be reported.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T17:31:02.848953+00:00
was attributed to: Case 86 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 86 Extraction

Engineer A Wetland Client Confrontation
type: ClientViolationConfrontationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
possessed by: Engineer A
capability class: Client Violation Confrontation Capability
capability statement: Engineer A possessed the capability to directly contact the client upon discovering the unpermitted wetland fill, to identify the specific violations of federal and state wetland law, and to communicate the obligation to take immediate remedial steps, giving the client an opportunity to remedy the situation before regulatory escalation.
case context: After driving past the former client's property and observing substantial unpermitted fill on more than half an acre of wetlands, Engineer A was required to contact the client directly as the first step before considering regulatory reporting.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.86
demonstrated through: The prescribed course of action requiring Engineer A to contact the client directly, point out the violations, and demand immediate remedial action as the first step in a sequenced response to the discovered violation.
proficiency level: intermediate
text references: Engineer A's actions appear to be obvious -- contact the client and inquire directly about the actions the client has taken and point out the violations of the law and that immediate steps need to be taken to remedy the violation.
discovered in case: 86
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: discussion
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T17:36:09.645175+00:00
first discovered in case: 86
match confidence: 0.0
matches existing: false
source text: Engineer A's actions appear to be obvious -- contact the client and inquire directly about the actions the client has taken and point out the violations of the law and that immediate steps need to be taken to remedy the violation.
synthesis literal: capabilityClass
synthesis literal: capabilityStatement
synthesis literal: caseContext
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: demonstratedThrough
synthesis literal: proficiencyLevel
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineer A possessed the capability to directly contact the client upon discovering the unpermitted wetland fill, to identify the specific violations of federal and state wetland law, and to communicate the obligation to take immediate remedial steps, giving the client an opportunity to remedy the situation before regulatory escalation.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T17:36:09.645175+00:00
was attributed to: Case 86 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 86 Extraction

Engineer A Wetland Client Contact First
type: GraduatedEscalationConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
constrained entity: Engineer A
case context: After completing the wetland delineation engagement, Engineer A observed that the client had placed unpermitted fill on the delineated wetland site. The appropriate first step was direct client contact, not immediate regulatory reporting.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.87
constraint class: Graduated Escalation Constraint
constraint statement: Engineer A was required to contact the client directly as the first step upon discovering the unpermitted wetland fill, identify the specific violations, and demand immediate remediation before considering any report to regulatory authorities.
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case No. 97-13 (graduated response framework)
temporal scope: Immediately upon discovering the unpermitted fill
text references: Engineer A's actions appear to be obvious: contact the client and inquire directly about the actions the client has taken and point out the violations of the law and that immediate steps need to be taken to remedy the violation.
text references: If appropriate steps are not taken by the client, the engineer would have an obligation to bring this matter to the attention of the appropriate authorities.
discovered in case: 86
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: discussion
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T17:35:44.662063+00:00
first discovered in case: 86
match confidence: 0.0
matches existing: false
source text: Engineer A's actions appear to be obvious: contact the client and inquire directly about the actions the client has taken and point out the violations of the law and that immediate steps need to be taken to remedy the violation.
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 contact the client directly as the first step upon discovering the unpermitted wetland fill, identify the specific violations, and demand immediate remediation before considering any report to regulatory authorities.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T17:35:44.662063+00:00
was attributed to: Case 86 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 86 Extraction

Engineer A Wetland Confidentiality Limit
type: ConfidentialityPublicViolationLimitConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
constrained entity: Engineer A
case context: Engineer A completed a wetland delineation engagement under a professional services agreement. The client subsequently filled more than half an acre of the delineated wetland without permits. Any implied confidentiality from the prior engagement could not shield this confirmed statutory violation.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.93
constraint class: Confidentiality Public Violation Limit Constraint
constraint statement: Any confidentiality obligation arising from Engineer A's prior wetland delineation engagement did not extend to concealing the client's confirmed violation of federal and state wetland protection laws, because the confidentiality duty is bounded by the overriding obligation to hold public welfare paramount.
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case No. 89-7
temporal scope: From the moment Engineer A confirmed the unpermitted fill violation
text references: In deciding it was unethical for Engineer A not to report the safety violations to the appropriate public authorities, the Board noted that the facts presented in the case raised a conflict between two basic ethical obligations of an engineer.
text references: the obligation of the engineer to be faithful to the client and not to disclose confidential information concerning the business affairs of a client without that client's consent, and the obligation of the engineer to hold paramount the public health and safety.
discovered in case: 86
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: discussion
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T17:35:44.662063+00:00
first discovered in case: 86
match confidence: 0.0
matches existing: false
source text: the obligation of the engineer to be faithful to the client and not to disclose confidential information concerning the business affairs of a client without that client's consent, and the obligation of the engineer to hold paramount the public health and safety.
synthesis literal: caseContext
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: constraintClass
synthesis literal: constraintStatement
synthesis literal: severity
synthesis literal: source
synthesis literal: temporalScope
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Any confidentiality obligation arising from Engineer A's prior wetland delineation engagement did not extend to concealing the client's confirmed violation of federal and state wetland protection laws, because the confidentiality duty is bounded by the overriding obligation to hold public welfare paramount.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T17:35:44.662063+00:00
was attributed to: Case 86 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 86 Extraction

Engineer A Wetland Confidentiality Limits
type: ConfidentialityLimitRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
possessed by: Engineer A
capability class: Confidentiality Limit Recognition Capability
capability statement: Engineer A possessed the capability to recognize that any confidentiality obligation arising from the wetland delineation engagement did not extend to concealing the client's substantial violation of federal and state wetland laws from the appropriate regulatory authorities.
case context: The prior wetland delineation engagement created a professional relationship with the client, but Engineer A was required to recognize that this relationship did not shield the client's subsequent unpermitted fill activity from regulatory reporting.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.89
demonstrated through: Recognition that the public law violation reporting obligation took precedence over any duty of confidentiality to the former client, distinguishing the present situation from cases where confidentiality obligations were more clearly operative.
proficiency level: advanced
text references: In BER Case No. 89-7, for example, the facts revealed that the client had confided in the engineer and may have relied upon the engineer to maintain the information in confidence
text references: In contrast, the facts in the present case indicate a violation of the federal and state laws and regulations.
text references: the Board can easily distinguish BER Case Nos. 89-7 and 97-13 from the present case
discovered in case: 86
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: discussion
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T17:36:09.645175+00:00
first discovered in case: 86
match confidence: 0.0
matches existing: false
source text: the Board can easily distinguish BER Case Nos. 89-7 and 97-13 from the present case
synthesis literal: capabilityClass
synthesis literal: capabilityStatement
synthesis literal: caseContext
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: demonstratedThrough
synthesis literal: proficiencyLevel
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineer A possessed the capability to recognize that any confidentiality obligation arising from the wetland delineation engagement did not extend to concealing the client's substantial violation of federal and state wetland laws from the appropriate regulatory authorities.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T17:36:09.645175+00:00
was attributed to: Case 86 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 86 Extraction

Engineer A Wetland Delineation Report
type: WetlandDelineationReportResource
type: NamedIndividual
available to: Engineer A
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.88
created by: Engineer A
document title: Wetland Delineation Report for Client Property
resource class: Wetland Delineation Report Resource
text references: A few months after Engineer A completes the services
text references: Engineer A performs wetland delineation services on the client's wetland site
used by: Engineer A
used in context: The completed wetland delineation report establishes the baseline boundary and extent of the regulated wetland area on the client's property, providing the technical reference against which the unpermitted fill placement is assessed
discovered in case: 86
discovered in pass: 1
discovered in section: facts
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T17:25:28.729274+00:00
first discovered in case: 86
match confidence: 0.0
matches existing: false
source text: Engineer A performs wetland delineation services on the client's wetland site
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: createdBy
synthesis literal: documentTitle
synthesis literal: resourceClass
synthesis literal: textReferences
synthesis literal: usedInContext
comment: The completed wetland delineation report establishes the baseline boundary and extent of the regulated wetland area on the client's property, providing the technical reference against which the unpermitted fill placement is assessed
generated at time: 2026-06-04T17:25:28.729274+00:00
was attributed to: Case 86 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 86 Extraction

Engineer A Wetland Environmental Reporting
type: EnvironmentalViolationReportingConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
constrained entity: Engineer A
case context: Engineer A's domain expertise in wetland delineation and environmental regulation meant the observed unpermitted fill was a confirmed violation rather than speculation, and that expertise created a heightened reporting duty compared to a generalist engineer making the same observation.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.93
constraint class: Environmental Violation Reporting Constraint
constraint statement: Engineer A, as an environmental engineer with specialized knowledge of wetland delineation and applicable federal and state wetland protection regulations, was required to report the client's confirmed unpermitted fill to the appropriate regulatory authorities if the client failed to remediate, because the specialized competence created a heightened duty to act on a violation the engineer could recognize and confirm.
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; Clean Water Act; applicable state wetland statutes
temporal scope: Upon confirmation of the violation and failure of client remediation
text references: Engineer A's actions appear to be obvious: contact the client and inquire directly about the actions the client has taken and point out the violations of the law and that immediate steps need to be taken to remedy the violation.
text references: If appropriate steps are not taken by the client, the engineer would have an obligation to bring this matter to the attention of the appropriate authorities.
text references: In contrast, the facts in the present case indicate a violation of the federal and state laws and regulations.
discovered in case: 86
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: discussion
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T17:35:44.662063+00:00
first discovered in case: 86
match confidence: 0.0
matches existing: false
source text: In contrast, the facts in the present case indicate a violation of the federal and state laws and regulations.
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, as an environmental engineer with specialized knowledge of wetland delineation and applicable federal and state wetland protection regulations, was required to report the client's confirmed unpermitted fill to the appropriate regulatory authorities if the client failed to remediate, because the specialized competence created a heightened duty to act on a violation the engineer could recognize and confirm.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T17:35:44.662063+00:00
was attributed to: Case 86 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 86 Extraction

Engineer A Wetland Expertise Calibration
type: ConcernVersusFactThresholdCapability
type: NamedIndividual
possessed by: Engineer A
capability class: Concern Versus Fact Threshold Capability
capability statement: Engineer A, as an environmental engineer with domain expertise in wetland delineation and applicable regulations, possessed the capability to recognize that the observed unpermitted fill constituted an established fact rather than a speculative concern, and to calibrate the disclosure obligation accordingly as requiring affirmative action rather than cautious restraint.
case context: Engineer A's specialized knowledge of wetland regulations enabled a determination that the observed fill was a confirmed violation of federal and state law, distinguishing the situation from cases where engineers lacked relevant expertise and observations remained speculative.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.84
demonstrated through: Contrast with BER Case Nos. 89-7 and 97-13, where lack of domain expertise justified a more measured approach, while Engineer A's wetland expertise meant the observation rose to the level of a confirmed violation requiring direct action.
proficiency level: advanced
text references: Engineer A's actions appear to be obvious -- contact the client and inquire directly about the actions the client has taken
text references: In contrast, the facts in the present case indicate a violation of the federal and state laws and regulations.
text references: the engineer in BER Case No. 89-7 did not have any particular expertise in the technical areas (mechanical, electrical) involved in the matter at issue. Taken together, it would be reasonable for an engineer under those circumstances to act in a deliberate and cautious manner
discovered in case: 86
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: discussion
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T17:36:09.645175+00:00
first discovered in case: 86
match confidence: 0.95
match reasoning: Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Concern Versus Fact Threshold Capability'
matched ontology class: ConcernVersusFactThresholdCapability
matched ontology label: Concern Versus Fact Threshold Capability
matches existing: true
source text: the engineer in BER Case No. 89-7 did not have any particular expertise in the technical areas (mechanical, electrical) involved in the matter at issue. Taken together, it would be reasonable for an engineer under those circumstances to act in a deliberate and cautious manner
synthesis literal: capabilityClass
synthesis literal: capabilityStatement
synthesis literal: caseContext
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: demonstratedThrough
synthesis literal: proficiencyLevel
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineer A, as an environmental engineer with domain expertise in wetland delineation and applicable regulations, possessed the capability to recognize that the observed unpermitted fill constituted an established fact rather than a speculative concern, and to calibrate the disclosure obligation accordingly as requiring affirmative action rather than cautious restraint.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T17:36:09.645175+00:00
was attributed to: Case 86 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 86 Extraction

Engineer A Wetland Expertise Disclosure
type: ConcernVersusFactDisclosureConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
constrained entity: Engineer A
case context: Engineer A completed a wetland delineation engagement and subsequently observed that the client had placed unpermitted fill on more than half an acre of the delineated wetland. Unlike the engineers in BER 89-7 and 97-13, Engineer A had domain expertise in the relevant technical and regulatory area, so the observation was not speculative.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.88
constraint class: Concern Versus Fact Disclosure Constraint
constraint statement: Because Engineer A possessed specialized domain expertise in wetland delineation and environmental regulation, the observed unpermitted fill constituted a confirmed factual finding rather than mere speculation, triggering mandatory disclosure obligations that would not have applied to a generalist engineer making the same visual observation.
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case No. 89-7; BER Case No. 97-13 (distinguished)
temporal scope: From the moment Engineer A observed the unpermitted fill following completion of the delineation engagement
text references: In BER Case No. 89-7, for example, the facts revealed that the client had confided in the engineer and may have relied upon the engineer to maintain the information in confidence. In addition, the engineer in BER Case No. 89-7 did not have any particular expertise in the technical areas (mechanical, electrical) involved in the matter at issue.
text references: In contrast, the facts in the present case indicate a violation of the federal and state laws and regulations.
text references: Similarly, in BER Case No. 97-13, the engineer's evaluation was based upon general surmise and speculation about the cause of the structural failure of the wall, based entirely upon a visual inspection without anything more.
discovered in case: 86
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: discussion
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T17:35:44.662063+00:00
first discovered in case: 86
match confidence: 0.95
match reasoning: Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Concern Versus Fact Disclosure Constraint'
matched ontology class: ConcernVersusFactDisclosureConstraint
matched ontology label: Concern Versus Fact Disclosure Constraint
matches existing: true
source text: In BER Case No. 89-7, for example, the facts revealed that the client had confided in the engineer and may have relied upon the engineer to maintain the information in confidence. In addition, the engineer in BER Case No. 89-7 did not have any particular expertise in the technical areas (mechanical, electrical) involved in the matter at issue.
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 Engineer A possessed specialized domain expertise in wetland delineation and environmental regulation, the observed unpermitted fill constituted a confirmed factual finding rather than mere speculation, triggering mandatory disclosure obligations that would not have applied to a generalist engineer making the same visual observation.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T17:35:44.662063+00:00
was attributed to: Case 86 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 86 Extraction

Engineer A Wetland Post-Engagement Detection
type: Post-EngagementViolationDetectionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
possessed by: Engineer A
capability class: Post-Engagement Violation Detection Capability
capability statement: Engineer A demonstrated the capability to recognize, after the conclusion of the wetland delineation engagement, that the former client had committed a substantial violation of federal and state wetland laws by installing fill material on more than half an acre of the delineated wetlands without required permits.
case context: Engineer A drove past the former client's property after the conclusion of the wetland delineation engagement and observed substantial fill material on the wetland site, recognizing this as an unpermitted violation of federal and state law.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstrated through: Recognition of the legal significance of the observed fill conditions encountered incidentally while driving past the former client's property, drawing on domain expertise in wetland regulations to identify the violation.
proficiency level: advanced
text references: Engineer A's actions appear to be obvious -- contact the client and inquire directly about the actions the client has taken and point out the violations of the law
text references: the facts in the present case indicate a violation of the federal and state laws and regulations
discovered in case: 86
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: discussion
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T17:36:09.645175+00:00
first discovered in case: 86
match confidence: 0.0
matches existing: false
source text: the facts in the present case indicate a violation of the federal and state laws and regulations
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 the capability to recognize, after the conclusion of the wetland delineation engagement, that the former client had committed a substantial violation of federal and state wetland laws by installing fill material on more than half an acre of the delineated wetlands without required permits.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T17:36:09.645175+00:00
was attributed to: Case 86 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 86 Extraction

Engineer A Wetland Post-Engagement Reporting
type: Post-EngagementDisclosureConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
constrained entity: Engineer A
case context: Engineer A completed the wetland delineation engagement and subsequently observed the client's unpermitted fill. The absence of an ongoing professional relationship did not eliminate the reporting duty when a confirmed environmental law violation posed ongoing harm to protected wetland resources.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.91
constraint class: Post-Engagement Disclosure Constraint
constraint statement: The termination of Engineer A's wetland delineation engagement did not extinguish the duty to report the client's confirmed unpermitted fill violation to appropriate regulatory authorities if the client failed to remediate, because the post-engagement discovery of a confirmed statutory violation triggers reporting obligations that survive the end of the professional relationship.
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; Federal and state wetland protection statutes
temporal scope: After completion of the wetland delineation engagement, upon discovery of the unpermitted fill
text references: If appropriate steps are not taken by the client, the engineer would have an obligation to bring this matter to the attention of the appropriate authorities.
text references: the facts in the present case indicate a violation of the federal and state laws and regulations.
discovered in case: 86
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: discussion
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T17:35:44.662063+00:00
first discovered in case: 86
match confidence: 0.0
matches existing: false
source text: the facts in the present case indicate a violation of the federal and state laws and regulations.
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 termination of Engineer A's wetland delineation engagement did not extinguish the duty to report the client's confirmed unpermitted fill violation to appropriate regulatory authorities if the client failed to remediate, because the post-engagement discovery of a confirmed statutory violation triggers reporting obligations that survive the end of the professional relationship.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T17:35:44.662063+00:00
was attributed to: Case 86 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 86 Extraction

Engineer A Wetland Precedent Distinction
type: PrecedentApplicationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
possessed by: Engineer A
capability class: Precedent Application Capability
capability statement: The Board demonstrated the capability to identify prior ethics rulings in BER Case Nos. 89-7 and 97-13, analyze the factual distinctions between those precedents and the present case, and determine that the more measured approach permitted in those cases did not apply where the engineer had domain expertise and the violation was established rather than speculative.
case context: The Board analyzed whether the more deferential approaches approved in BER Case Nos. 89-7 and 97-13 governed Engineer A's obligations upon discovering the client's unpermitted wetland fill, concluding that factual distinctions required a more affirmative response.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.85
demonstrated through: Systematic comparison of the present case facts against two prior BER rulings, identifying that lack of domain expertise and speculative findings in the prior cases justified caution, while domain expertise and confirmed violations in the present case required more direct action.
possessed by: Engineer A (and the Board reasoning about Engineer A's obligations)
proficiency level: advanced
text references: In contrast, the facts in the present case indicate a violation of the federal and state laws and regulations.
text references: Those two cases involved a different set of factors that created a reasonable basis for an engineer to take a more measured approach to the situation
text references: the Board can easily distinguish BER Case Nos. 89-7 and 97-13 from the present case
discovered in case: 86
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: discussion
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T17:36:09.645175+00:00
first discovered in case: 86
match confidence: 0.95
match reasoning: Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Precedent Application Capability'
matched ontology class: PrecedentApplicationCapability
matched ontology label: Precedent Application Capability
matches existing: true
source text: the Board can easily distinguish BER Case Nos. 89-7 and 97-13 from the present case
synthesis literal: capabilityClass
synthesis literal: capabilityStatement
synthesis literal: caseContext
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: demonstratedThrough
synthesis literal: proficiencyLevel
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: The Board demonstrated the capability to identify prior ethics rulings in BER Case Nos. 89-7 and 97-13, analyze the factual distinctions between those precedents and the present case, and determine that the more measured approach permitted in those cases did not apply where the engineer had domain expertise and the violation was established rather than speculative.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T17:36:09.645175+00:00
was attributed to: Case 86 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 86 Extraction

Engineer A Wetland Public Safety Judgment
type: PublicSafetyParamountJudgmentCapability
type: NamedIndividual
possessed by: Engineer A
capability class: Public Safety Paramount Judgment Capability
capability statement: Engineer A possessed the capability to recognize that the professional obligation to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public required affirmative action in response to the observed unpermitted wetland fill, taking precedence over any residual duty of loyalty to the former client.
case context: Upon discovering the client's unpermitted wetland fill, Engineer A was required to prioritize the public interest in environmental compliance over any duty of loyalty arising from the prior professional engagement.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstrated through: Recognition that the public interest in wetland protection and environmental compliance required Engineer A to contact the client, monitor remediation, and escalate to regulatory authorities if necessary, despite the adverse effect on the client's interests.
proficiency level: advanced
text references: Engineers play an essential role in society by taking steps and actions to see that products, systems, facilities, structures, and the land surrounding them are reasonably safe.
text references: If appropriate steps are not taken by the client, the engineer would have an obligation to bring this matter to the attention of the appropriate authorities.
text references: Sometimes engineers are placed in situations where they must balance the extent of their obligations to their employer or client with their obligations to protect the public health and safety.
discovered in case: 86
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: discussion
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T17:36:09.645175+00:00
first discovered in case: 86
match confidence: 0.0
matches existing: false
source text: Engineers play an essential role in society by taking steps and actions to see that products, systems, facilities, structures, and the land surrounding them are reasonably safe.
synthesis literal: capabilityClass
synthesis literal: capabilityStatement
synthesis literal: caseContext
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: demonstratedThrough
synthesis literal: proficiencyLevel
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineer A possessed the capability to recognize that the professional obligation to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public required affirmative action in response to the observed unpermitted wetland fill, taking precedence over any residual duty of loyalty to the former client.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T17:36:09.645175+00:00
was attributed to: Case 86 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 86 Extraction

Engineer A Wetland Regulatory Escalation
type: SafetyDisclosureEscalationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
possessed by: Engineer A
capability class: Safety Disclosure Escalation Capability
capability statement: Engineer A possessed the capability to recognize that if the client failed to take adequate remedial steps after being contacted, the obligation to protect the public required escalation to the appropriate federal and state regulatory authorities, and to sequence that escalation correctly by first contacting the client before notifying authorities.
case context: Upon discovering the client's unpermitted wetland fill after the conclusion of the delineation engagement, Engineer A was required to follow a sequenced escalation path culminating in regulatory reporting if the client failed to remediate.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.87
demonstrated through: The prescribed sequential response: contact the client first, monitor remediation, and escalate to regulatory authorities only if adequate steps were not taken.
proficiency level: advanced
text references: Engineer A's actions appear to be obvious -- contact the client and inquire directly about the actions the client has taken and point out the violations of the law and that immediate steps need to be taken to remedy the violation.
text references: If appropriate steps are not taken by the client, the engineer would have an obligation to bring this matter to the attention of the appropriate authorities.
discovered in case: 86
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: discussion
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T17:36:09.645175+00:00
first discovered in case: 86
match confidence: 0.95
match reasoning: Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Safety Disclosure Escalation Capability'
matched ontology class: SafetyDisclosureEscalationCapability
matched ontology label: Safety Disclosure Escalation Capability
matches existing: true
source text: If appropriate steps are not taken by the client, the engineer would have an obligation to bring this matter to the attention of the appropriate authorities.
synthesis literal: capabilityClass
synthesis literal: capabilityStatement
synthesis literal: caseContext
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: demonstratedThrough
synthesis literal: proficiencyLevel
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineer A possessed the capability to recognize that if the client failed to take adequate remedial steps after being contacted, the obligation to protect the public required escalation to the appropriate federal and state regulatory authorities, and to sequence that escalation correctly by first contacting the client before notifying authorities.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T17:36:09.645175+00:00
was attributed to: Case 86 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 86 Extraction

Engineer A Wetland Regulatory Escalation
type: RegulatoryEscalationConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
constrained entity: Engineer A
case context: Engineer A's graduated response to the confirmed wetland fill violation required escalation to regulatory authorities as the final step if client-level remediation failed, given the confirmed nature of the violation and Engineer A's domain expertise.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.92
constraint class: Regulatory Escalation Constraint
constraint statement: If the client failed to take adequate remedial steps after being contacted, Engineer A was required to report the unpermitted wetland fill to the appropriate federal and state regulatory authorities, because the client's failure to remediate a confirmed environmental law violation left the public harm unaddressed.
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; Federal and state wetland protection statutes
temporal scope: Upon determination that the client had not taken adequate remedial steps within a reasonable period
text references: If appropriate steps are not taken by the client, the engineer would have an obligation to bring this matter to the attention of the appropriate authorities.
text references: the facts in the present case indicate a violation of the federal and state laws and regulations.
discovered in case: 86
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: discussion
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T17:35:44.662063+00:00
first discovered in case: 86
match confidence: 0.95
match reasoning: Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Regulatory Escalation Constraint'
matched ontology class: RegulatoryEscalationConstraint
matched ontology label: Regulatory Escalation Constraint
matches existing: true
source text: If appropriate steps are not taken by the client, the engineer would have an obligation to bring this matter to the attention of the appropriate authorities.
synthesis literal: caseContext
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: constraintClass
synthesis literal: constraintStatement
synthesis literal: severity
synthesis literal: source
synthesis literal: temporalScope
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: If the client failed to take adequate remedial steps after being contacted, Engineer A was required to report the unpermitted wetland fill to the appropriate federal and state regulatory authorities, because the client's failure to remediate a confirmed environmental law violation left the public harm unaddressed.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T17:35:44.662063+00:00
was attributed to: Case 86 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 86 Extraction

Engineer A Wetland Regulatory Knowledge
type: WetlandRegulatoryKnowledgeCapability
type: NamedIndividual
possessed by: Engineer A
capability class: Wetland Regulatory Knowledge Capability
capability statement: Engineer A, as an environmental engineer who performed wetland delineation services, possessed expert knowledge of federal and state wetland regulations sufficient to assess that the observed fill activity was a substantial violation and to identify the appropriate reporting authorities.
case context: Engineer A was retained specifically for wetland delineation, indicating specialized environmental engineering competency in wetland law and regulation.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstrated through: Assessing that fill material placed on more than half an acre of wetlands without permits constitutes a substantial violation of federal and state laws and regulations.
proficiency level: expert
text references: Engineer A is an environmental engineer.
text references: Engineer A performs wetland delineation services on the client's wetland site.
text references: The installation of the fill material is a substantial violation of the federal and state laws and regulations.
discovered in case: 86
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: facts
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T17:31:02.848953+00:00
first discovered in case: 86
match confidence: 0.75
match reasoning: Via class 'Wetland Regulatory Knowledge Capability': Domain Expertise covers professional domain-specific knowledge and competencies. Wetland regulatory knowledge is a specialized instance of domain expertise. The existing class is a reasonable parent match, but the wetland regulatory dimension is sufficiently specific and recurrent in environmental engineering ethics cases to warrant a distinct subclass capturing both the technical delineation competency and the regulatory compliance knowledge dimension.
matched ontology class: DomainExpertise
matched ontology label: Domain Expertise
matches existing: true
source text: Engineer A is an environmental engineer.
synthesis literal: capabilityClass
synthesis literal: capabilityStatement
synthesis literal: caseContext
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: demonstratedThrough
synthesis literal: proficiencyLevel
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineer A, as an environmental engineer who performed wetland delineation services, possessed expert knowledge of federal and state wetland regulations sufficient to assess that the observed fill activity was a substantial violation and to identify the appropriate reporting authorities.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T17:31:02.848953+00:00
was attributed to: Case 86 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 86 Extraction

Engineer A Wetland Remediation Monitoring
type: RemediationMonitoringCapability
type: NamedIndividual
possessed by: Engineer A
capability class: Remediation Monitoring Capability
capability statement: Engineer A possessed the capability to monitor the client's remedial actions following notification of the unpermitted wetland fill, to assess whether those actions were adequate and compliant with applicable federal and state wetland regulations, and to determine when the situation had been sufficiently remedied.
case context: After discovering the client's unpermitted fill of more than half an acre of wetlands following the conclusion of the wetland delineation engagement, Engineer A was required to contact the client, receive assurances of remediation, and then monitor follow-through before deciding whether regulatory escalation was necessary.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstrated through: The obligation to monitor the client's actual remedial steps after contacting the client about the wetland fill violation and receiving assurances of remediation, continuing until Engineer A was satisfied the situation was resolved.
proficiency level: intermediate
text references: If the client indicates that those steps will be taken, the engineer should monitor the situation until the engineer is sufficiently satisfied that the situation has been remedied.
text references: the engineer should advise that the all remedial actions should be in full compliance with all applicable environmental laws and regulations, which may include the review of a licensed engineer
discovered in case: 86
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: discussion
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T17:36:09.645175+00:00
first discovered in case: 86
match confidence: 0.0
matches existing: false
source text: If the client indicates that those steps will be taken, the engineer should monitor the situation until the engineer is sufficiently satisfied that the situation has been remedied.
synthesis literal: capabilityClass
synthesis literal: capabilityStatement
synthesis literal: caseContext
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: demonstratedThrough
synthesis literal: proficiencyLevel
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineer A possessed the capability to monitor the client's remedial actions following notification of the unpermitted wetland fill, to assess whether those actions were adequate and compliant with applicable federal and state wetland regulations, and to determine when the situation had been sufficiently remedied.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T17:36:09.645175+00:00
was attributed to: Case 86 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 86 Extraction

Engineer A completes wetland delineation services before Engineer A observes illegal fill material on client's property
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: A few months after Engineer A completes the services, he drives by his client's property and notices that the client has installed a substantial amount of fill material.
from entity: Wetland Delineation Completed
from entity text: Engineer A completes wetland delineation services
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: Engineer A observes illegal fill material on client's property
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 observes illegal fill material on clien
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 86 Extraction

Engineer A notices defective wall condition during inspection after Police Officer B fatal accident
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: after
evidence: While conducting the bridge inspection, and although not part of the scope of services for which he was retained, Engineer A noticed an apparent pre-existing defective condition in the wall close to where the accident involving Police Officer B occurred.
from entity: Structural Deficiency Identified
from entity text: Engineer A notices defective wall condition during inspection
owl time property: time:intervalAfter
to entity text: Police Officer B fatal accident
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 after Entity2
interval after: Police Officer B fatal accident
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 86 Extraction

NSPE Code of Ethics
type: ProfessionalCode
type: NamedIndividual
available to: Engineer A
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.95
created by: National Society of Professional Engineers
document title: NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers
resource class: Professional Code
text references: Engineer A is an environmental engineer
used by: Engineer A
used in context: Provides the primary normative framework for determining Engineer A's professional obligations upon observing the client's unpermitted wetland fill activity, including duties to hold public safety paramount and to report violations of law
version: Current
discovered in case: 86
discovered in pass: 1
discovered in section: facts
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T17:25:28.729274+00:00
first discovered in case: 86
match confidence: 0.95
match reasoning: Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Professional Code'
matched ontology class: ProfessionalCode
matched ontology label: Professional Code
matches existing: true
source text: Engineer A is an environmental engineer
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: createdBy
synthesis literal: documentTitle
synthesis literal: resourceClass
synthesis literal: textReferences
synthesis literal: usedInContext
synthesis literal: version
comment: Provides the primary normative framework for determining Engineer A's professional obligations upon observing the client's unpermitted wetland fill activity, including duties to hold public safety paramount and to report violations of law
generated at time: 2026-06-04T17:25:28.729274+00:00
was attributed to: Case 86 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 86 Extraction

Public Agency Bridge Client
type: PublicAgencyClient
type: NamedIndividual
actor: Public Agency
case involvement: Commissioned the bridge overhaul from VWX Architects and Engineers, received verbal notification of the defective wall condition through the consultant chain, and was identified as the party responsible for taking corrective action within a reasonable time.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.8
other attribute: organization_type: Government public agency
other attribute: project: Bridge scheduled overhaul
role category: provider_client
role class: Public Agency Client
text references: The public agency contacted VWX Architects and Engineers which then contacted Engineer A
text references: a public agency retained the services of VWX Architects and Engineers
text references: it was ethical for Engineer A not to report this information to any other public agency or authority as long as corrective action was taken by the public agency within a relatively short period of time
discovered in case: 86
discovered in pass: 1
discovered in section: discussion
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T17:26:36.428475+00:00
first discovered in case: 86
match confidence: 0.75
match reasoning: Via class 'Public Agency Client': Public Agency Client is a specialization of Client Role representing a government body commissioning infrastructure services. It is closely related to Municipal Client already extracted in prior cases but is referenced here in the context of bridge overhaul and is treated as the same general concept.
matched ontology class: ClientRole
matched ontology label: Client Role
matches existing: true
source text: a public agency retained the services of VWX Architects and Engineers
synthesis literal: caseInvolvement
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: roleCategory
synthesis literal: roleClass
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Commissioned the bridge overhaul from VWX Architects and Engineers, received verbal notification of the defective wall condition through the consultant chain, and was identified as the party responsible for taking corrective action within a reasonable time.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T17:26:36.428475+00:00
was attributed to: Case 86 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 86 Extraction

VWX Prime Consultant
type: PrimeConsultantEngineer
type: NamedIndividual
actor: VWX Architects and Engineers
case involvement: Retained by the public agency as the prime consultant for a bridge overhaul, sub-contracted Engineer A for inspection services, relayed safety-relevant observations from Engineer A to the public agency, and subsequently directed Engineer A not to include out-of-scope observations in the final report.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.82
other attribute: organization_type: Architecture and engineering firm
other attribute: responsibility: Overall project responsibility for bridge overhaul
role category: provider_client
role class: Prime Consultant Engineer
text references: VWX Architects and Engineers retained the services of Engineer A, a civil engineer, as its sub-consultant
text references: VWX Architects and Engineers which then contacted Engineer A and asked Engineer A not to include this additional information in his final report
text references: the prime consultant, which has overall responsibility for the project, was in a far better position than Engineer A
discovered in case: 86
discovered in pass: 1
discovered in section: discussion
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T17:26:36.428475+00:00
first discovered in case: 86
match confidence: 0.72
match reasoning: Via class 'Prime Consultant Engineer': Prime Consultant Engineer is a specialization of Consultant Role with added coordination and integration responsibilities over sub-consultants. It is not identical to the generic Consultant Role but maps to it as a parent.
matched ontology class: ConsultantRole
matched ontology label: Consultant Role
matches existing: true
source text: VWX Architects and Engineers retained the services of Engineer A, a civil engineer, as its sub-consultant
synthesis literal: caseInvolvement
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: roleCategory
synthesis literal: roleClass
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Retained by the public agency as the prime consultant for a bridge overhaul, sub-contracted Engineer A for inspection services, relayed safety-relevant observations from Engineer A to the public agency, and subsequently directed Engineer A not to include out-of-scope observations in the final report.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T17:26:36.428475+00:00
was attributed to: Case 86 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 86 Extraction

public agency contacts VWX and requests omission from final report after Engineer A verbally reports defective condition to client
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: after
evidence: The public agency contacted VWX Architects and Engineers which then contacted Engineer A and asked Engineer A not to include this additional information in his final report since it was not part of his scope of work.
from entity text: public agency contacts VWX and requests omission from final report
owl time property: time:intervalAfter
to entity: Bridge Inspection Deficiency Found
to entity text: Engineer A verbally reports defective condition to client
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 after Entity2
interval after: Bridge Inspection Deficiency Found
interval after: Engineer A verbally reports defective condition to
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 86 Extraction

Following client failure to take corrective action within a reasonable period
type: Instant

Prior case, BER Case No. 97-13, referenced in the Discussion
type: Instant

Immediately following discovery of the illegal fill
type: Instant

Following client acknowledgment of the violation and commitment to remediate
type: ProperInterval

Upon completion of the structural report in BER Case No. 89-7
type: Instant

End of BER Discussion and Conclusion section
type: Instant

Upon preparation of the final bridge inspection report in BER Case No. 97-13
type: Instant

Some months after Engineer A completed delineation services
type: ProperInterval

Discussion phase of the current BER case analysis
type: Instant

Initial engagement period, before the illegal fill was installed
type: ProperInterval

Following verbal report to client and receipt of instruction to exclude information from final report in BER Case No. 97-13
type: Instant

Prior case, BER Case No. 89-7, referenced in the Discussion
type: Instant

A few months after completion of delineation services
type: Instant

A few months after completion of wetland delineation services
type: Instant

Initial project period, before the illegal fill occurred
type: Instant

Precedent Case Referenced → Ethical Conclusion Reached
type: CausalChain
type: NamedIndividual
causal language: Turning to the facts in the present case, the Board can easily distinguish BER Case Nos. 89-7 and 97-13 from the present case.
causal step1: Precedent Case Referenced -- BER Cases 89-7 and 97-13 invoked for ethical principles
causal step2: Cases Distinguished -- Board distinguishes present clear violation from prior speculative facts
causal step3: Ethical Conclusion Reached -- Board concludes Engineer A must contact client, demand remediation, monitor, and report if needed
cause: Precedent Case Referenced
cause text: Precedent Case Referenced
counterfactual: Without distinguishing the precedents, the Board could not have reached its more decisive conclusion requiring direct action.
effect: Ethical Conclusion Reached
effect text: Ethical Conclusion Reached
necessary factors: Distinguishing the present case's clear legal violation from prior speculative facts
necessary factors: Invocation of BER Case Nos. 89-7 and 97-13 as precedent
necessary factors: The Board's analytical framework balancing client loyalty and public safety
responsibility type: direct
responsible agent text: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
sufficient factors: The Board distinguishing prior precedents and applying the public-safety-paramount principle to a clear legal violation
within agent control: true
discovered in section: discussion
synthesis literal: causalLanguage
synthesis literal: causalSequence
synthesis literal: counterfactual
synthesis literal: necessaryFactors
synthesis literal: responsibilityType
synthesis literal: sufficientFactors
synthesis literal: withinAgentControl
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 86 Extraction

Engineer A contacts client about wetland violation before Engineer A reports violation to appropriate authorities
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: Engineer A's actions appear to be obvious—contact the client and inquire directly about the actions the client has taken... If appropriate steps are not taken by the client, the engineer would have an obligation to bring this matter to the attention of the appropriate authorities.
from entity: Client Contact Decision
from entity text: Engineer A contacts client about wetland violation
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity: Authority Reporting Decision
to entity text: Engineer A reports violation to appropriate authorities
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: Authority Reporting Decision
interval before: Engineer A reports violation to appropriate author
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 86 Extraction

Engineer A monitors remediation compliance after client indicates remedial steps will be taken
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: after
evidence: If the client indicates that those steps will be taken, the engineer should monitor the situation until the engineer is sufficiently satisfied that the situation has been remedied.
from entity: Compliance Monitoring Decision
from entity text: Engineer A monitors remediation compliance
owl time property: time:intervalAfter
to entity: Client Contact Decision
to entity text: client indicates remedial steps will be taken
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 after Entity2
interval after: Client Contact Decision
interval after: client indicates remedial steps will be taken
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 86 Extraction

Engineer A monitors remediation compliance before Engineer A reports violation to appropriate authorities
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: If the client indicates that those steps will be taken, the engineer should monitor the situation until the engineer is sufficiently satisfied that the situation has been remedied... If appropriate steps are not taken by the client, the engineer would have an obligation to bring this matter to the attention of the appropriate authorities.
from entity: Compliance Monitoring Decision
from entity text: Engineer A monitors remediation compliance
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity: Authority Reporting Decision
to entity text: Engineer A reports violation to appropriate authorities
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: Authority Reporting Decision
interval before: Engineer A reports violation to appropriate author
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 86 Extraction

Engineer A verbally reports defective condition to client after Engineer A notices defective wall condition during inspection
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: after
evidence: Engineer A verbally reported this information to his client, who then verbally reported the information to the public agency.
from entity: Client Contact Decision
from entity text: Engineer A verbally reports defective condition to client
owl time property: time:intervalAfter
to entity: Structural Deficiency Identified
to entity text: Engineer A notices defective wall condition during inspection
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 after Entity2
interval after: Engineer A notices defective wall condition during
interval after: Structural Deficiency Identified
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 86 Extraction

Precedent Case Referenced
type: Event
type: NamedIndividual
causes state change: Ethical precedent from prior cases became part of the reasoning framework applied to Engineer A's situation.
concept category: Event
event type: automatic_trigger
initiates text: Analogous Obligation Context Established
initiates text: Precedent Framework Active
severity: medium
temporal extent: instant
temporal marker: Discussion phase of the current BER case analysis
temporal sequence: 14
synthesis literal: causesStateChange
synthesis literal: description
synthesis literal: eventType
synthesis literal: severity
synthesis literal: temporalExtent
synthesis literal: temporalMarker
synthesis literal: temporalSequence
comment: BER Case No. 89-7 and BER Case No. 97-13 were invoked in the Discussion section to supply ethical precedent for Engineer A's obligations, establishing that prior analogous cases support a duty to act on known violations.
has time: Discussion phase of the current BER case analysis
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 86 Extraction

client installs fill material without permits after Engineer A completes wetland delineation services
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: after
evidence: A few months after Engineer A completes the services, he drives by his client's property and notices that the client has installed a substantial amount of fill material on more than ½ an acre across a portion of the wetlands without any permits, variances, or permissions.
from entity: Illegal Wetland Fill
from entity text: client installs fill material without permits
owl time property: time:intervalAfter
to entity: Wetland Delineation Completed
to entity text: Engineer A completes wetland delineation services
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 after Entity2
interval after: Engineer A completes wetland delineation services
interval after: Wetland Delineation Completed
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 86 Extraction

Illegal Wetland Fill → Violation Observation Decision
type: CausalChain
type: NamedIndividual
causal language: The installation of the fill material is a substantial violation of the federal and state laws and regulations.
causal step1: Illegal Wetland Fill -- Client installs fill in violation of law
causal step2: Violation Observation Decision -- Engineer A observes and recognizes the unauthorized fill as a violation
cause: Illegal Wetland Fill
cause text: Illegal Wetland Fill
counterfactual: Without the illegal fill, there would be no violation for Engineer A to observe and evaluate.
effect: Violation Observation Decision
effect text: Violation Observation Decision
necessary factors: Client's unauthorized installation of fill material
necessary factors: Engineer A's awareness/observation of the condition
necessary factors: The fill constituting a substantial legal violation
responsibility type: direct
responsible agent: Engineer A
responsible agent text: Engineer A
sufficient factors: An observable legal violation on the client's property witnessed by Engineer A
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 86 Extraction

Professional Service Completion → Wetland Delineation Completed
type: CausalChain
type: NamedIndividual
causal language: Engineer A performs wetland delineation services on the client’s wetland site.
causal step1: Professional Service Completion -- Engineer A performs wetland delineation services on the client's site
causal step2: Wetland Delineation Completed -- Engineer A finishes the services, establishing a professional relationship and knowledge of the wetlands
cause: Professional Service Completion
cause text: Professional Service Completion
counterfactual: Without Engineer A performing the services, no professional relationship establishing his knowledge of the wetland boundaries would exist.
effect: Wetland Delineation Completed
effect text: Wetland Delineation Completed
necessary factors: Access to the client's wetland site
necessary factors: Client retention of Engineer A for wetland delineation
necessary factors: Engineer A's environmental engineering expertise
responsibility type: direct
responsible agent: Engineer A
responsible agent text: Engineer A
sufficient factors: Engineer A performing and completing the delineation services on the client's site
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 86 Extraction

Bridge Inspection Deficiency Found → Field Notes Retention Decision
type: CausalChain
type: NamedIndividual
causal language: Engineer A stated that he would retain the information from his engineering notes but not include it in the final report, as requested.
causal step1: Bridge Inspection Deficiency Found -- Engineer A notices apparent pre-existing defective wall condition
causal step2: Field Notes Retention Decision -- Engineer A retains information in notes but excludes it from final report
cause: Bridge Inspection Deficiency Found
cause text: Bridge Inspection Deficiency Found
counterfactual: Without finding the defect, there would be nothing to retain in the notes.
effect: Field Notes Retention Decision
effect text: Field Notes Retention Decision
necessary factors: Engineer A noticing the apparent pre-existing defective wall condition
necessary factors: Engineer A's commitment to never alter field notes
necessary factors: VWX's request to exclude the information from the final report
responsibility type: direct
responsible agent: Engineer A
responsible agent text: Engineer A (Case 97-13)
sufficient factors: Discovery of defect plus client request leading Engineer A to retain notes but exclude from report
within agent control: true
discovered in section: discussion
synthesis literal: causalLanguage
synthesis literal: causalSequence
synthesis literal: counterfactual
synthesis literal: necessaryFactors
synthesis literal: responsibilityType
synthesis literal: sufficientFactors
synthesis literal: withinAgentControl
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 86 Extraction

Client Contact Decision → Compliance Monitoring Decision
type: CausalChain
type: NamedIndividual
causal language: If the client indicates that those steps will be taken, the engineer should monitor the situation until the engineer is sufficiently satisfied that the situation has been remedied.
causal step1: Client Contact Decision -- Engineer A contacts client and points out violations
causal step2: Client agrees to remediate -- Client indicates remedial steps will be taken
causal step3: Compliance Monitoring Decision -- Engineer A monitors the situation until satisfied it is remedied
cause: Client Contact Decision
cause text: Client Contact Decision
counterfactual: Without contacting the client and obtaining agreement to remediate, there would be no remediation to monitor.
effect: Compliance Monitoring Decision
effect text: Compliance Monitoring Decision
necessary factors: Client indicating steps will be taken to remedy
necessary factors: Engineer A contacting the client
necessary factors: Engineer A's ongoing professional obligation to verify remediation
responsibility type: direct
responsible agent: Engineer A
responsible agent text: Engineer A
sufficient factors: Client agreement to remediate following Engineer A's contact, triggering the duty to monitor
within agent control: true
discovered in section: discussion
synthesis literal: causalLanguage
synthesis literal: causalSequence
synthesis literal: counterfactual
synthesis literal: necessaryFactors
synthesis literal: responsibilityType
synthesis literal: sufficientFactors
synthesis literal: withinAgentControl
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 86 Extraction

Illegal Wetland Fill → Violation Discovery
type: CausalChain
type: NamedIndividual
causal language: he drives by his client’s property and notices that the client has installed a substantial amount of fill material on more than ½ an acre across a portion of the wetlands without any permits, variances, or permissions
causal step1: Illegal Wetland Fill -- Client fills over half an acre of wetlands without permits
causal step2: Violation Discovery -- Engineer A, driving by, visually observes the illegal fill
cause: Illegal Wetland Fill
cause text: Illegal Wetland Fill
counterfactual: Without the client installing the fill, there would be nothing for Engineer A to discover; without Engineer A driving by, the discovery would not have occurred.
effect: Violation Discovery
effect text: Violation Discovery
necessary factors: Client's installation of fill material on the wetlands
necessary factors: Engineer A driving by the property
necessary factors: Visibility of the fill material from the road
responsibility type: shared
responsible agent: Client
responsible agent text: Client
sufficient factors: Engineer A driving by and visually observing the substantial fill material on the wetlands
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 86 Extraction

Client Contact Decision → Authority Reporting Decision
type: CausalChain
type: NamedIndividual
causal language: If appropriate steps are not taken by the client, the engineer would have an obligation to bring this matter to the attention of the appropriate authorities.
causal step1: Client Contact Decision -- Engineer A contacts client and demands remediation
causal step2: Client fails to remediate -- Client does not take appropriate corrective steps
causal step3: Authority Reporting Decision -- Engineer A reports the violation to appropriate authorities
cause: Client Contact Decision
cause text: Client Contact Decision
counterfactual: If the client took appropriate corrective steps, Engineer A would have no obligation to report to authorities.
effect: Authority Reporting Decision
effect text: Authority Reporting Decision
necessary factors: Client's failure to take appropriate corrective steps
necessary factors: Engineer A having contacted the client about the violation
necessary factors: Engineer A's paramount obligation to public health and safety
responsibility type: direct
responsible agent: Engineer A
responsible agent text: Engineer A
sufficient factors: Client's failure to remediate after being contacted, triggering Engineer A's duty to report to authorities
within agent control: true
discovered in section: discussion
synthesis literal: causalLanguage
synthesis literal: causalSequence
synthesis literal: counterfactual
synthesis literal: necessaryFactors
synthesis literal: responsibilityType
synthesis literal: sufficientFactors
synthesis literal: withinAgentControl
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 86 Extraction

Bridge Inspection Deficiency Found → Public Authority Non-Reporting Decision
type: CausalChain
type: NamedIndividual
causal language: Finally, the Board concluded that for Engineer A to have reported this information to a public authority under the circumstances as outlined in the facts, before determining whether corrective action is taken, would have been an overreaction and could easily have risked jeopardizing the professional reputations of his client and the public agency.
causal step1: Bridge Inspection Deficiency Found -- Engineer A notices defect via visual inspection
causal step2: Information reported to public agency via client -- Engineer A verbally reports to client who reports to public agency
causal step3: Public Authority Non-Reporting Decision -- Engineer A does not report to any other public authority pending corrective action
cause: Bridge Inspection Deficiency Found
cause text: Bridge Inspection Deficiency Found
counterfactual: Had the defect been confirmed by competent structural testing, reporting to public authorities might have been warranted.
effect: Public Authority Non-Reporting Decision
effect text: Public Authority Non-Reporting Decision
necessary factors: Engineer A's lack of structural engineering expertise
necessary factors: The deficiency being based on mere visual surmise and speculation
necessary factors: The information already being conveyed to the public agency through the client
responsibility type: shared
responsible agent: Engineer A
responsible agent text: Engineer A (Case 97-13)
sufficient factors: Speculative basis plus lack of expertise plus agency awareness leading to non-reporting to other authorities
within agent control: true
discovered in section: discussion
synthesis literal: causalLanguage
synthesis literal: causalSequence
synthesis literal: counterfactual
synthesis literal: necessaryFactors
synthesis literal: responsibilityType
synthesis literal: sufficientFactors
synthesis literal: withinAgentControl
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 86 Extraction

Violation Discovery → Client Contact Decision
type: CausalChain
type: NamedIndividual
causal language: Engineer A’s actions appear to be obvious—contact the client and inquire directly about the actions the client has taken and point out the violations of the law and that immediate steps need to be taken to remedy the violation.
causal step1: Violation Discovery -- Engineer A observes the illegal fill
causal step2: Client Contact Decision -- Engineer A contacts the client to inquire and point out the violations
cause: Violation Discovery
cause text: Violation Discovery
counterfactual: Without discovering the violation, Engineer A would have no basis to contact the client about it.
effect: Client Contact Decision
effect text: Client Contact Decision
necessary factors: Engineer A's discovery of the violation
necessary factors: Engineer A's environmental engineering expertise to recognize it
necessary factors: The clear and unambiguous nature of the legal violation
responsibility type: direct
responsible agent: Engineer A
responsible agent text: Engineer A
sufficient factors: Discovery of an obvious legal violation by a competent environmental engineer triggering the duty to contact the client
within agent control: true
discovered in section: discussion
synthesis literal: causalLanguage
synthesis literal: causalSequence
synthesis literal: counterfactual
synthesis literal: necessaryFactors
synthesis literal: responsibilityType
synthesis literal: sufficientFactors
synthesis literal: withinAgentControl
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 86 Extraction

Structural Deficiency Identified → Confidential Non-Disclosure Decision
type: CausalChain
type: NamedIndividual
causal language: However, in view of the terms of the agreement, Engineer A did not report the safety violations to any third party.
causal step1: Structural Deficiency Identified -- Engineer A learns of electrical/mechanical code deficiencies from client
causal step2: Confidential Non-Disclosure Decision -- Engineer A does not report violations to third parties given confidentiality terms
cause: Structural Deficiency Identified
cause text: Structural Deficiency Identified
counterfactual: Without the confidentiality agreement, Engineer A might have reported the deficiencies to third parties.
effect: Confidential Non-Disclosure Decision
effect text: Confidential Non-Disclosure Decision
necessary factors: Confidentiality terms of the client agreement
necessary factors: Engineer A's lack of expertise in electrical/mechanical engineering
necessary factors: Identification of electrical and mechanical deficiencies
responsibility type: direct
responsible agent: Engineer A
responsible agent text: Engineer A (Case 89-7)
sufficient factors: Confidentiality agreement combined with identified deficiencies leading Engineer A to withhold disclosure
within agent control: true
discovered in section: discussion
synthesis literal: causalLanguage
synthesis literal: causalSequence
synthesis literal: counterfactual
synthesis literal: necessaryFactors
synthesis literal: responsibilityType
synthesis literal: sufficientFactors
synthesis literal: withinAgentControl
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 86 Extraction

Engineer A Apartment Building Confidentiality Conflict
type: ConfidentialityPrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
invoked by: Engineer A
applied to: Client Wetland Fill Violator
balancing with: Public Welfare Paramountcy Principle
concept category: Principle
concrete expression: In BER Case 89-7, Engineer A's contractual confidentiality obligation to the client was invoked as a basis for not reporting electrical and mechanical code violations to public authorities, but the Board held that the public safety obligation overrode the confidentiality duty.
confidence: 0.85
interpretation: Confidentiality obligations to clients are genuine professional duties but are not absolute; they yield to public welfare obligations when the client's conduct poses a risk to persons who cannot protect themselves.
invoked by: Engineer A Wetland Delineation Engineer
principle class: Confidentiality Principle
tension resolution: The Board held in Case 89-7 that the public safety obligation overrode confidentiality, and the current case applies the same reasoning to environmental law violations.
text references: Engineers, in the performance of their professional services, act as 'agents' or 'trustees' to their clients. They are privy to a great deal of information and background concerning the business affairs of their client.
text references: The obligation of the engineer to be faithful to the client and not to disclose confidential information concerning the business affairs of a client without that client's consent, and the obligation of the engineer to hold paramount the public health and safety.
discovered in case: 86
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: discussion
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T17:32:47.556599+00:00
first discovered in case: 86
match confidence: 0.95
match reasoning: Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Confidentiality Principle'
matched ontology class: ConfidentialityPrinciple
matched ontology label: Confidentiality Principle
matches existing: true
source text: The obligation of the engineer to be faithful to the client and not to disclose confidential information concerning the business affairs of a client without that client's consent, and the obligation of the engineer to hold paramount the public health and safety.
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: In BER Case 89-7, Engineer A's contractual confidentiality obligation to the client was invoked as a basis for not reporting electrical and mechanical code violations to public authorities, but the Board held that the public safety obligation overrode the confidentiality duty.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T17:32:47.556599+00:00
was attributed to: Case 86 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 86 Extraction

Engineer A Bridge Competence Recognition
type: CompetenceRecognitionPrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
invoked by: Engineer A
applied to: Bridge inspection final report
applied to: Defective bridge wall condition
balancing with: Complete Reporting Principle
balancing with: Public Welfare Paramountcy Principle
concept category: Principle
concrete expression: The Board's reasoning that Engineer A should not include structural observations in a formal report rested in part on the absence of any indication that Engineer A had expertise in structural engineering, illustrating that recognition of competence limits shapes the appropriate scope of professional assertions.
confidence: 0.87
interpretation: An engineer who observes a condition outside their area of competence should communicate the observation informally and defer formal analysis to a competent party, rather than either ignoring the observation or making formal assertions beyond their expertise.
invoked by: Engineer A Structural Inspection Sub-Consultant
principle class: Competence Recognition Principle
tension resolution: Competence limits justified scope-limited formal reporting while the obligation to communicate the observation was preserved through verbal reporting and field notes.
text references: the facts did not indicate that Engineer A had expertise in structural engineering.
text references: the prime consultant, which has overall responsibility for the project, was in a far better position than Engineer A to understand the interrelationships between various elements of the projects
text references: to place this information in a final report would not be responsible and could unnecessarily inflame the situation.
discovered in case: 86
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: discussion
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T17:32:47.556599+00:00
first discovered in case: 86
match confidence: 0.95
match reasoning: Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Competence Recognition Principle'
matched ontology class: CompetenceRecognitionPrinciple
matched ontology label: Competence Recognition Principle
matches existing: true
source text: the facts did not indicate that Engineer A had expertise in structural engineering.
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 Board's reasoning that Engineer A should not include structural observations in a formal report rested in part on the absence of any indication that Engineer A had expertise in structural engineering, illustrating that recognition of competence limits shapes the appropriate scope of professional assertions.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T17:32:47.556599+00:00
was attributed to: Case 86 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 86 Extraction

Engineer A Bridge Graduated Response
type: GraduatedResponseProportionalityPrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
invoked by: Engineer A
applied to: Defective bridge wall condition
applied to: Public Agency Bridge Client
applied to: VWX Prime Consultant
balancing with: Proactive Risk Disclosure Principle
balancing with: Public Welfare Paramountcy Principle
concept category: Principle
concrete expression: In the bridge inspection case, Engineer A appropriately refrained from including speculative structural observations in a formal report and from reporting to public authorities before the prime consultant and public agency had opportunity to take corrective action, because the basis for concern was visual surmise rather than established fact.
confidence: 0.88
interpretation: When an engineer's concern is based on speculation rather than expert analysis, a graduated response beginning with verbal notification to the client is appropriate, and immediate escalation to public authorities would be disproportionate.
invoked by: Engineer A Structural Inspection Sub-Consultant
principle class: Graduated Response Proportionality Principle
tension resolution: The Board held that verbal reporting to the client, combined with an obligation to follow through on corrective action, appropriately balanced public welfare against the risk of jeopardizing professional reputations on the basis of unverified speculation.
text references: Engineer A had an obligation to follow through to see that correct follow-up action was taken by the public agency.
text references: Engineer A's observation appeared to be based upon a visual inspection without anything more, the facts did not indicate that Engineer A had expertise in structural engineering.
text references: for Engineer A to have reported this information to a public authority under the circumstances as outlined in the facts, before determining whether corrective action is taken, would have been an overreaction and could easily have risked jeopardizing the professional reputations of his client and the public agency.
discovered in case: 86
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: discussion
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T17:32:47.556599+00:00
first discovered in case: 86
match confidence: 0.0
matches existing: false
source text: for Engineer A to have reported this information to a public authority under the circumstances as outlined in the facts, before determining whether corrective action is taken, would have been an overreaction and could easily have risked jeopardizing the professional reputations of his client and the public agency.
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: In the bridge inspection case, Engineer A appropriately refrained from including speculative structural observations in a formal report and from reporting to public authorities before the prime consultant and public agency had opportunity to take corrective action, because the basis for concern was visual surmise rather than established fact.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T17:32:47.556599+00:00
was attributed to: Case 86 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 86 Extraction

Engineer A Post-Engagement Reporting Constraint
type: Post-EngagementDisclosureConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
constrained entity: Engineer A
case context: Engineer A completed wetland delineation services for a client. Several months after completion, Engineer A independently observes while driving past the property that the client has placed more than half an acre of unpermitted fill on the wetland site in violation of federal and state law. The engagement is over, but the violation is ongoing and confirmed.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.88
constraint class: Post-Engagement Disclosure Constraint
constraint statement: Engineer A is constrained to report the observed unpermitted wetland fill to the appropriate federal and state regulatory authorities despite the fact that the wetland delineation engagement has concluded and no active professional relationship with the client exists at the time of the observation.
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics, Section I.1 (paramount duty to public safety, health, and welfare); applicable federal and state environmental statutes
temporal scope: From the moment Engineer A observes the unpermitted fill and confirms it constitutes a violation of federal and state law
text references: A few months after Engineer A completes the services, he drives by his client's property and notices that the client has installed a substantial amount of fill material on more than 1/2 an acre across a portion of the wetlands without any permits, variances, or permissions.
text references: The installation of the fill material is a substantial violation of the federal and state laws and regulations.
discovered in case: 86
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: facts
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T17:30:49.666256+00:00
first discovered in case: 86
match confidence: 0.0
matches existing: false
source text: A few months after Engineer A completes the services, he drives by his client's property and notices that the client has installed a substantial amount of fill material on more than 1/2 an acre across a portion of the wetlands without any permits, variances, or permissions.
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 is constrained to report the observed unpermitted wetland fill to the appropriate federal and state regulatory authorities despite the fact that the wetland delineation engagement has concluded and no active professional relationship with the client exists at the time of the observation.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T17:30:49.666256+00:00
was attributed to: Case 86 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 86 Extraction

Public Agency
type: Agent
type: NamedIndividual
has role: Public Agency Bridge Client

Engineer A Wetland Expertise Calibrated Disclosure
type: Expertise-CalibratedDisclosureObligation
type: NamedIndividual
obligated party: Engineer A
case context: Engineer A's specialized knowledge of wetland regulations distinguished the wetland fill case from the bridge wall and apartment building cases, where the engineers lacked expertise in the relevant disciplines and were therefore entitled to take a more measured approach.
compliance status: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.84
derived from principle: Engineer A Wetland Fact-Based Disclosure
obligation class: Expertise-Calibrated Disclosure Obligation
obligation statement: Because Engineer A had domain expertise in wetland delineation and environmental law, Engineer A was obligated to disclose the observed wetland fill violation with directness and specificity, rather than the more cautious approach appropriate for engineers lacking expertise in the relevant discipline.
temporal scope: Upon discovery of the unpermitted fill, given Engineer A's domain expertise
text references: In addition, the engineer in BER Case No. 89-7 did not have any particular expertise in the technical areas (mechanical, electrical) involved in the matter at issue.
text references: In contrast, the facts in the present case indicate a violation of the federal and state laws and regulations.
text references: Those two cases involved a different set of factors that created a reasonable basis for an engineer to take a more measured approach to the situation.
discovered in case: 86
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: discussion
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T17:34:19.889581+00:00
first discovered in case: 86
match confidence: 0.75
match reasoning: Via class 'Expertise-Calibrated Disclosure Obligation': This obligation overlaps substantially with the Concern Versus Fact Disclosure Threshold Obligation, which addresses the distinction between preliminary concerns and established facts as the trigger for mandatory disclosure. The expertise-calibration dimension adds a further nuance not fully captured by that class, but the core concept of calibrating disclosure to the evidentiary and competence basis is closely related, warranting a medium-confidence match.
matched ontology class: ConcernVersusFactDisclosureThresholdObligation
matched ontology label: Concern Versus Fact Disclosure Threshold Obligation
matches existing: true
source text: In contrast, the facts in the present case indicate a violation of the federal and state laws and regulations.
synthesis literal: caseContext
synthesis literal: complianceStatus
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: obligationClass
synthesis literal: obligationStatement
synthesis literal: temporalScope
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Because Engineer A had domain expertise in wetland delineation and environmental law, Engineer A was obligated to disclose the observed wetland fill violation with directness and specificity, rather than the more cautious approach appropriate for engineers lacking expertise in the relevant discipline.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T17:34:19.889581+00:00
was attributed to: Case 86 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 86 Extraction

Ethical Conclusion Reached
type: Event
type: NamedIndividual
initiates: Engineer A Present Case Remediation Monitoring
terminates: Engineer A Faithful Agent Duty Conflict
causes state change: The ethical framework for Engineer A's required conduct was formally established, specifying a sequential set of required responses to the known violation.
concept category: Event
event type: automatic_trigger
initiates text: Authority Reporting Contingency Active
initiates text: Compliance Monitoring Required
initiates text: Formal Ethical Duty Established
initiates text: Remediation Demand Required
severity: high
temporal extent: instant
temporal marker: End of BER Discussion and Conclusion section
temporal sequence: 15
terminates text: Ethical Ambiguity About Required Response
synthesis literal: causesStateChange
synthesis literal: description
synthesis literal: eventType
synthesis literal: severity
synthesis literal: temporalExtent
synthesis literal: temporalMarker
synthesis literal: temporalSequence
comment: The BER analysis concluded that Engineer A must contact the client, demand remediation, monitor compliance, and report to authorities if the client fails to act, establishing a binding ethical outcome for the case.
has time: End of BER Discussion and Conclusion section
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 86 Extraction

VWX Architects and Engineers
type: Agent
type: NamedIndividual
has client: Public Agency
has role: VWX Prime Consultant

Engineer A Environmental Law Compliance
type: EnvironmentalLawCompliancePrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
invoked by: Engineer A
applied to: Client Wetland Fill Violator
applied to: unpermitted wetland fill exceeding half an acre
balancing with: Client Data Confidentiality Principle
balancing with: Faithful Agent Duty Principle
concept category: Principle
concrete expression: Engineer A, as an environmental engineer with specialized knowledge of wetland regulations, recognizes that the observed fill constitutes a substantial violation of federal and state wetland laws and must determine what action that recognition requires.
confidence: 0.85
interpretation: An environmental engineer's domain expertise in wetland delineation creates a heightened capacity to recognize illegal fill activity. That specialized knowledge, combined with the substantial and ongoing nature of the violation, triggers domain-specific obligations that go beyond those of a layperson who might observe the same scene.
invoked by: Engineer A Wetland Delineation Engineer
principle class: Environmental Law Compliance Principle
tension resolution: The domain-specific obligation to act on knowledge of substantial environmental law violations is not overridden by the prior service relationship, because the violation was not disclosed to the engineer by the client in confidence but was instead observed independently in the field after the engagement concluded.
text references: Engineer A is an environmental engineer
text references: Engineer A performs wetland delineation services on the client's wetland site
text references: The installation of the fill material is a substantial violation of the federal and state laws and regulations
text references: the client has installed a substantial amount of fill material on more than 1/2 an acre across a portion of the wetlands without any permits, variances, or permissions
discovered in case: 86
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: facts
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T17:28:58.159954+00:00
first discovered in case: 86
match confidence: 0.0
matches existing: false
source text: Engineer A is an environmental engineer. Engineer A performs wetland delineation services on the client's wetland site.
synthesis literal: appliedTo
synthesis literal: balancingWith
synthesis literal: concreteExpression
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: interpretation
synthesis literal: principleClass
synthesis literal: tensionResolution
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineer A, as an environmental engineer with specialized knowledge of wetland regulations, recognizes that the observed fill constitutes a substantial violation of federal and state wetland laws and must determine what action that recognition requires.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T17:28:58.159954+00:00
was attributed to: Case 86 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 86 Extraction

Engineer A Fact-Based Disclosure Threshold
type: Fact-BasedDisclosureThresholdPrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
invoked by: Engineer A
applied to: Client Wetland Fill Violator
applied to: unpermitted fill on delineated wetland
balancing with: Confidentiality Principle
balancing with: Faithful Agent Duty Principle
concept category: Principle
concrete expression: Engineer A directly observes the unpermitted fill on the wetland site, placing the violation at the level of established fact rather than suspicion or preliminary concern. This observation by a qualified environmental engineer who performed the original delineation crosses the threshold at which disclosure becomes a professional obligation rather than a discretionary act.
confidence: 0.87
interpretation: The engineer who performed the original delineation is uniquely positioned to confirm that the fill has been placed on wetland areas and that no permits were obtained. This direct, expert observation constitutes established technical fact, not mere suspicion, and triggers the disclosure obligation.
invoked by: Engineer A Public Responsibility
principle class: Fact-Based Disclosure Threshold Principle
tension resolution: Because the violation is an observed fact rather than a preliminary concern, the disclosure obligation is affirmative rather than discretionary. The engineer's specialized knowledge and direct observation remove any ambiguity about whether the threshold has been crossed.
text references: The installation of the fill material is a substantial violation of the federal and state laws and regulations
text references: he drives by his client's property and notices that the client has installed a substantial amount of fill material on more than 1/2 an acre across a portion of the wetlands without any permits, variances, or permissions
discovered in case: 86
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: facts
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T17:28:58.159954+00:00
first discovered in case: 86
match confidence: 0.95
match reasoning: Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Fact-Based Disclosure Threshold Principle'
matched ontology class: Fact-BasedDisclosureThresholdPrinciple
matched ontology label: Fact-Based Disclosure Threshold Principle
matches existing: true
source text: A few months after Engineer A completes the services, he drives by his client's property and notices that the client has installed a substantial amount of fill material on more than 1/2 an acre across a portion of the wetlands without any permits, variances, or permissions.
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 directly observes the unpermitted fill on the wetland site, placing the violation at the level of established fact rather than suspicion or preliminary concern. This observation by a qualified environmental engineer who performed the original delineation crosses the threshold at which disclosure becomes a professional obligation rather than a discretionary act.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T17:28:58.159954+00:00
was attributed to: Case 86 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 86 Extraction

Engineer A Post-Engagement Disclosure Duty
type: Post-EngagementClientConductDisclosurePrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
invoked by: Engineer A
applied to: Client Wetland Fill Violator
applied to: unpermitted fill discovered months after engagement conclusion
balancing with: Faithful Agent Duty Principle
balancing with: Whistleblower Conscience Principle
concept category: Principle
concrete expression: Engineer A's professional obligations to the public do not terminate upon completion of the wetland delineation engagement. The discovery of the unpermitted fill months after service completion raises the question of whether those obligations require reporting to regulatory authorities despite the absence of an active client relationship.
confidence: 0.8
interpretation: The temporal gap between the conclusion of services and the discovery of the violation does not extinguish the engineer's professional responsibility. The violation is substantial, ongoing, and involves resources protected by federal and state law, which are precisely the conditions under which post-engagement disclosure obligations arise.
invoked by: Engineer A Public Responsibility
principle class: Post-Engagement Client Conduct Disclosure Principle
tension resolution: Because the violation is substantial and ongoing rather than a completed past act, and because it involves federally and state-protected resources rather than purely private interests, the post-engagement disclosure obligation is more likely to be characterized as a duty than as a matter of personal conscience.
text references: A few months after Engineer A completes the services, he drives by his client's property and notices that the client has installed a substantial amount of fill material
text references: The installation of the fill material is a substantial violation of the federal and state laws and regulations
discovered in case: 86
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: facts
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T17:28:58.159954+00:00
first discovered in case: 86
match confidence: 0.0
matches existing: false
source text: A few months after Engineer A completes the services, he drives by his client's property and notices that the client has installed a substantial amount of fill material on more than 1/2 an acre across a portion of the wetlands without any permits, variances, or permissions.
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 professional obligations to the public do not terminate upon completion of the wetland delineation engagement. The discovery of the unpermitted fill months after service completion raises the question of whether those obligations require reporting to regulatory authorities despite the absence of an active client relationship.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T17:28:58.159954+00:00
was attributed to: Case 86 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 86 Extraction

Engineer A Post-Engagement Wetland Disclosure
type: Post-EngagementClientConductDisclosurePrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
invoked by: Engineer A
applied to: Client Wetland Fill Violator
applied to: Regulatory authorities with jurisdiction over wetland violations
balancing with: Client Data Confidentiality Principle
balancing with: Faithful Agent Duty Principle
concept category: Principle
concrete expression: Engineer A's disclosure and reporting obligations to regulatory authorities are not extinguished by the conclusion of the wetland delineation engagement, and the client's ongoing unpermitted fill violation may require Engineer A to report to appropriate authorities if the client does not remediate.
confidence: 0.92
interpretation: The engineer discovered the violation after the contracted services had concluded, yet the public welfare obligation persists because the harm to public environmental resources is ongoing.
invoked by: Engineer A Public Responsibility
principle class: Post-Engagement Client Conduct Disclosure Principle
tension resolution: The ongoing nature of the violation and its harm to public resources triggers the post-engagement disclosure obligation, which overrides residual confidentiality duties.
text references: If appropriate steps are not taken by the client, the engineer would have an obligation to bring this matter to the attention of the appropriate authorities.
text references: the engineer should monitor the situation until the engineer is sufficiently satisfied that the situation has been remedied.
discovered in case: 86
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: discussion
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T17:32:47.556599+00:00
first discovered in case: 86
match confidence: 0.0
matches existing: false
source text: If appropriate steps are not taken by the client, the engineer would have an obligation to bring this matter to the attention of the appropriate authorities.
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 disclosure and reporting obligations to regulatory authorities are not extinguished by the conclusion of the wetland delineation engagement, and the client's ongoing unpermitted fill violation may require Engineer A to report to appropriate authorities if the client does not remediate.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T17:32:47.556599+00:00
was attributed to: Case 86 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 86 Extraction

Engineer A Wetland Client Conduct Monitoring
type: ClientConductMonitoringPrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
invoked by: Engineer A
applied to: Client Wetland Fill Violator
applied to: Wetland fill remediation process
balancing with: Faithful Agent Duty Principle
concept category: Principle
concrete expression: After contacting the client about the wetland fill violation and receiving assurances of remediation, Engineer A must monitor the client's actual remedial actions until Engineer A is sufficiently satisfied that the violation has been corrected in full compliance with applicable environmental laws.
confidence: 0.9
interpretation: A client's promise to remediate is not a discharge of the engineer's public welfare obligation; the engineer must verify actual compliance before treating the matter as resolved.
invoked by: Engineer A Public Responsibility
principle class: Client Conduct Monitoring Principle
tension resolution: The monitoring obligation is framed as a continuation of the public welfare duty, not as an adversarial posture toward the client, and is discharged once actual compliance is verified.
text references: If the client indicates that those steps will be taken, the engineer should monitor the situation until the engineer is sufficiently satisfied that the situation has been remedied.
text references: the engineer should advise that the all remedial actions should be in full compliance with all applicable environmental laws and regulations, which may include the review of a licensed engineer.
discovered in case: 86
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: discussion
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T17:32:47.556599+00:00
first discovered in case: 86
match confidence: 0.0
matches existing: false
source text: If the client indicates that those steps will be taken, the engineer should monitor the situation until the engineer is sufficiently satisfied that the situation has been remedied.
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: After contacting the client about the wetland fill violation and receiving assurances of remediation, Engineer A must monitor the client's actual remedial actions until Engineer A is sufficiently satisfied that the violation has been corrected in full compliance with applicable environmental laws.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T17:32:47.556599+00:00
was attributed to: Case 86 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 86 Extraction

Engineer A Wetland Confidentiality Limits
type: ConfidentialityLimitsPublicLawObligation
type: NamedIndividual
obligated party: Engineer A
prevails over: Engineer A Faithful Agent Limits Wetland
case context: Engineer A held information about the client's wetland site from the prior engagement. The Board distinguished this case from BER Case 89-7 in part because the present violation was a matter of established fact and implicated federal and state law.
compliance status: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.89
derived from principle: Engineer A Client Confidentiality Limits
obligation class: Confidentiality Limits Public Law Obligation
obligation statement: Engineer A's confidentiality obligations arising from the wetland delineation engagement did not extend to concealing the client's substantial violations of federal and state wetland laws, and the duty to report those violations to appropriate authorities overrode any residual confidentiality interest.
temporal scope: Upon discovery of the unpermitted fill and throughout any subsequent reporting process
text references: If appropriate steps are not taken by the client, the engineer would have an obligation to bring this matter to the attention of the appropriate authorities.
text references: The Board can easily distinguish BER Case Nos. 89-7 and 97-13 from the present case.
discovered in case: 86
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: discussion
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T17:34:19.889581+00:00
first discovered in case: 86
match confidence: 0.0
matches existing: false
source text: The Board can easily distinguish BER Case Nos. 89-7 and 97-13 from the present case.
synthesis literal: caseContext
synthesis literal: complianceStatus
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: obligationClass
synthesis literal: obligationStatement
synthesis literal: temporalScope
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineer A's confidentiality obligations arising from the wetland delineation engagement did not extend to concealing the client's substantial violations of federal and state wetland laws, and the duty to report those violations to appropriate authorities overrode any residual confidentiality interest.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T17:34:19.889581+00:00
was attributed to: Case 86 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 86 Extraction

Engineer A Wetland Environmental Law Compliance
type: EnvironmentalLawCompliancePrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
invoked by: Engineer A
applied to: Client Wetland Fill Violator
applied to: Unpermitted wetland fill on delineated site
balancing with: Faithful Agent Duty Principle
concept category: Principle
concrete expression: Engineer A, having performed wetland delineation services and then discovered the client's unpermitted fill of more than half an acre of wetland, is required to recognize that the client's conduct constitutes a substantial violation of federal and state environmental laws and to take appropriate action.
confidence: 0.95
interpretation: The engineer's domain expertise in wetland delineation makes the legal significance of the fill immediately apparent, removing any basis for the measured caution appropriate when an engineer lacks expertise in the relevant technical area.
invoked by: Engineer A Wetland Delineation Engineer
principle class: Environmental Law Compliance Principle
tension resolution: Because the violation is clear and the engineer is competent in the relevant domain, the environmental law compliance obligation is unambiguous and requires affirmative action.
text references: Engineer A's actions appear to be obvious--contact the client and inquire directly about the actions the client has taken and point out the violations of the law and that immediate steps need to be taken to remedy the violation.
text references: the engineer should advise that the all remedial actions should be in full compliance with all applicable environmental laws and regulations, which may include the review of a licensed engineer.
text references: the facts in the present case indicate a violation of the federal and state laws and regulations.
discovered in case: 86
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: discussion
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T17:32:47.556599+00:00
first discovered in case: 86
match confidence: 0.0
matches existing: false
source text: the facts in the present case indicate a violation of the federal and state laws and regulations.
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, having performed wetland delineation services and then discovered the client's unpermitted fill of more than half an acre of wetland, is required to recognize that the client's conduct constitutes a substantial violation of federal and state environmental laws and to take appropriate action.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T17:32:47.556599+00:00
was attributed to: Case 86 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 86 Extraction

Engineer A Environmental Compliance Reporting
type: EnvironmentalComplianceReportingObligation
type: NamedIndividual
obligated party: Engineer A
case context: Engineer A is an environmental engineer who performed wetland delineation services and therefore possesses specialized knowledge of the regulatory framework governing wetland fill, enabling recognition that the observed fill constitutes a substantial violation of federal and state law.
compliance status: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.86
derived from principle: Engineer A Environmental Law Compliance
obligation class: Environmental Compliance Reporting Obligation
obligation statement: Engineer A, as an environmental engineer with specialized knowledge of wetland regulations, is obligated to report the observed unpermitted fill to the appropriate federal and state environmental authority, applying that specialized knowledge to recognize the legal significance and severity of the violation.
temporal scope: Upon observation of the unpermitted fill, drawing on specialized environmental engineering knowledge to assess the legal significance of the conduct.
text references: Engineer A is an environmental engineer.
text references: The installation of the fill material is a substantial violation of the federal and state laws and regulations.
text references: he drives by his client's property and notices that the client has installed a substantial amount of fill material on more than 1/2 an acre across a portion of the wetlands without any permits, variances, or permissions.
discovered in case: 86
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: facts
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T17:30:01.042237+00:00
first discovered in case: 86
match confidence: 0.8
match reasoning: Via class 'Environmental Compliance Reporting Obligation': The existing Post-Termination Environmental Risk Reporting Obligation is the closest match, covering the duty to report environmental risks to a pollution-control authority after termination of the client relationship. This class adds the dimension of specialized environmental engineering knowledge as the basis for recognizing and reporting the violation, but the core reporting duty is the same. Treated as a variant of the existing class.
matched ontology class: PostTerminationEnvironmentalRiskReportingObligation
matched ontology label: Post-Termination Environmental Risk Reporting Obligation
matches existing: true
source text: Engineer A is an environmental engineer.
synthesis literal: caseContext
synthesis literal: complianceStatus
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: obligationClass
synthesis literal: obligationStatement
synthesis literal: temporalScope
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineer A, as an environmental engineer with specialized knowledge of wetland regulations, is obligated to report the observed unpermitted fill to the appropriate federal and state environmental authority, applying that specialized knowledge to recognize the legal significance and severity of the violation.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T17:30:01.042237+00:00
was attributed to: Case 86 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 86 Extraction

Engineer A Wetland Environmental Compliance Reporting
type: EnvironmentalComplianceReportingObligation
type: NamedIndividual
obligated party: Engineer A
case context: Engineer A's specialized environmental engineering expertise made the observed fill a matter of established professional judgment rather than speculation, and that expertise supported a direct and specific reporting obligation.
compliance status: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.91
derived from principle: Engineer A Wetland Environmental Law Compliance
obligation class: Environmental Compliance Reporting Obligation
obligation statement: Engineer A, drawing on specialized knowledge of wetland regulations, was obligated to report the client's substantial violation of federal and state environmental laws to the appropriate regulatory authority if the client failed to take adequate remedial steps.
temporal scope: Upon determination that the client had not remediated the violation within a reasonable period
text references: Engineer A, as an environmental engineer with specialized knowledge of wetland regulations, recognizes that the observed fill constitutes a substantial violation.
text references: If appropriate steps are not taken by the client, the engineer would have an obligation to bring this matter to the attention of the appropriate authorities.
discovered in case: 86
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: discussion
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T17:34:19.889581+00:00
first discovered in case: 86
match confidence: 0.0
matches existing: false
source text: If appropriate steps are not taken by the client, the engineer would have an obligation to bring this matter to the attention of the appropriate authorities.
synthesis literal: caseContext
synthesis literal: complianceStatus
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: obligationClass
synthesis literal: obligationStatement
synthesis literal: temporalScope
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineer A, drawing on specialized knowledge of wetland regulations, was obligated to report the client's substantial violation of federal and state environmental laws to the appropriate regulatory authority if the client failed to take adequate remedial steps.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T17:34:19.889581+00:00
was attributed to: Case 86 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 86 Extraction

Engineer A Bridge Field Notes Preservation
type: FieldNotesPreservationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer A Bridge Speculative Finding Exclusion
obligated party: Engineer A
case context: During bridge inspection services limited to pavement damage, Engineer A observed an apparent pre-existing defective wall condition. The client asked Engineer A not to include this in the final report. Engineer A agreed to retain the information in notes only.
compliance status: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.87
derived from principle: Engineer A Bridge Faithful Agent Limits
obligation class: Field Notes Preservation Obligation
obligation statement: Engineer A was obligated to retain the observations about the defective bridge wall condition in engineering notes without alteration, even after agreeing not to include that information in the final written report.
temporal scope: From the time of observation through the conclusion of the engagement and beyond
text references: Engineer A stated that he would retain the information from his engineering notes but not include it in the final report, as requested.
text references: However, under no circumstance would it be appropriate for Engineer A to alter his field notes.
discovered in case: 86
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: discussion
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T17:34:19.889581+00:00
first discovered in case: 86
match confidence: 0.0
matches existing: false
source text: However, under no circumstance would it be appropriate for Engineer A to alter his field notes.
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 retain the observations about the defective bridge wall condition in engineering notes without alteration, even after agreeing not to include that information in the final written report.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T17:34:19.889581+00:00
was attributed to: Case 86 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 86 Extraction

Engineer A Bridge Scope Limitation Disclosure
type: ScopeLimitationDisclosurePrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
invoked by: Engineer A
applied to: Bridge inspection final report
applied to: VWX Prime Consultant
balancing with: Complete Reporting Principle
balancing with: Public Welfare Paramountcy Principle
concept category: Principle
concrete expression: Engineer A's scope of work was limited to pavement damage, and the Board held it was appropriate not to include speculative structural observations outside that scope in the formal report, while still documenting the observation in field notes for possible future reference.
confidence: 0.88
interpretation: Scope limitations can justify excluding observations from a formal report when those observations are speculative and outside the engineer's retained expertise, provided the information is preserved in field notes and communicated verbally to the appropriate party.
invoked by: Engineer A Structural Inspection Sub-Consultant
principle class: Scope Limitation Disclosure Principle
tension resolution: The Board accepted scope-limited formal reporting because the observation was speculative and the prime consultant was better positioned to evaluate it, but required field note preservation and verbal communication to ensure the information was not lost.
text references: Engineer A stated that he would retain the information from his engineering notes but not include it in the final report, as requested.
text references: Engineer A's scope of work was solely to identify any pavement damage on the bridge and report the damage to VWX for further review and repair.
text references: it would have been improper for Engineer A to include reference to the information in his final report, particularly since it would have been based upon mere speculation and not careful testing or evaluation by a competent individual or firm.
discovered in case: 86
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: discussion
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T17:32:47.556599+00:00
first discovered in case: 86
match confidence: 0.95
match reasoning: Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Scope Limitation Disclosure Principle'
matched ontology class: ScopeLimitationDisclosurePrinciple
matched ontology label: Scope Limitation Disclosure Principle
matches existing: true
source text: it would have been improper for Engineer A to include reference to the information in his final report, particularly since it would have been based upon mere speculation and not careful testing or evaluation by a competent individual or firm.
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 scope of work was limited to pavement damage, and the Board held it was appropriate not to include speculative structural observations outside that scope in the formal report, while still documenting the observation in field notes for possible future reference.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T17:32:47.556599+00:00
was attributed to: Case 86 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 86 Extraction

Engineer A Bridge Speculative Finding Exclusion
type: SpeculativeFindingExclusionObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer A Bridge Field Notes Preservation
obligated party: Engineer A
case context: Engineer A observed an apparent pre-existing defective wall condition during a bridge inspection scoped only to pavement damage. The observation was speculative and outside Engineer A's demonstrated area of expertise.
compliance status: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.86
derived from principle: Engineer A Bridge Scope Limitation Disclosure
obligation class: Speculative Finding Exclusion Obligation
obligation statement: Engineer A was obligated to exclude from the final written bridge inspection report the observation about the defective wall condition, because that observation was based solely on visual inspection without supporting analysis and Engineer A lacked structural engineering expertise.
temporal scope: At the time of preparing and submitting the final written inspection report
text references: Under the circumstances, the Board concluded that it would have been improper for Engineer A to include reference to the information in his final report, particularly since it would have been based upon mere speculation and not careful testing or evaluation by a competent individual or firm.
text references: While it might have been appropriate for Engineer A to note such information in his field notes, to place this information in a final report would not be responsible and could unnecessarily inflame the situation.
discovered in case: 86
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: discussion
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T17:34:19.889581+00:00
first discovered in case: 86
match confidence: 0.72
match reasoning: Via class 'Speculative Finding Exclusion Obligation': This is a partial inverse of Complete Technical Reporting Obligation: where that class requires inclusion of all relevant findings, this class addresses the competing duty to exclude findings that are not professionally substantiated. It is a variant that qualifies the completeness duty by competence limits, warranting a medium-confidence match to the parent concept rather than a new independent class, but the specific exclusion framing is not captured by any existing class.
matched ontology class: CompleteTechnicalReportingObligation
matched ontology label: Complete Technical Reporting Obligation
matches existing: true
source text: While it might have been appropriate for Engineer A to note such information in his field notes, to place this information in a final report would not be responsible and could unnecessarily inflame the situation.
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 exclude from the final written bridge inspection report the observation about the defective wall condition, because that observation was based solely on visual inspection without supporting analysis and Engineer A lacked structural engineering expertise.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T17:34:19.889581+00:00
was attributed to: Case 86 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 86 Extraction

Engineer A Structural Inspection Sub-Consultant
type: StructuralInspectionEngineer
type: NamedIndividual
adheres to principle: Engineer A Bridge Competence Recognition
adheres to principle: Engineer A Bridge Faithful Agent Limits
adheres to principle: Engineer A Bridge Graduated Response
adheres to principle: Engineer A Bridge Scope Limitation Disclosure
has obligation: Engineer A Bridge Field Notes Preservation
has obligation: Engineer A Bridge Speculative Finding Exclusion
actor: Engineer A
case involvement: Retained as a sub-consultant to perform bridge inspection services limited to pavement damage, but observed an apparent pre-existing defective wall condition potentially related to a fatal accident, reported it verbally to his client, and was then asked not to include it in the final report.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.85
has license: Professional Engineer
has specialty: Civil engineering, bridge inspection
role category: provider_client
role class: Structural Inspection Engineer
text references: Engineer A noticed an apparent pre-existing defective condition in the wall
text references: Engineer A stated that he would retain the information from his engineering notes but not include it in the final report
text references: Engineer A verbally reported this information to his client
text references: Engineer A, a civil engineer, as its sub-consultant to perform bridge inspection services on the bridge
discovered in case: 86
discovered in pass: 1
discovered in section: discussion
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T17:26:36.428475+00:00
first discovered in case: 86
match confidence: 0.72
match reasoning: Via class 'Structural Inspection Engineer': The bridge inspection sub-consultant role is a specialization of Civil Engineer Role, focused on structural inspection and out-of-scope safety observation reporting. It is distinct enough in its obligation structure to warrant a separate extracted class, but maps to Civil Engineer Role as its parent.
matched ontology class: CivilEngineerRole
matched ontology label: Civil Engineer Role
matches existing: true
source text: Engineer A, a civil engineer, as its sub-consultant to perform bridge inspection services on the bridge
synthesis literal: caseInvolvement
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: roleCategory
synthesis literal: roleClass
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Retained as a sub-consultant to perform bridge inspection services limited to pavement damage, but observed an apparent pre-existing defective wall condition potentially related to a fatal accident, reported it verbally to his client, and was then asked not to include it in the final report.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T17:26:36.428475+00:00
was attributed to: Case 86 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 86 Extraction

Engineer A Wetland Fact-Based Disclosure
type: Fact-BasedDisclosureThresholdPrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
invoked by: Engineer A
applied to: Client Wetland Fill Violator
balancing with: Faithful Agent Duty Principle
concept category: Principle
concrete expression: Because Engineer A personally performed the wetland delineation and then observed the fill with domain expertise, the concern had reached the level of established technical and legal fact, triggering an affirmative disclosure and remediation obligation rather than merely a prudential one.
confidence: 0.9
interpretation: The contrast with the bridge case illustrates the threshold: speculation does not trigger the obligation, but an observable violation within the engineer's area of competence does.
invoked by: Engineer A Wetland Delineation Engineer
principle class: Fact-Based Disclosure Threshold Principle
tension resolution: The Board distinguished the wetland case from the bridge case precisely on this threshold, holding that the clarity of the legal violation removed the basis for a more measured approach.
text references: In contrast, the facts in the present case indicate a violation of the federal and state laws and regulations. Engineer A's actions appear to be obvious.
text references: Those two cases involved a different set of factors that created a reasonable basis for an engineer to take a more measured approach to the situation.
text references: the facts in the present case indicate a violation of the federal and state laws and regulations.
discovered in case: 86
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: discussion
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T17:32:47.556599+00:00
first discovered in case: 86
match confidence: 0.95
match reasoning: Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Fact-Based Disclosure Threshold Principle'
matched ontology class: Fact-BasedDisclosureThresholdPrinciple
matched ontology label: Fact-Based Disclosure Threshold Principle
matches existing: true
source text: the facts in the present case indicate a violation of the federal and state laws and regulations.
synthesis literal: appliedTo
synthesis literal: balancingWith
synthesis literal: concreteExpression
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: interpretation
synthesis literal: principleClass
synthesis literal: tensionResolution
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Because Engineer A personally performed the wetland delineation and then observed the fill with domain expertise, the concern had reached the level of established technical and legal fact, triggering an affirmative disclosure and remediation obligation rather than merely a prudential one.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T17:32:47.556599+00:00
was attributed to: Case 86 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 86 Extraction

Engineer A Wetland Graduated Response
type: GraduatedResponseProportionalityPrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
invoked by: Engineer A
applied to: Client Wetland Fill Violator
applied to: Regulatory authorities
balancing with: Faithful Agent Duty Principle
balancing with: Public Welfare Paramountcy Principle
concept category: Principle
concrete expression: In the wetland fill case, because the violation is established by observable fact and the engineer has domain expertise, the appropriate first step is direct client contact to demand remediation, with escalation to regulatory authorities reserved for the event that the client fails to act.
confidence: 0.88
interpretation: The graduated response here begins at a more assertive level than in the bridge case because the evidentiary basis is clear and the legal violation is unambiguous, but escalation to authorities is still conditional on client non-compliance rather than immediate.
invoked by: Engineer A Wetland Delineation Engineer
principle class: Graduated Response Proportionality Principle
tension resolution: The Board concluded that direct client contact is the obvious first step, with regulatory reporting as the necessary escalation if the client does not remediate, reflecting a calibrated rather than immediate public disclosure.
text references: Engineer A's actions appear to be obvious--contact the client and inquire directly about the actions the client has taken and point out the violations of the law and that immediate steps need to be taken to remedy the violation.
text references: If appropriate steps are not taken by the client, the engineer would have an obligation to bring this matter to the attention of the appropriate authorities.
text references: Those two cases involved a different set of factors that created a reasonable basis for an engineer to take a more measured approach to the situation.
discovered in case: 86
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: discussion
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T17:32:47.556599+00:00
first discovered in case: 86
match confidence: 0.0
matches existing: false
source text: Engineer A's actions appear to be obvious--contact the client and inquire directly about the actions the client has taken and point out the violations of the law and that immediate steps need to be taken to remedy the violation.
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: In the wetland fill case, because the violation is established by observable fact and the engineer has domain expertise, the appropriate first step is direct client contact to demand remediation, with escalation to regulatory authorities reserved for the event that the client fails to act.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T17:32:47.556599+00:00
was attributed to: Case 86 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 86 Extraction

Engineer A Wetland Regulatory Escalation
type: RegulatoryEscalationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
defeasible under: Engineer A Present Case Remediation Monitoring
obligated party: Engineer A
case context: Engineer A discovered the client's substantial violation of federal and state wetland laws after the conclusion of the delineation engagement. The graduated response required escalation to authorities if the client did not remediate.
compliance status: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.91
derived from principle: Engineer A Wetland Graduated Response
obligation class: Regulatory Escalation Obligation
obligation statement: If the client failed to take adequate remedial steps after being contacted, Engineer A was obligated to report the unpermitted wetland fill violation to the appropriate federal or state regulatory authority.
temporal scope: Upon determination that the client had not taken adequate remedial steps within a reasonable period
text references: If appropriate steps are not taken by the client, the engineer would have an obligation to bring this matter to the attention of the appropriate authorities.
discovered in case: 86
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: discussion
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T17:34:19.889581+00:00
first discovered in case: 86
match confidence: 0.8
match reasoning: Via class 'Regulatory Escalation Obligation': This obligation is a close variant of the Post-Termination Environmental Risk Reporting Obligation and the Client Override Public Safety Reporting Obligation. It differs in that it is triggered not by client override of a recommendation but by client failure to remediate after being contacted, and it follows a graduated response sequence. The conditional trigger and the graduated-response framing distinguish it sufficiently to warrant a medium-confidence match rather than a full identity match.
matched ontology class: PostTermEnvRiskReportingObligation
matched ontology label: Post-Termination Environmental Risk Reporting Obligation
matches existing: true
source text: If appropriate steps are not taken by the client, the engineer would have an obligation to bring this matter to the attention of the appropriate authorities.
synthesis literal: caseContext
synthesis literal: complianceStatus
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: obligationClass
synthesis literal: obligationStatement
synthesis literal: temporalScope
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: If the client failed to take adequate remedial steps after being contacted, Engineer A was obligated to report the unpermitted wetland fill violation to the appropriate federal or state regulatory authority.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T17:34:19.889581+00:00
was attributed to: Case 86 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 86 Extraction

Engineer A Wetland Client Contact
type: ClientViolationContactObligation
type: NamedIndividual
obligated party: Engineer A
case context: Engineer A performed wetland delineation services and later drove past the property, observing that the client had installed substantial fill on more than half an acre of wetlands in violation of federal and state law.
compliance status: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.9
derived from principle: Engineer A Wetland Graduated Response
obligation class: Client Violation Contact Obligation
obligation statement: Engineer A was obligated to contact the client directly upon discovering the unpermitted wetland fill, identify the specific violations of federal and state law, and require that immediate remedial steps be taken.
temporal scope: Upon discovery of the unpermitted fill on the wetland site
text references: Engineer A's actions appear to be obvious—contact the client and inquire directly about the actions the client has taken and point out the violations of the law and that immediate steps need to be taken to remedy the violation.
discovered in case: 86
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: discussion
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T17:34:19.889581+00:00
first discovered in case: 86
match confidence: 0.0
matches existing: false
source text: Engineer A's actions appear to be obvious—contact the client and inquire directly about the actions the client has taken and point out the violations of the law and that immediate steps need to be taken to remedy the violation.
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 contact the client directly upon discovering the unpermitted wetland fill, identify the specific violations of federal and state law, and require that immediate remedial steps be taken.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T17:34:19.889581+00:00
was attributed to: Case 86 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 86 Extraction

Engineer A Client Confidentiality Limits
type: ConfidentialityPrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
invoked by: Engineer A
applied to: Client Wetland Fill Violator
balancing with: Environmental Law Compliance Principle
balancing with: Public Welfare Paramountcy Principle
concept category: Principle
concrete expression: Engineer A holds information about the client's wetland site from the prior engagement, but the question is whether confidentiality obligations extend to shielding the client from accountability for independently observed illegal conduct that was not disclosed to the engineer in confidence.
confidence: 0.83
interpretation: Confidentiality protects information disclosed by a client in the course of a professional engagement. It does not protect a client from the consequences of illegal conduct that the engineer observes independently in a public or semi-public setting after the engagement has concluded. The fill was not a confidential communication but an observable physical act.
invoked by: Engineer A Wetland Delineation Engineer
principle class: Confidentiality Principle
tension resolution: Confidentiality does not bar disclosure of independently observed statutory violations, particularly when those violations are substantial and ongoing. The engineer did not learn of the fill through a confidential communication but by driving past the property.
text references: he drives by his client's property and notices that the client has installed a substantial amount of fill material
text references: without any permits, variances, or permissions
discovered in case: 86
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: facts
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T17:28:58.159954+00:00
first discovered in case: 86
match confidence: 0.95
match reasoning: Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Confidentiality Principle'
matched ontology class: ConfidentialityPrinciple
matched ontology label: Confidentiality Principle
matches existing: true
source text: A few months after Engineer A completes the services, he drives by his client's property and notices that the client has installed a substantial amount of fill material on more than 1/2 an acre across a portion of the wetlands without any permits, variances, or permissions.
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 holds information about the client's wetland site from the prior engagement, but the question is whether confidentiality obligations extend to shielding the client from accountability for independently observed illegal conduct that was not disclosed to the engineer in confidence.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T17:28:58.159954+00:00
was attributed to: Case 86 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 86 Extraction

Engineer A Faithful Agent Duty Conflict
type: FaithfulAgentDutyConflictState
type: NamedIndividual
activates constraint: Engineer A Confidentiality Violation Limit
activates obligation: Engineer A Wetland Observed Violation Disclosure
affects: Engineer A
active period: From Engineer A's discovery of the violation through resolution of the reporting decision
affected parties: Client
affected parties: Engineer A
affected parties: Public
affected parties: Regulatory agencies
case context: Engineer A's prior service relationship with the client creates residual faithful agent obligations, but those obligations conflict with the paramount duty to protect public welfare and comply with environmental law when the client has committed a substantial regulatory violation.
concept category: State
confidence: 0.86
principle transformation: Transforms the abstract tension between faithful agency and public safety into a concrete sequential duty: notify client first, monitor response, then escalate to authorities if remediation is not taken.
state class: Faithful Agent Duty Conflict State
subject: Engineer A's competing obligations to the former client and to regulatory authorities and the public
terminated by: Engineer A's decision to report or not report, or client's voluntary remediation
text references: The installation of the fill material is a substantial violation of the federal and state laws and regulations
triggering event: Engineer A observes the client's substantial unpermitted fill, creating a direct tension between residual client loyalty and the duty to report a known environmental law violation
urgency level: high
discovered in case: 86
discovered in pass: 1
discovered in section: facts
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T17:25:48.580472+00:00
first discovered in case: 86
match confidence: 0.95
match reasoning: Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Faithful Agent Duty Conflict State'
matched ontology class: FaithfulAgentDutyConflictState
matched ontology label: Faithful Agent Duty Conflict State
matches existing: true
source text: The installation of the fill material is a substantial violation of the federal and state laws and regulations
synthesis literal: activePeriod
synthesis literal: caseContext
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 competing obligations to the former client and to regulatory authorities and the public
generated at time: 2026-06-04T17:25:48.580472+00:00
was attributed to: Case 86 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 86 Extraction

Engineer A Wetland Remediation Monitoring
type: ClientRemediationMonitoringConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
constrained entity: Engineer A
case context: Following direct client contact about the unpermitted wetland fill, Engineer A could not simply accept the client's promise to remediate. Active monitoring was required to verify that remediation actually occurred and met regulatory requirements.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.88
constraint class: Client Remediation Monitoring Constraint
constraint statement: After contacting the client and receiving assurances of remediation, Engineer A was required to monitor the client's actual remedial actions until Engineer A was sufficiently satisfied that the unpermitted fill violation had been corrected in full compliance with applicable environmental laws and regulations.
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case No. 97-13
temporal scope: From receipt of client assurances of remediation until confirmed compliance
text references: Engineer A had an obligation to follow through to see that correct follow-up action was taken by the public agency.
text references: If the client indicates that those steps will be taken, the engineer should monitor the situation until the engineer is sufficiently satisfied that the situation has been remedied.
text references: the engineer should advise that the all remedial actions should be in full compliance with all applicable environmental laws and regulations, which may include the review of a licensed engineer.
discovered in case: 86
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: discussion
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T17:35:44.662063+00:00
first discovered in case: 86
match confidence: 0.0
matches existing: false
source text: If the client indicates that those steps will be taken, the engineer should monitor the situation until the engineer is sufficiently satisfied that the situation has been remedied.
synthesis literal: caseContext
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: constraintClass
synthesis literal: constraintStatement
synthesis literal: severity
synthesis literal: source
synthesis literal: temporalScope
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: After contacting the client and receiving assurances of remediation, Engineer A was required to monitor the client's actual remedial actions until Engineer A was sufficiently satisfied that the unpermitted fill violation had been corrected in full compliance with applicable environmental laws and regulations.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T17:35:44.662063+00:00
was attributed to: Case 86 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 86 Extraction

Present Case Unpermitted Wetland Alteration
type: UnpermittedEnvironmentalAlterationState
type: NamedIndividual
activates constraint: Engineer A Confidentiality Violation Limit
activates obligation: Engineer A Observed Violation Disclosure
activates obligation: Engineer A Post-Engagement Wetland Violation Reporting
activates obligation: Engineer A Wetland Observed Violation Disclosure
affects: Client
affects: Engineer A
terminated by event: Illegal Wetland Fill
active period: From the client's commission of the unpermitted environmental alteration through completion of compliant remediation or regulatory intervention
affected parties: Client
affected parties: Engineer A
affected parties: Public and wetland environment
affected parties: Regulatory authorities
concept category: State
confidence: 0.93
principle transformation: Transforms general environmental stewardship principles and post-engagement duties into concrete obligations to evaluate mandatory disclosure to regulatory authorities when a client has committed a substantial unpermitted alteration of a regulated environmental feature.
state class: Unpermitted Environmental Alteration State
subject: Client's unpermitted actions on the wetland mitigation site constituting violations of federal and state environmental laws and regulations
terminated by: Full remediation in compliance with applicable environmental laws and regulations, confirmed by Engineer A or regulatory authority
text references: The NSPE Board of Ethical Review has not addressed the issue in the context of a client's apparent violation of environmental laws and regulations relating to wetland mitigation efforts.
text references: The facts in the present case indicate a violation of the federal and state laws and regulations.
triggering event: Client's physical alteration of the environmentally regulated site without required permits or regulatory approvals
urgency level: high
discovered in case: 86
discovered in pass: 1
discovered in section: discussion
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T17:27:19.652589+00:00
first discovered in case: 86
match confidence: 0.0
matches existing: false
source text: The NSPE Board of Ethical Review has not addressed the issue in the context of a client's apparent violation of environmental laws and regulations relating to wetland mitigation efforts.
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: Client's unpermitted actions on the wetland mitigation site constituting violations of federal and state environmental laws and regulations
generated at time: 2026-06-04T17:27:19.652589+00:00
was attributed to: Case 86 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 86 Extraction

Violation Observation Decision
type: Action
type: NamedIndividual
initiates: Engineer A Post-Engagement Violation Awareness
concept category: Action
event role context: environmental engineer
guided by principle: Engineer A Wetland Public Welfare Obligation
guided by principle: Engineer A Wetland Violation Public Welfare
guided by principle text: Hold Paramount Public Health Safety and Welfare
has agent: Engineer A
has mental state: incidental awareness
initiates text: Knowledge of Client Violation
initiates text: Obligation to Act on Observed Violation
intended outcome: No specific outcome intended, as the observation was made informally while driving by
raises obligation: Engineer A Safety Obligation Wetland Fill
raises obligation text: Hold Paramount Public Health Safety and Welfare
requires capability text: Knowledge of federal and state environmental laws and regulations
requires capability text: Wetland delineation expertise
temporal extent: instant
temporal marker: A few months after completion of wetland delineation services
temporal sequence: 10
within competence: true
synthesis literal: description
synthesis literal: eventRoleContext
synthesis literal: hasAgent
synthesis literal: hasMentalState
synthesis literal: intendedOutcome
synthesis literal: temporalExtent
synthesis literal: temporalMarker
synthesis literal: temporalSequence
synthesis literal: withinCompetence
comment: While driving by the client's property, Engineer A observed that the client had installed substantial fill material across more than half an acre of wetlands without any permits, variances, or permissions, constituting a clear violation of federal and state law.
has time: A few months after completion of wetland delineation services
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 86 Extraction

Bridge Inspection Deficiency Found
type: Event
type: NamedIndividual
initiates: Engineer A Confirmed Environmental Risk
initiates: Engineer A Post-Engagement Violation Awareness
caused by action: Field Notes Retention Decision
causes state change: Bridge deficiencies were documented by the sub-consultant, creating a safety-relevant record while the engineer remained in a subordinate contractual position relative to reporting authority.
concept category: Event
event type: outcome
initiates text: Engineer Awareness of Deficiency
initiates text: Inspection Record Existing
initiates text: Public Safety Risk
severity: high
temporal extent: instant
temporal marker: Prior case, BER Case No. 97-13, referenced in the Discussion
temporal sequence: 3
synthesis literal: causesStateChange
synthesis literal: description
synthesis literal: eventType
synthesis literal: severity
synthesis literal: temporalExtent
synthesis literal: temporalMarker
synthesis literal: temporalSequence
comment: In BER Case No. 97-13, a civil engineer acting as a bridge inspection sub-consultant discovered deficiencies during inspection, creating a record of findings that the engineer retained while declining to report to public authorities.
has time: Prior case, BER Case No. 97-13, referenced in the Discussion
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 86 Extraction

Engineer A Post-Engagement Wetland Violation Reporting
type: Post-TerminationEnvironmentalRiskReportingObligation
type: NamedIndividual
obligated party: Engineer A
case context: Engineer A completed wetland delineation services for a client and subsequently observed, while driving past the property, that the client had installed substantial fill material on more than half an acre of wetlands without any permits, variances, or permissions, in violation of federal and state law.
compliance status: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.9
derived from principle: Engineer A Post-Engagement Wetland Disclosure
obligation class: Post-Termination Environmental Risk Reporting Obligation
obligation statement: Engineer A is obligated to report the client's unpermitted fill of more than half an acre of wetlands to the appropriate federal and state regulatory authority, because the violation is a substantial breach of law that implicates public welfare and environmental protection, and because Engineer A's engagement has concluded, removing any faithful agent constraint on disclosure.
temporal scope: Upon direct observation of the unpermitted fill, after completion of the wetland delineation engagement.
text references: A few months after Engineer A completes the services, he drives by his client's property and notices that the client has installed a substantial amount of fill material on more than 1/2 an acre across a portion of the wetlands without any permits, variances, or permissions.
text references: The installation of the fill material is a substantial violation of the federal and state laws and regulations.
discovered in case: 86
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: facts
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T17:30:01.042237+00:00
first discovered in case: 86
match confidence: 0.95
match reasoning: Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Post-Termination Environmental Risk Reporting Obligation'
matched ontology class: PostTermEnvRiskReportingObligation
matched ontology label: Post-Termination Environmental Risk Reporting Obligation
matches existing: true
source text: A few months after Engineer A completes the services, he drives by his client's property and notices that the client has installed a substantial amount of fill material on more than 1/2 an acre across a portion of the wetlands without any permits, variances, or permissions.
synthesis literal: caseContext
synthesis literal: complianceStatus
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: obligationClass
synthesis literal: obligationStatement
synthesis literal: temporalScope
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineer A is obligated to report the client's unpermitted fill of more than half an acre of wetlands to the appropriate federal and state regulatory authority, because the violation is a substantial breach of law that implicates public welfare and environmental protection, and because Engineer A's engagement has concluded, removing any faithful agent constraint on disclosure.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T17:30:01.042237+00:00
was attributed to: Case 86 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 86 Extraction

Engineer A Wetland Post-Engagement Reporting
type: Post-EngagementViolationReportingObligation
type: NamedIndividual
obligated party: Engineer A
case context: Engineer A discovered the unpermitted fill after the wetland delineation engagement had concluded. The Board held that post-engagement discovery of a substantial environmental law violation triggers a reporting obligation to appropriate authorities.
compliance status: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.92
derived from principle: Engineer A Post-Engagement Disclosure Duty
obligation class: Post-Engagement Violation Reporting Obligation
obligation statement: Engineer A was obligated to report the client's substantial violation of federal and state wetland laws to the appropriate regulatory authority if the client failed to remediate, notwithstanding the conclusion of the wetland delineation engagement.
temporal scope: After conclusion of the wetland delineation engagement, upon discovery of the violation
text references: If appropriate steps are not taken by the client, the engineer would have an obligation to bring this matter to the attention of the appropriate authorities.
discovered in case: 86
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: discussion
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T17:34:19.889581+00:00
first discovered in case: 86
match confidence: 0.0
matches existing: false
source text: If appropriate steps are not taken by the client, the engineer would have an obligation to bring this matter to the attention of the appropriate authorities.
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 report the client's substantial violation of federal and state wetland laws to the appropriate regulatory authority if the client failed to remediate, notwithstanding the conclusion of the wetland delineation engagement.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T17:34:19.889581+00:00
was attributed to: Case 86 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 86 Extraction

Field Notes Retention Decision
type: Action
type: NamedIndividual
fulfills obligation: Engineer A Faithful Agent Limits Wetland
concept category: Action
event role context: civil engineer, bridge inspection sub-consultant
foreseen unintended effects: Observation remains undocumented in official records, potentially limiting accountability if corrective action is not taken
fulfills obligation text: Faithfulness to Client
fulfills obligation text: Obligation to Document Professional Observations
guided by principle: Engineer A Bridge Faithful Agent Limits
guided by principle: Engineer A Faithful Agent Limits
guided by principle: Engineer A Wetland Public Welfare Obligation
guided by principle: Engineer A Wetland Violation Public Welfare
guided by principle text: Act as Faithful Agent or Trustee
guided by principle text: Hold Paramount Public Health Safety and Welfare
has agent: Engineer A in BER Case No. 97-13
has mental state: deliberate
initiates text: Information Excluded from Final Report
initiates text: Observation Preserved in Field Notes
intended outcome: Preserve a record of the observation for possible future reference while complying with the client's instruction to exclude it from the formal report
requires capability text: Bridge inspection expertise
requires capability text: Judgment to distinguish scope of retained services from broader safety obligations
temporal extent: instant
temporal marker: Upon preparation of the final bridge inspection report in BER Case No. 97-13
temporal sequence: 4
within competence: true
synthesis literal: description
synthesis literal: eventRoleContext
synthesis literal: foreseenUnintendedEffects
synthesis literal: hasAgent
synthesis literal: hasMentalState
synthesis literal: intendedOutcome
synthesis literal: temporalExtent
synthesis literal: temporalMarker
synthesis literal: temporalSequence
synthesis literal: withinCompetence
comment: In BER Case No. 97-13, Engineer A decided to retain observations about a potentially defective bridge wall condition in his engineering field notes but excluded the information from the final written report as requested by the prime consultant and public agency.
has time: Upon preparation of the final bridge inspection report in BER Case No. 97-13
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 86 Extraction

Professional Service Completion
type: Action
type: NamedIndividual
fulfills obligation: Engineer A Faithful Agent Limits Wetland
initiates: Engineer A Client Relationship Post-Completion
concept category: Action
event role context: environmental engineer
fulfills obligation text: Competent Service Delivery
fulfills obligation text: Faithfulness to Client
guided by principle: Engineer A Bridge Faithful Agent Limits
guided by principle: Engineer A Faithful Agent Limits
guided by principle: Engineer A Wetland Public Welfare Obligation
guided by principle: Engineer A Wetland Violation Public Welfare
guided by principle text: Act as Faithful Agent or Trustee
guided by principle text: Hold Paramount Public Health Safety and Welfare
has agent: Engineer A
has mental state: deliberate
initiates text: Engineer Familiarity with Site Conditions
initiates text: Professional Relationship with Client
intended outcome: Fulfill contracted scope of wetland delineation services for the client
requires capability text: Knowledge of federal and state environmental laws and regulations
requires capability text: Wetland delineation expertise
temporal extent: interval
temporal marker: Initial engagement period, before the illegal fill was installed
temporal sequence: 6
within competence: true
synthesis literal: description
synthesis literal: eventRoleContext
synthesis literal: hasAgent
synthesis literal: hasMentalState
synthesis literal: intendedOutcome
synthesis literal: temporalExtent
synthesis literal: temporalMarker
synthesis literal: temporalSequence
synthesis literal: withinCompetence
comment: Engineer A performed and completed wetland delineation services on the client's wetland site, establishing a professional relationship and familiarity with the property.
has time: Initial engagement period, before the illegal fill was installed
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 86 Extraction

Public Authority Non-Reporting Decision
type: Action
type: NamedIndividual
fulfills obligation: Engineer A Faithful Agent Limits Wetland
concept category: Action
event role context: civil engineer, bridge inspection sub-consultant
foreseen unintended effects: Risk that corrective action might not be taken, leaving a potential public safety hazard unaddressed
fulfills obligation text: Faithfulness to Client
guided by principle: Engineer A Bridge Faithful Agent Limits
guided by principle: Engineer A Faithful Agent Limits
guided by principle: Engineer A Wetland Public Welfare Obligation
guided by principle: Engineer A Wetland Violation Public Welfare
guided by principle text: Act as Faithful Agent or Trustee
guided by principle text: Hold Paramount Public Health Safety and Welfare
has agent: Engineer A in BER Case No. 97-13
has mental state: deliberate
initiates text: Conditional Deferral of Authority Reporting
initiates text: Reliance on Prime Consultant for Follow-Through
intended outcome: Avoid overreacting to speculative observations outside his scope and expertise, and allow the responsible parties to evaluate and address the condition
raises obligation: Engineer A Wetland Observed Violation Disclosure
raises obligation: Engineer A Wetland Post-Engagement Reporting
raises obligation: Engineer A Wetland Regulatory Escalation
raises obligation text: Obligation to Follow Through on Corrective Action
requires capability text: Judgment to assess causation of bridge wall failure
requires capability text: Structural engineering expertise
temporal extent: instant
temporal marker: Following verbal report to client and receipt of instruction to exclude information from final report in BER Case No. 97-13
temporal sequence: 5
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: In BER Case No. 97-13, Engineer A decided not to report the potentially defective bridge wall condition to any public authority beyond verbal notification to his client, deferring to the prime consultant and public agency to take corrective action.
has time: Following verbal report to client and receipt of instruction to exclude information from final report in BER Case No. 97-13
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 86 Extraction

Structural Deficiency Identified
type: Event
type: NamedIndividual
initiates: Engineer A Confirmed Environmental Risk
initiates: Engineer A Faithful Agent Duty Conflict
caused by action: Confidential Non-Disclosure Decision
causes state change: A structural safety concern became known to the engineer in that case, creating tension between confidentiality and public safety duties.
concept category: Event
event type: outcome
initiates text: Confidentiality Constraint Active
initiates text: Engineer Awareness of Deficiency
initiates text: Public Safety Risk
severity: high
temporal extent: instant
temporal marker: Prior case, BER Case No. 89-7, referenced in the Discussion
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: In BER Case No. 89-7, a structural deficiency or safety-related concern was identified in a project, placing Engineer A in that case in possession of information bearing on public safety while under a confidentiality constraint.
has time: Prior case, BER Case No. 89-7, referenced in the Discussion
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 86 Extraction

Compliance Monitoring Decision
type: Action
type: NamedIndividual
fulfills obligation: Engineer A Safety Obligation Wetland Fill
initiates: Engineer A Present Case Remediation Monitoring
concept category: Action
event role context: environmental engineer
foreseen unintended effects: Extended professional involvement beyond original scope
foreseen unintended effects: Potential conflict if client fails to remediate adequately
fulfills obligation text: Hold Paramount Public Health Safety and Welfare
fulfills obligation text: Obligation to Follow Through on Corrective Action
guided by principle: Engineer A Wetland Public Welfare Obligation
guided by principle: Engineer A Wetland Violation Public Welfare
guided by principle text: Hold Paramount Public Health Safety and Welfare
has agent: Engineer A
has mental state: deliberate
initiates text: Active Monitoring of Client Remediation
initiates text: Conditional Deferral of Authority Reporting
intended outcome: Ensure that the client actually follows through on promised corrective action and that the remediation meets all applicable legal requirements
requires capability text: Judgment to assess adequacy of remediation
requires capability text: Knowledge of federal and state environmental laws and regulations
requires capability text: Wetland delineation expertise
temporal extent: interval
temporal marker: Following client acknowledgment of the violation and commitment to remediate
temporal sequence: 12
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: If the client agrees to remediate, Engineer A must decide to monitor the situation until sufficiently satisfied that the violation has been fully remedied in compliance with all applicable environmental laws and regulations, including review by a licensed engineer where appropriate.
has time: Following client acknowledgment of the violation and commitment to remediate
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 86 Extraction

Engineer A Environmental Hazard Observation
type: EnvironmentalHazardPresent
type: NamedIndividual
activated by event: Illegal Wetland Fill
activated by event: Violation Discovery
activates constraint: Engineer A Confidentiality Violation Limit
activates constraint: Engineer A Wetland Remediation Monitoring
activates obligation: Engineer A Wetland Observed Violation Disclosure
activates obligation: Engineer A Wetland Remediation Monitoring
affects: Client
affects: Engineer A
terminated by event: Illegal Wetland Fill
active period: From the time of fill installation through remediation or regulatory resolution
affected parties: Client
affected parties: Downstream and adjacent property owners
affected parties: Engineer A
affected parties: Regulatory agencies
affected parties: Wetland ecosystem
case context: The unpermitted filling of more than half an acre of wetlands constitutes an environmental hazard by destroying regulated wetland features, with potential downstream hydrological and ecological consequences.
concept category: State
confidence: 0.9
principle transformation: Transforms the general duty to hold public safety paramount into a concrete sequential protocol: direct client notification, monitored remediation, and escalation to regulatory authorities upon client inaction.
state class: Environmental Hazard Present
subject: Client's wetland property following unpermitted fill installation
terminated by: Removal of fill and site restoration, or regulatory authorization
text references: the client has installed a substantial amount of fill material on more than 1/2 an acre across a portion of the wetlands
triggering event: Client installs substantial fill material across more than half an acre of wetlands without authorization
urgency level: high
discovered in case: 86
discovered in pass: 1
discovered in section: facts
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T17:25:48.580472+00:00
first discovered in case: 86
match confidence: 0.95
match reasoning: Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Environmental Hazard Present'
matched ontology class: EnvironmentalHazard
matched ontology label: Environmental Hazard Present
matches existing: true
source text: the client has installed a substantial amount of fill material on more than 1/2 an acre across a portion of the wetlands
synthesis literal: activePeriod
synthesis literal: caseContext
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: stateClass
synthesis literal: subject
synthesis literal: terminatedBy
synthesis literal: textReferences
synthesis literal: triggeringEvent
synthesis literal: urgencyLevel
comment: Client's wetland property following unpermitted fill installation
generated at time: 2026-06-04T17:25:48.580472+00:00
was attributed to: Case 86 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 86 Extraction

Engineer A Present Case Environmental Violation
type: ConfirmedRiskWithoutAdequateSafeguardsState
type: NamedIndividual
activated by event: Violation Discovery
activates constraint: Engineer A Confidentiality Violation Limit
activates constraint: Engineer A Wetland Remediation Monitoring
activates obligation: Engineer A Wetland Observed Violation Disclosure
activates obligation: Engineer A Wetland Remediation Monitoring
affects: Client
affects: Engineer A
active period: From Engineer A's discovery of the environmental law violation through the point at which the client either completes adequate remediation or Engineer A reports to authorities
affected parties: Client
affected parties: Engineer A
affected parties: Public and environment
affected parties: Regulatory authorities
concept category: State
confidence: 0.92
principle transformation: Transforms the general duty to hold public safety paramount into a concrete sequential protocol: direct client notification, monitored remediation, and escalation to regulatory authorities upon client inaction.
state class: Confirmed Risk Without Adequate Safeguards State
subject: Engineer A's identification of the client's confirmed violation of federal and state environmental laws and regulations relating to wetland mitigation, with no remediation in place
terminated by: Client's completion of full remediation in compliance with applicable environmental laws, or Engineer A's report to appropriate regulatory authorities
text references: Engineer A's actions appear to be obvious: contact the client and inquire directly about the actions the client has taken and point out the violations of the law and that immediate steps need to be taken to remedy the violation.
text references: If appropriate steps are not taken by the client, the engineer would have an obligation to bring this matter to the attention of the appropriate authorities.
text references: The facts in the present case indicate a violation of the federal and state laws and regulations.
triggering event: Engineer A's discovery that the client has taken actions constituting a violation of applicable federal and state environmental laws and regulations
urgency level: high
discovered in case: 86
discovered in pass: 1
discovered in section: discussion
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T17:27:19.652589+00:00
first discovered in case: 86
match confidence: 0.95
match reasoning: Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Confirmed Risk Without Adequate Safeguards State'
matched ontology class: ConfirmedRiskWithoutAdequateSafeguardsState
matched ontology label: Confirmed Risk Without Adequate Safeguards State
matches existing: true
source text: The facts in the present case indicate a violation of the federal and state laws and regulations.
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 identification of the client's confirmed violation of federal and state environmental laws and regulations relating to wetland mitigation, with no remediation in place
generated at time: 2026-06-04T17:27:19.652589+00:00
was attributed to: Case 86 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 86 Extraction

Engineer A Public Responsibility
type: PublicResponsibilityRole
type: NamedIndividual
adheres to principle: Engineer A Fact-Based Disclosure Threshold
adheres to principle: Engineer A Post-Engagement Disclosure Duty
adheres to principle: Engineer A Post-Engagement Wetland Disclosure
adheres to principle: Engineer A Wetland Client Conduct Monitoring
adheres to principle: Engineer A Wetland Violation Public Welfare
has obligation: Engineer A Confidentiality Limits Wetland Violation
has obligation: Engineer A Environmental Compliance Reporting
has obligation: Engineer A Observed Violation Disclosure
has obligation: Engineer A Post-Engagement Wetland Violation Reporting
has obligation: Engineer A Safety Obligation Wetland Fill
actor: Engineer A
case involvement: Upon discovering the client's unpermitted fill violation of federal and state wetland laws, Engineer A bears a public responsibility obligation that may override client confidentiality duties, requiring consideration of disclosure to the appropriate regulatory authority.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.9
has license: Professional Engineer
has specialty: Environmental engineering
role category: public_responsibility
role class: Public Responsibility Role
text references: The installation of the fill material is a substantial violation of the federal and state laws and regulations.
discovered in case: 86
discovered in pass: 1
discovered in section: facts
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T17:25:19.255251+00:00
first discovered in case: 86
match confidence: 0.95
match reasoning: Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Public Responsibility Role'
matched ontology class: PublicResponsibilityRole
matched ontology label: Public Responsibility Role
matches existing: true
source text: The installation of the fill material is a substantial violation of the federal and state laws and regulations.
synthesis literal: caseInvolvement
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: roleCategory
synthesis literal: roleClass
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Upon discovering the client's unpermitted fill violation of federal and state wetland laws, Engineer A bears a public responsibility obligation that may override client confidentiality duties, requiring consideration of disclosure to the appropriate regulatory authority.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T17:25:19.255251+00:00
was attributed to: Case 86 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 86 Extraction

Confidential Non-Disclosure Decision
type: Action
type: NamedIndividual
fulfills obligation: Engineer A Faithful Agent Limits Wetland
fulfills obligation: Engineer A Wetland Client Contact
initiates: Engineer A Confirmed Environmental Risk
initiates: Engineer A Present Case Environmental Violation
concept category: Action
event role context: structural engineer
foreseen unintended effects: Continued risk of injury to future occupants of the building from unaddressed electrical and mechanical deficiencies
fulfills obligation text: Faithfulness to Client
fulfills obligation text: Non-Disclosure of Confidential Client Information
guided by principle: Engineer A Bridge Faithful Agent Limits
guided by principle: Engineer A Faithful Agent Limits
guided by principle text: Act as Faithful Agent or Trustee
has agent: Engineer A in BER Case No. 89-7
has mental state: deliberate
initiates text: Confidentiality Agreement Honored
initiates text: Public Safety Risk Undisclosed
intended outcome: Honor the confidentiality agreement with the client and avoid disclosing the client's business affairs to third parties
requires capability text: Electrical engineering expertise
requires capability text: Judgment to assess severity of safety hazards outside scope
requires capability text: Mechanical engineering expertise
temporal extent: instant
temporal marker: Upon completion of the structural report in BER Case No. 89-7
temporal sequence: 2
violates obligation: Engineer A Confidentiality Limits Wetland Violation
violates obligation: Engineer A Safety Obligation Wetland Fill
violates obligation text: Hold Paramount Public Health Safety and Welfare
violates obligation text: Obligation to Report Known Violations
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: In BER Case No. 89-7, Engineer A decided not to report known electrical and mechanical safety deficiencies in an occupied apartment building to any third party or public authority, citing the confidentiality terms of the client agreement, despite acknowledging the deficiencies in his structural report.
has time: Upon completion of the structural report in BER Case No. 89-7
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 86 Extraction

Engineer A Client Relationship Post-Completion
type: ClientRelationshipEstablished
type: NamedIndividual
activated by event: Violation Discovery
activated by event: Wetland Delineation Completed
activates constraint: Engineer A Confidentiality Violation Limit
activates constraint: Engineer A Wetland Remediation Monitoring
activates obligation: Engineer A Wetland Observed Violation Disclosure
activates obligation: Engineer A Wetland Remediation Monitoring
affects: Client
affects: Engineer A
terminated by event: Wetland Delineation Completed
active period: Relationship was active during delineation services; now concluded but residual obligations persist
affected parties: Client
affected parties: Engineer A
case context: The prior client relationship creates residual confidentiality and loyalty obligations that must be weighed against Engineer A's public safety and regulatory reporting duties when evaluating whether to report the violation.
concept category: State
confidence: 0.85
principle transformation: Transforms the general duty to hold public safety paramount into a concrete sequential protocol: direct client notification, monitored remediation, and escalation to regulatory authorities upon client inaction.
state class: Client Relationship Established
subject: Engineer A's prior professional relationship with the client following completion of wetland delineation
terminated by: Completion of wetland delineation services a few months prior to the observation
text references: A few months after Engineer A completes the services
text references: Engineer A performs wetland delineation services on the client's wetland site
triggering event: Engineer A performed wetland delineation services for the client
urgency level: medium
discovered in case: 86
discovered in pass: 1
discovered in section: facts
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T17:25:48.580472+00:00
first discovered in case: 86
match confidence: 0.95
match reasoning: Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Client Relationship Established'
matched ontology class: ClientRelationship
matched ontology label: Client Relationship Established
matches existing: true
source text: Engineer A performs wetland delineation services on the client's wetland site
synthesis literal: activePeriod
synthesis literal: caseContext
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 prior professional relationship with the client following completion of wetland delineation
generated at time: 2026-06-04T17:25:48.580472+00:00
was attributed to: Case 86 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 86 Extraction

Engineer A Confidentiality Limits Wetland Violation
type: ConfidentialityLimitsPublicLawObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer A Observed Violation Disclosure
defeasible under: Engineer A Wetland Fill Violation Discovery
obligated party: Engineer A
case context: Engineer A holds information about the client's wetland site from the prior delineation engagement, but the client's subsequent unpermitted fill is a new, independently observed act that constitutes a substantial violation of law, not information confided during the engagement.
compliance status: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.84
derived from principle: Engineer A Client Confidentiality Limits
obligation class: Confidentiality Limits Public Law Obligation
obligation statement: Engineer A is obligated to recognize that any confidentiality duty arising from the prior wetland delineation engagement does not shield the client's subsequent, independently observed violation of federal and state wetland law from disclosure to regulatory authorities, and that the duty to report overrides any residual confidentiality interest.
temporal scope: Upon recognition that the observed violation is a matter of public law rather than confidential client information.
text references: Engineer A performs wetland delineation services on the client's wetland site.
text references: he drives by his client's property and notices that the client has installed a substantial amount of fill material on more than 1/2 an acre across a portion of the wetlands without any permits, variances, or permissions.
discovered in case: 86
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: facts
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T17:30:01.042237+00:00
first discovered in case: 86
match confidence: 0.72
match reasoning: Via class 'Confidentiality Limits Public Law Obligation': The existing Client Instruction Limits Obligation addresses the duty to decline client instructions that would require violating professional ethics. The present class addresses the analogous situation where a confidentiality obligation, rather than a client instruction, is invoked to shield a statutory violation. The concept is related but distinct enough to warrant a separate class. The existing Confidentiality Obligation class in the ontology is too general. The closest match is Client Instruction Limits Obligation as a structural analog, but confidence is moderate because the mechanism differs.
matched ontology class: ClientInstructionLimitsObligation
matched ontology label: Client Instruction Limits Obligation
matches existing: true
source text: Engineer A performs wetland delineation services on the client's wetland site.
synthesis literal: caseContext
synthesis literal: complianceStatus
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: obligationClass
synthesis literal: obligationStatement
synthesis literal: temporalScope
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineer A is obligated to recognize that any confidentiality duty arising from the prior wetland delineation engagement does not shield the client's subsequent, independently observed violation of federal and state wetland law from disclosure to regulatory authorities, and that the duty to report overrides any residual confidentiality interest.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T17:30:01.042237+00:00
was attributed to: Case 86 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 86 Extraction

Engineer A Observed Violation Disclosure
type: ObservedViolationDisclosureObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer A Confidentiality Limits Wetland Violation
obligated party: Engineer A
prevails over: Engineer A Confidentiality Limits Wetland Violation
case context: Engineer A directly observed the client's unpermitted fill of wetlands while driving past the property, placing the violation at the level of established fact rather than suspicion, and the violation is a substantial breach of federal and state environmental law.
compliance status: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.87
derived from principle: Engineer A Fact-Based Disclosure Threshold
obligation class: Observed Violation Disclosure Obligation
obligation statement: Engineer A is obligated to disclose the directly observed wetland fill violation to the appropriate regulatory authority because the observation constitutes an established fact rather than a preliminary concern, triggering the mandatory disclosure duty under the public welfare paramount principle.
temporal scope: Immediately upon direct observation of the fill material on the wetland site.
text references: The installation of the fill material is a substantial violation of the federal and state laws and regulations.
text references: he drives by his client's property and notices that the client has installed a substantial amount of fill material on more than 1/2 an acre across a portion of the wetlands without any permits, variances, or permissions.
discovered in case: 86
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: facts
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T17:30:01.042237+00:00
first discovered in case: 86
match confidence: 0.78
match reasoning: Via class 'Observed Violation Disclosure Obligation': The existing Concern Versus Fact Disclosure Threshold Obligation addresses the distinction between a preliminary concern and an established technical fact as the trigger for mandatory disclosure under Code section II.3.b. This case presents the fact-level side of that threshold: Engineer A directly observes the violation, placing it at the level of established fact. The present class is a variant that focuses on the affirmative disclosure duty once the fact threshold is crossed, rather than the threshold determination itself. The existing class is the closest match but this obligation emphasizes the resulting duty rather than the threshold analysis.
matched ontology class: ConcernVersusFactDisclosureThresholdObligation
matched ontology label: Concern Versus Fact Disclosure Threshold Obligation
matches existing: true
source text: he drives by his client's property and notices that the client has installed a substantial amount of fill material on more than 1/2 an acre across a portion of the wetlands without any permits, variances, or permissions.
synthesis literal: caseContext
synthesis literal: complianceStatus
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: obligationClass
synthesis literal: obligationStatement
synthesis literal: temporalScope
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineer A is obligated to disclose the directly observed wetland fill violation to the appropriate regulatory authority because the observation constitutes an established fact rather than a preliminary concern, triggering the mandatory disclosure duty under the public welfare paramount principle.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T17:30:01.042237+00:00
was attributed to: Case 86 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 86 Extraction

Engineer A Wetland Remediation Monitoring
type: RemediationMonitoringObligation
type: NamedIndividual
obligated party: Engineer A
case context: Following direct contact with the client about the unpermitted wetland fill, Engineer A was required to follow through to confirm that promised remedial actions were actually completed and legally compliant.
compliance status: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.88
derived from principle: Engineer A Wetland Client Conduct Monitoring
obligation class: Remediation Monitoring Obligation
obligation statement: After contacting the client and receiving assurances of remediation, Engineer A was obligated to monitor the client's actual remedial actions until sufficiently satisfied that the wetland violation had been fully corrected in compliance with all applicable environmental laws and regulations.
temporal scope: From the time the client provided assurances of remediation until full compliance was confirmed
text references: If the client indicates that those steps will be taken, the engineer should monitor the situation until the engineer is sufficiently satisfied that the situation has been remedied.
text references: In this connection, the engineer should advise that the all remedial actions should be in full compliance with all applicable environmental laws and regulations, which may include the review of a licensed engineer.
discovered in case: 86
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: discussion
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T17:34:19.889581+00:00
first discovered in case: 86
match confidence: 0.0
matches existing: false
source text: If the client indicates that those steps will be taken, the engineer should monitor the situation until the engineer is sufficiently satisfied that the situation has been remedied.
synthesis literal: caseContext
synthesis literal: complianceStatus
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: obligationClass
synthesis literal: obligationStatement
synthesis literal: temporalScope
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: After contacting the client and receiving assurances of remediation, Engineer A was obligated to monitor the client's actual remedial actions until sufficiently satisfied that the wetland violation had been fully corrected in compliance with all applicable environmental laws and regulations.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T17:34:19.889581+00:00
was attributed to: Case 86 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 86 Extraction

Wetland Delineation Completed
type: Event
type: NamedIndividual
initiates: Engineer A Client Relationship Post-Completion
terminates: Engineer A Post-Engagement Violation Awareness
caused by action: Professional Service Completion
causes state change: Wetland delineation work concluded; Engineer A's active service engagement ended; a documented record of wetland boundaries existed.
concept category: Event
event type: outcome
initiates text: Prior Professional Relationship Active
initiates text: Wetland Baseline Documented
severity: routine
temporal extent: instant
temporal marker: Initial project period, before the illegal fill occurred
temporal sequence: 7
terminates text: Active Service Engagement
synthesis literal: causesStateChange
synthesis literal: description
synthesis literal: eventType
synthesis literal: severity
synthesis literal: temporalExtent
synthesis literal: temporalMarker
synthesis literal: temporalSequence
comment: Engineer A finishes providing wetland delineation services for the client, establishing the professional relationship and the documented baseline condition of the wetland area.
has time: Initial project period, before the illegal fill occurred
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 86 Extraction

Engineer A Present Case Remediation Monitoring
type: ConfirmedRiskDisclosureState
type: NamedIndividual
activates obligation: Engineer A Wetland Remediation Monitoring
affects: Client
affects: Engineer A
active period: From Engineer A's notification to the client of the violation through the client's completion of adequate remediation or Engineer A's escalation to authorities
affected parties: Client
affected parties: Engineer A
affected parties: Regulatory authorities
concept category: State
confidence: 0.89
principle transformation: Transforms the general duty to protect public safety into a time-bounded monitoring obligation that conditions the escalation duty on the client's response, while preserving the professional's ultimate obligation to report if the client does not act.
state class: Confirmed Risk Disclosure State
subject: Engineer A's obligation to monitor the client's remediation of the environmental law violation after notifying the client, with reporting to authorities held in conditional abeyance
terminated by: Engineer A's satisfaction that remediation is complete and compliant, or Engineer A's report to appropriate authorities upon client inaction
text references: If appropriate steps are not taken by the client, the engineer would have an obligation to bring this matter to the attention of the appropriate authorities.
text references: If the client indicates that those steps will be taken, the engineer should monitor the situation until the engineer is sufficiently satisfied that the situation has been remedied.
text references: The engineer should advise that the all remedial actions should be in full compliance with all applicable environmental laws and regulations, which may include the review of a licensed engineer.
triggering event: Engineer A's direct notification to the client of the environmental law violation and demand for immediate remedial steps
urgency level: high
discovered in case: 86
discovered in pass: 1
discovered in section: discussion
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T17:27:19.652589+00:00
first discovered in case: 86
match confidence: 0.95
match reasoning: Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Confirmed Risk Disclosure State'
matched ontology class: ConfirmedRiskDisclosureState
matched ontology label: Confirmed Risk Disclosure State
matches existing: true
source text: If the client indicates that those steps will be taken, the engineer should monitor the situation until the engineer is sufficiently satisfied that the situation has been remedied.
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 obligation to monitor the client's remediation of the environmental law violation after notifying the client, with reporting to authorities held in conditional abeyance
generated at time: 2026-06-04T17:27:19.652589+00:00
was attributed to: Case 86 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 86 Extraction

Engineer A Bridge Faithful Agent Limits
type: FaithfulAgentDutyPrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
invoked by: Engineer A
invoked by: VWX Architects and Engineers
applied to: Defective bridge wall condition
applied to: Public Agency Bridge Client
balancing with: Public Welfare Paramountcy Principle
concept category: Principle
concrete expression: Engineer A's duty of loyalty to VWX and the public agency was genuine and supported the decision not to include speculative structural observations in the formal report, but that duty did not authorize Engineer A to abandon follow-through on corrective action entirely.
confidence: 0.87
interpretation: Faithful agency to the client supports scope-limited reporting and deference to the prime consultant's broader project knowledge, but does not permit the engineer to ignore a potential public safety issue indefinitely.
invoked by: Engineer A Structural Inspection Sub-Consultant
invoked by: VWX Prime Consultant
principle class: Faithful Agent Duty Principle
tension resolution: The Board resolved the tension by requiring Engineer A to follow through on corrective action while permitting scope-limited formal reporting, treating faithful agency as subordinate to but not wholly displaced by public welfare.
text references: Engineer A acted reasonably under the circumstances by properly balancing the obligation of the engineer to be faithful to the client and not to disclose what might be considered by the client to be confidential information concerning the business affairs of a client without that client's consent, and the obligation of the engineer to hold paramount the public health and safety.
text references: Engineer A had an obligation to follow through to see that correct follow-up action was taken by the public agency.
discovered in case: 86
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: discussion
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T17:32:47.556599+00:00
first discovered in case: 86
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 acted reasonably under the circumstances by properly balancing the obligation of the engineer to be faithful to the client and not to disclose what might be considered by the client to be confidential information concerning the business affairs of a client without that client's consent, and the obligation of the engineer to hold paramount the public health and safety.
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 duty of loyalty to VWX and the public agency was genuine and supported the decision not to include speculative structural observations in the formal report, but that duty did not authorize Engineer A to abandon follow-through on corrective action entirely.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T17:32:47.556599+00:00
was attributed to: Case 86 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 86 Extraction

Engineer A Wetland Fill Violation Discovery
type: UnpermittedEnvironmentalAlterationState
type: NamedIndividual
activated by event: Illegal Wetland Fill
activates constraint: Engineer A Confidentiality Violation Limit
activates obligation: Engineer A Observed Violation Disclosure
activates obligation: Engineer A Post-Engagement Wetland Violation Reporting
activates obligation: Engineer A Wetland Observed Violation Disclosure
affects: Client
affects: Engineer A
terminated by event: Illegal Wetland Fill
active period: From the time Engineer A observes the fill installation onward, persisting until the violation is remedied or regulatory action is taken
affected parties: Client
affected parties: Engineer A
affected parties: Public and environment affected by wetland destruction
affected parties: Regulatory authorities
case context: Engineer A completed wetland delineation services and subsequently observed the client had installed fill on more than half an acre of wetlands without any permits, variances, or permissions, constituting a substantial violation of federal and state law.
concept category: State
confidence: 0.92
principle transformation: Transforms general environmental stewardship principles and post-engagement duties into concrete obligations to evaluate mandatory disclosure to regulatory authorities when a client has committed a substantial unpermitted alteration of a regulated environmental feature.
state class: Unpermitted Environmental Alteration State
subject: Client's wetland site following Engineer A's completed delineation services
terminated by: Not yet terminated; violation remains active as of the scenario
text references: The installation of the fill material is a substantial violation of the federal and state laws and regulations
text references: the client has installed a substantial amount of fill material on more than 1/2 an acre across a portion of the wetlands without any permits, variances, or permissions
triggering event: Engineer A drives by the client's property and observes substantial fill material installed across more than half an acre of wetlands without permits
urgency level: high
discovered in case: 86
discovered in pass: 1
discovered in section: facts
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T17:25:48.580472+00:00
first discovered in case: 86
match confidence: 0.0
matches existing: false
source text: the client has installed a substantial amount of fill material on more than 1/2 an acre across a portion of the wetlands without any permits, variances, or permissions
synthesis literal: activePeriod
synthesis literal: caseContext
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: stateClass
synthesis literal: subject
synthesis literal: terminatedBy
synthesis literal: textReferences
synthesis literal: triggeringEvent
synthesis literal: urgencyLevel
comment: Client's wetland site following Engineer A's completed delineation services
generated at time: 2026-06-04T17:25:48.580472+00:00
was attributed to: Case 86 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 86 Extraction

Engineer A Confidentiality Violation Limit
type: ConfidentialitySafetyOverrideConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
constrained entity: Engineer A
case context: Engineer A performed wetland delineation for the client under a professional services engagement that created a confidential professional relationship. After the engagement concluded, Engineer A observed the client committing a substantial unpermitted fill of the delineated wetland. The question arises whether the prior confidential relationship constrains Engineer A from reporting the violation.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.84
constraint class: Confidentiality Safety Override Constraint
constraint statement: Any confidentiality obligation Engineer A owes to the client arising from the prior wetland delineation engagement does not extend to concealing the client's confirmed violation of federal and state environmental law, and that confidentiality obligation is overridden by Engineer A's duty to report the violation to regulatory authorities.
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; professional ethics principle that confidentiality does not shield client illegality
temporal scope: From the time Engineer A observes and confirms the violation
text references: Engineer A performs wetland delineation services on the client's wetland site.
text references: The installation of the fill material is a substantial violation of the federal and state laws and regulations.
text references: the client has installed a substantial amount of fill material on more than 1/2 an acre across a portion of the wetlands without any permits, variances, or permissions
discovered in case: 86
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: facts
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T17:30:49.666256+00:00
first discovered in case: 86
match confidence: 0.95
match reasoning: Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Confidentiality Safety Override Constraint'
matched ontology class: ConfidentialitySafetyOverrideConstraint
matched ontology label: Confidentiality Safety Override Constraint
matches existing: true
source text: Engineer A performs wetland delineation services on the client's wetland site.
synthesis literal: caseContext
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: constraintClass
synthesis literal: constraintStatement
synthesis literal: severity
synthesis literal: source
synthesis literal: temporalScope
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Any confidentiality obligation Engineer A owes to the client arising from the prior wetland delineation engagement does not extend to concealing the client's confirmed violation of federal and state environmental law, and that confidentiality obligation is overridden by Engineer A's duty to report the violation to regulatory authorities.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T17:30:49.666256+00:00
was attributed to: Case 86 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 86 Extraction

Engineer A Post-Engagement Violation Awareness
type: Post-EngagementViolationDiscoveryState
type: NamedIndividual
activated by event: Violation Discovery
activates constraint: Engineer A Confidentiality Violation Limit
activates constraint: Engineer A Post-Engagement Reporting Constraint
activates obligation: Engineer A Wetland Observed Violation Disclosure
activates obligation: Engineer A Wetland Post-Engagement Reporting
affects: Engineer A
terminated by event: Violation Discovery
active period: From the moment Engineer A observes the fill installation, after the engagement has concluded, through resolution of reporting obligations
affected parties: Client
affected parties: Engineer A
affected parties: Federal and state regulatory agencies
case context: Engineer A's professional engagement had concluded months before the discovery. The observation was incidental rather than part of any ongoing professional duty, raising the question of whether post-engagement obligations require Engineer A to report the violation to authorities.
concept category: State
confidence: 0.88
principle transformation: Transforms the general principle that professional obligations do not automatically terminate with a contract into a concrete duty to evaluate reporting and disclosure obligations when a post-engagement discovery reveals client misconduct related to the prior engagement.
state class: Post-Engagement Violation Discovery State
subject: Engineer A's epistemic and professional situation after completing wetland delineation services
terminated by: Engineer A's decision to report or not report to regulatory authorities, or client's remediation of the violation
text references: A few months after Engineer A completes the services, he drives by his client's property and notices that the client has installed a substantial amount of fill material
triggering event: Engineer A incidentally observes the client's unpermitted fill activity while driving by the property months after completing services
urgency level: high
discovered in case: 86
discovered in pass: 1
discovered in section: facts
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T17:25:48.580472+00:00
first discovered in case: 86
match confidence: 0.0
matches existing: false
source text: A few months after Engineer A completes the services, he drives by his client's property and notices that the client has installed a substantial amount of fill material
synthesis literal: activePeriod
synthesis literal: caseContext
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 epistemic and professional situation after completing wetland delineation services
generated at time: 2026-06-04T17:25:48.580472+00:00
was attributed to: Case 86 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 86 Extraction

Engineer A Wetland Public Welfare Obligation
type: PublicWelfareParamountcyPrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
invoked by: Engineer A
applied to: Client Wetland Fill Violator
applied to: Unpermitted wetland fill violation
balancing with: Client Data Confidentiality Principle
balancing with: Faithful Agent Duty Principle
concept category: Principle
concrete expression: Upon discovering that the client had installed substantial fill on a wetland site in violation of federal and state law, Engineer A bears a paramount obligation to the public that overrides any residual duty of loyalty to the former client.
confidence: 0.95
interpretation: The public welfare obligation is not limited to physical safety threats; it extends to substantial violations of environmental law that harm public natural resources, and it persists after the contractual engagement has concluded.
invoked by: Engineer A Wetland Delineation Engineer
principle class: Public Welfare Paramountcy Principle
tension resolution: The Board concluded that the clarity of the legal violation and the harm to public environmental resources triggered the public welfare obligation, displacing the more measured approach appropriate in cases of mere speculation.
text references: Engineering practice sometimes places the engineer in the position where the interests of a client and the interests of the public are in open and serious conflict.
text references: Engineers play an essential role in society by taking steps and actions to see that products, systems, facilities, structures, and the land surrounding them are reasonably safe.
text references: If appropriate steps are not taken by the client, the engineer would have an obligation to bring this matter to the attention of the appropriate authorities.
discovered in case: 86
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: discussion
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T17:32:47.556599+00:00
first discovered in case: 86
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: If appropriate steps are not taken by the client, the engineer would have an obligation to bring this matter to the attention of the appropriate authorities.
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: Upon discovering that the client had installed substantial fill on a wetland site in violation of federal and state law, Engineer A bears a paramount obligation to the public that overrides any residual duty of loyalty to the former client.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T17:32:47.556599+00:00
was attributed to: Case 86 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 86 Extraction

Client
type: Agent
type: NamedIndividual
has role: Client Wetland Fill Violator

Engineer A Confirmed Environmental Risk
type: ConfirmedRiskWithoutAdequateSafeguardsState
type: NamedIndividual
activated by event: Illegal Wetland Fill
activated by event: Violation Discovery
activates constraint: Engineer A Confidentiality Violation Limit
activates constraint: Engineer A Wetland Remediation Monitoring
activates obligation: Engineer A Wetland Observed Violation Disclosure
activates obligation: Engineer A Wetland Remediation Monitoring
affects: Client
affects: Engineer A
active period: From Engineer A's observation of the fill through regulatory resolution
affected parties: Client
affected parties: Engineer A
affected parties: Public
affected parties: Regulatory agencies
affected parties: Wetland ecosystem
case context: The fill installation constitutes a substantial violation of federal and state law. No permits, variances, or permissions were obtained. Engineer A has confirmed the risk through direct observation, and no safeguards or corrective measures are known to be in place.
concept category: State
confidence: 0.87
principle transformation: Transforms the general duty to hold public safety paramount into a concrete sequential protocol: direct client notification, monitored remediation, and escalation to regulatory authorities upon client inaction.
state class: Confirmed Risk Without Adequate Safeguards State
subject: Wetland ecosystem and regulatory compliance status of the client's property
terminated by: Regulatory enforcement action, client remediation, or permit authorization
text references: The installation of the fill material is a substantial violation of the federal and state laws and regulations
text references: without any permits, variances, or permissions
triggering event: Engineer A observes substantial unpermitted fill on wetlands, confirming a concrete environmental and legal violation with no safeguards in place
urgency level: high
discovered in case: 86
discovered in pass: 1
discovered in section: facts
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T17:25:48.580472+00:00
first discovered in case: 86
match confidence: 0.95
match reasoning: Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Confirmed Risk Without Adequate Safeguards State'
matched ontology class: ConfirmedRiskWithoutAdequateSafeguardsState
matched ontology label: Confirmed Risk Without Adequate Safeguards State
matches existing: true
source text: The installation of the fill material is a substantial violation of the federal and state laws and regulations
synthesis literal: activePeriod
synthesis literal: caseContext
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: stateClass
synthesis literal: subject
synthesis literal: terminatedBy
synthesis literal: textReferences
synthesis literal: triggeringEvent
synthesis literal: urgencyLevel
comment: Wetland ecosystem and regulatory compliance status of the client's property
generated at time: 2026-06-04T17:25:48.580472+00:00
was attributed to: Case 86 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 86 Extraction

Engineer A Faithful Agent Limits
type: FaithfulAgentDutyPrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
invoked by: Engineer A
applied to: Client Wetland Fill Violator
balancing with: Environmental Law Compliance Principle
balancing with: Public Welfare Paramountcy Principle
concept category: Principle
concrete expression: Engineer A owes a duty of loyalty to the client arising from the wetland delineation engagement, but that duty does not extend to remaining silent about a substantial ongoing violation of federal and state environmental law that threatens protected public resources.
confidence: 0.85
interpretation: The faithful agent duty is a genuine professional obligation but is expressly subordinate to the engineer's paramount duty to public welfare. A client's illegal conduct that harms publicly protected resources falls outside the scope of legitimate client interests that the faithful agent duty is designed to protect.
invoked by: Engineer A Wetland Delineation Engineer
principle class: Faithful Agent Duty Principle
tension resolution: The faithful agent duty does not authorize an engineer to suppress knowledge of a substantial statutory violation. The client's interest in avoiding regulatory consequences for illegal conduct is not a legitimate interest that the faithful agent duty protects.
text references: The installation of the fill material is a substantial violation of the federal and state laws and regulations
text references: the client has installed a substantial amount of fill material on more than 1/2 an acre across a portion of the wetlands without any permits, variances, or permissions
discovered in case: 86
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: facts
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T17:28:58.159954+00:00
first discovered in case: 86
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: The installation of the fill material is a substantial violation of the federal and state laws and regulations.
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 owes a duty of loyalty to the client arising from the wetland delineation engagement, but that duty does not extend to remaining silent about a substantial ongoing violation of federal and state environmental law that threatens protected public resources.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T17:28:58.159954+00:00
was attributed to: Case 86 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 86 Extraction

Engineer A Safety Obligation Wetland Fill
type: SafetyObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer A Faithful Agent Limits Wetland
obligated party: Engineer A
prevails over: Engineer A Faithful Agent Limits Wetland
case context: The client's unpermitted fill of more than half an acre of wetlands implicates public welfare through degradation of protected environmental resources, triggering Engineer A's paramount duty under NSPE Code Section I.1.
compliance status: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.88
derived from principle: Engineer A Wetland Violation Public Welfare
obligation class: Safety Obligation
obligation statement: Engineer A is obligated to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public by taking action in response to the observed unpermitted wetland fill, which constitutes a substantial violation of federal and state environmental law with consequences for public welfare and environmental resources.
temporal scope: Upon observation of the unpermitted fill and recognition of its public welfare implications.
text references: The installation of the fill material is a substantial violation of the federal and state laws and regulations.
text references: he drives by his client's property and notices that the client has installed a substantial amount of fill material on more than 1/2 an acre across a portion of the wetlands without any permits, variances, or permissions.
discovered in case: 86
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: facts
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T17:30:01.042237+00:00
first discovered in case: 86
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: he drives by his client's property and notices that the client has installed a substantial amount of fill material on more than 1/2 an acre across a portion of the wetlands without any permits, variances, or permissions.
synthesis literal: caseContext
synthesis literal: complianceStatus
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: obligationClass
synthesis literal: obligationStatement
synthesis literal: temporalScope
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineer A is obligated to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public by taking action in response to the observed unpermitted wetland fill, which constitutes a substantial violation of federal and state environmental law with consequences for public welfare and environmental resources.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T17:30:01.042237+00:00
was attributed to: Case 86 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 86 Extraction

Engineer A Wetland Delineation Engineer
type: WetlandDelineationEngineer
type: NamedIndividual
adheres to principle: Engineer A Apartment Building Confidentiality Conflict
adheres to principle: Engineer A Client Confidentiality Limits
adheres to principle: Engineer A Environmental Law Compliance
adheres to principle: Engineer A Faithful Agent Limits
adheres to principle: Engineer A Wetland Environmental Law Compliance
adheres to principle: Engineer A Wetland Fact-Based Disclosure
adheres to principle: Engineer A Wetland Graduated Response
adheres to principle: Engineer A Wetland Public Welfare Obligation
has obligation: Engineer A Faithful Agent Limits Wetland
has obligation: Engineer A Wetland Client Contact
has obligation: Engineer A Wetland Confidentiality Limits
has obligation: Engineer A Wetland Environmental Compliance Reporting
has obligation: Engineer A Wetland Expertise Calibrated Disclosure
has obligation: Engineer A Wetland Observed Violation Disclosure
has obligation: Engineer A Wetland Post-Engagement Reporting
has obligation: Engineer A Wetland Regulatory Escalation
has obligation: Engineer A Wetland Remediation Monitoring
actor: Engineer A
case involvement: Performed wetland delineation services on the client's wetland site, then discovered upon driving past the property that the client had installed substantial fill material without permits in violation of federal and state law.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.92
has license: Professional Engineer
has specialty: Environmental engineering, wetland delineation
role category: provider_client
role class: Wetland Delineation Engineer
text references: Engineer A is an environmental engineer.
text references: Engineer A performs wetland delineation services on the client's wetland site.
text references: he drives by his client's property and notices that the client has installed a substantial amount of fill material
discovered in case: 86
discovered in pass: 1
discovered in section: facts
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T17:25:19.255251+00:00
first discovered in case: 86
match confidence: 0.78
match reasoning: Via class 'Wetland Delineation Engineer': Wetland delineation is a specialization of environmental engineering practice. The existing Environmental Engineer class covers environmental analysis and technical reports bearing licensure-based accountability, which encompasses this role. Matching as a specialization at medium confidence.
matched ontology class: EnvironmentalEngineer
matched ontology label: Environmental Engineer
matches existing: true
source text: Engineer A is an environmental engineer.
synthesis literal: caseInvolvement
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: roleCategory
synthesis literal: roleClass
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Performed wetland delineation services on the client's wetland site, then discovered upon driving past the property that the client had installed substantial fill material without permits in violation of federal and state law.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T17:25:19.255251+00:00
was attributed to: Case 86 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 86 Extraction

Engineer A Wetland Violation Public Welfare
type: PublicWelfareParamountcyPrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
invoked by: Engineer A
applied to: Client Wetland Fill Violator
applied to: unpermitted fill on wetland site
balancing with: Confidentiality Principle
balancing with: Faithful Agent Duty Principle
concept category: Principle
concrete expression: Engineer A, upon discovering that the client has placed unpermitted fill on more than half an acre of wetlands in violation of federal and state law, faces an obligation to hold the welfare of the public and the protected environment paramount over any residual loyalty to the former client.
confidence: 0.92
interpretation: Public welfare in this context encompasses not only direct human safety but also the protection of federally and state-regulated wetland resources that serve ecological and public functions. The substantial and ongoing nature of the violation elevates this from a matter of personal conscience to a professional obligation.
invoked by: Engineer A Public Responsibility
principle class: Public Welfare Paramountcy Principle
tension resolution: The paramountcy of public welfare over client loyalty means that Engineer A cannot remain silent about a substantial statutory violation simply because the client was a former service recipient. The violation is ongoing and substantial, placing it above the threshold where client loyalty could justify non-disclosure.
text references: The installation of the fill material is a substantial violation of the federal and state laws and regulations
text references: the client has installed a substantial amount of fill material on more than 1/2 an acre across a portion of the wetlands without any permits, variances, or permissions
discovered in case: 86
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: facts
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T17:28:58.159954+00:00
first discovered in case: 86
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: The installation of the fill material is a substantial violation of the federal and state laws and regulations.
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, upon discovering that the client has placed unpermitted fill on more than half an acre of wetlands in violation of federal and state law, faces an obligation to hold the welfare of the public and the protected environment paramount over any residual loyalty to the former client.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T17:28:58.159954+00:00
was attributed to: Case 86 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 86 Extraction

Authority Reporting Decision
type: Action
type: NamedIndividual
fulfills obligation: Engineer A Confidentiality Limits Wetland Violation
fulfills obligation: Engineer A Environmental Compliance Reporting
fulfills obligation: Engineer A Observed Violation Disclosure
fulfills obligation: Engineer A Post-Engagement Wetland Violation Reporting
fulfills obligation: Engineer A Safety Obligation Wetland Fill
fulfills obligation: Engineer A Wetland Environmental Compliance Reporting
fulfills obligation: Engineer A Wetland Observed Violation Disclosure
fulfills obligation: Engineer A Wetland Post-Engagement Reporting
initiates: Engineer A Present Case Remediation Monitoring
terminates: Engineer A Present Case Remediation Monitoring
concept category: Action
event role context: environmental engineer
foreseen unintended effects: Damage to the professional relationship with the client
foreseen unintended effects: Potential reputational risk to Engineer A
foreseen unintended effects: Serious legal and financial consequences for the client
fulfills obligation text: Hold Paramount Public Health Safety and Welfare
fulfills obligation text: Obligation to Report Known Violations
guided by principle: Engineer A Wetland Public Welfare Obligation
guided by principle: Engineer A Wetland Violation Public Welfare
guided by principle text: Hold Paramount Public Health Safety and Welfare
has agent: Engineer A
has mental state: deliberate
initiates text: Enforcement Action Possible
initiates text: Regulatory Authority Notified
intended outcome: Protect the public interest and the integrity of environmental laws by ensuring the violation is addressed through regulatory enforcement
requires capability text: Judgment to determine when escalation is required
requires capability text: Knowledge of federal and state environmental laws and regulations
requires capability text: Wetland delineation expertise
temporal extent: instant
temporal marker: Following client failure to take corrective action within a reasonable period
temporal sequence: 13
terminates text: Active Monitoring of Client Remediation
terminates text: Conditional Deferral of Authority Reporting
violates obligation text: Faithfulness to Client
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: If the client fails to take appropriate corrective steps, Engineer A must decide to report the violation of federal and state environmental laws to the appropriate regulatory authorities rather than allow the illegal fill to remain unremediated.
has time: Following client failure to take corrective action within a reasonable period
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 86 Extraction

Violation Discovery
type: Event
type: NamedIndividual
initiates: Engineer A Post-Engagement Violation Awareness
initiates: Engineer A Wetland Fill Violation Discovery
terminates: Engineer A Post-Engagement Violation Awareness
terminates: Engineer A Wetland Fill Violation Discovery
caused by action: Violation Observation Decision
causes state change: Engineer A gained direct personal knowledge of the illegal fill; the violation became known to a licensed professional with prior involvement on the property.
concept category: Event
event type: exogenous
initiates text: Engineer Awareness of Violation
initiates text: Prior Professional Knowledge Active
severity: high
temporal extent: instant
temporal marker: A few months after completion of delineation services
temporal sequence: 9
terminates text: Violation Unknown to Engineer A
synthesis literal: causesStateChange
synthesis literal: description
synthesis literal: eventType
synthesis literal: severity
synthesis literal: temporalExtent
synthesis literal: temporalMarker
synthesis literal: temporalSequence
comment: Engineer A, while driving past the property by chance, visually observed that the client had illegally filled more than half an acre of wetlands, bringing the violation to Engineer A's knowledge.
has time: A few months after completion of delineation services
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 86 Extraction

Client Contact Decision
type: Action
type: NamedIndividual
fulfills obligation: Engineer A Faithful Agent Limits Wetland
fulfills obligation: Engineer A Wetland Client Contact
initiates: Engineer A Present Case Remediation Monitoring
concept category: Action
event role context: environmental engineer
foreseen unintended effects: Possible legal and financial consequences for the client
foreseen unintended effects: Potential damage to the professional relationship with the client
fulfills obligation text: Faithfulness to Client
guided by principle: Engineer A Bridge Faithful Agent Limits
guided by principle: Engineer A Faithful Agent Limits
guided by principle: Engineer A Wetland Public Welfare Obligation
guided by principle: Engineer A Wetland Violation Public Welfare
guided by principle text: Act as Faithful Agent or Trustee
guided by principle text: Hold Paramount Public Health Safety and Welfare
has agent: Engineer A
has mental state: deliberate
initiates text: Client Notified of Violation
initiates text: Remediation Demand Issued
intended outcome: Inform the client of the legal violations and prompt the client to take immediate corrective action
raises obligation: Engineer A Safety Obligation Wetland Fill
raises obligation text: Hold Paramount Public Health Safety and Welfare
requires capability text: Knowledge of federal and state environmental laws and regulations
requires capability text: Professional communication skills
requires capability text: Wetland delineation expertise
temporal extent: instant
temporal marker: Immediately following discovery of the illegal fill
temporal sequence: 11
terminates text: Client Ignorance of Engineer Awareness
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 must decide to contact the client directly, inquire about the unauthorized fill material, and point out that the installation constitutes a violation of federal and state environmental laws requiring immediate remediation.
has time: Immediately following discovery of the illegal fill
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 86 Extraction

Engineer A Faithful Agent Limits Wetland
type: FaithfulAgentObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer A Safety Obligation Wetland Fill
defeasible under: Engineer A Confirmed Environmental Risk
defeasible under: Engineer A Faithful Agent Duty Conflict
obligated party: Engineer A
case context: Engineer A owes a duty of loyalty to the client from the prior engagement, but the client's unpermitted fill of more than half an acre of wetlands is a substantial violation of law that rises to a public welfare concern, defeating the faithful agent duty under the defeasibility condition recognized in the NSPE Code.
compliance status: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.85
derived from principle: Engineer A Faithful Agent Limits
obligation class: Faithful Agent Obligation
obligation statement: Engineer A's faithful agent duty to the client arising from the wetland delineation engagement does not extend to remaining silent about the client's subsequent, independently observed violation of federal and state wetland law, and that duty is defeated by the paramount obligation to public welfare.
temporal scope: Upon discovery of the violation, at the point where the faithful agent duty conflicts with the public welfare paramount obligation.
text references: Engineer A performs wetland delineation services on the client's wetland site.
text references: The installation of the fill material is a substantial violation of the federal and state laws and regulations.
discovered in case: 86
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: facts
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T17:30:01.042237+00:00
first discovered in case: 86
match confidence: 0.95
match reasoning: Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Faithful Agent Obligation'
matched ontology class: FaithfulAgentObligation
matched ontology label: Faithful Agent Obligation
matches existing: true
source text: Engineer A performs wetland delineation services on the client's wetland site.
synthesis literal: caseContext
synthesis literal: complianceStatus
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: obligationClass
synthesis literal: obligationStatement
synthesis literal: temporalScope
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineer A's faithful agent duty to the client arising from the wetland delineation engagement does not extend to remaining silent about the client's subsequent, independently observed violation of federal and state wetland law, and that duty is defeated by the paramount obligation to public welfare.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T17:30:01.042237+00:00
was attributed to: Case 86 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 86 Extraction

Illegal Wetland Fill
type: Event
type: NamedIndividual
initiates: Engineer A Confirmed Environmental Risk
initiates: Engineer A Environmental Hazard Observation
initiates: Engineer A Present Case Environmental Violation
initiates: Engineer A Wetland Fill Violation Discovery
initiates: Present Case Unpermitted Wetland Alteration
causes state change: More than half an acre of previously delineated wetlands was physically destroyed by fill material without regulatory authorization.
concept category: Event
event type: outcome
initiates text: Environmental Violation Existing
initiates text: Public Safety Risk
initiates text: Regulatory Non-Compliance State
initiates text: Unpermitted Fill Active
severity: high
temporal extent: interval
temporal marker: Some months after Engineer A completed delineation services
temporal sequence: 8
terminates text: Wetland Baseline Intact
synthesis literal: causesStateChange
synthesis literal: description
synthesis literal: eventType
synthesis literal: severity
synthesis literal: temporalExtent
synthesis literal: temporalMarker
synthesis literal: temporalSequence
comment: The client filled over half an acre of wetlands without obtaining the required permits, constituting a violation of environmental regulations and federal wetland protection law.
has time: Some months after Engineer A completed delineation services
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 86 Extraction

Engineer A Wetland Observed Violation Disclosure
type: ObservedViolationDisclosureObligation
type: NamedIndividual
obligated party: Engineer A
case context: Engineer A had performed the original wetland delineation and then personally observed the fill, placing the violation at the level of established fact rather than suspicion or speculation, distinguishing this case from the bridge wall and apartment building cases.
compliance status: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.9
derived from principle: Engineer A Wetland Fact-Based Disclosure
obligation class: Observed Violation Disclosure Obligation
obligation statement: Because Engineer A personally observed the unpermitted wetland fill with domain expertise, the concern rose to the level of established fact, triggering a mandatory disclosure obligation to the appropriate authority if the client failed to remediate.
temporal scope: From the time of personal observation of the fill, given Engineer A's domain expertise
text references: Engineer A's fact-based disclosure threshold was met because Engineer A directly observes the unpermitted fill on the wetland site, placing the violation at the level of established fact rather than suspicion.
text references: In contrast, the facts in the present case indicate a violation of the federal and state laws and regulations.
discovered in case: 86
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: discussion
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T17:34:19.889581+00:00
first discovered in case: 86
match confidence: 0.0
matches existing: false
source text: Engineer A's fact-based disclosure threshold was met because Engineer A directly observes the unpermitted fill on the wetland site, placing the violation at the level of established fact rather than suspicion.
synthesis literal: caseContext
synthesis literal: complianceStatus
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: obligationClass
synthesis literal: obligationStatement
synthesis literal: temporalScope
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Because Engineer A personally observed the unpermitted wetland fill with domain expertise, the concern rose to the level of established fact, triggering a mandatory disclosure obligation to the appropriate authority if the client failed to remediate.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T17:34:19.889581+00:00
was attributed to: Case 86 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 86 Extraction

Engineer A
type: Agent
type: NamedIndividual
employed by: VWX Architects and Engineers
has client: Client
has client: Public Agency
has role: Engineer A Public Responsibility
has role: Engineer A Structural Inspection Sub-Consultant
has role: Engineer A Wetland Delineation Engineer