ProEthica Case 88 Ontology
type: Ontology
created: 2026-02-26T00:31:11.054745
imports: cases
imports: intermediate

Accept Limited Scope Engagement
type: Action
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
event role context: Consulting Engineer
foreseen unintended effects: Accepting scope bounded by outdated regulations may constrain later ability to raise climate concerns
foreseen unintended effects: Scope may prove insufficient to address public safety risks that emerge during design
fulfills obligation text: Agreeing to perform work within professional competence
fulfills obligation text: Responding to client's legitimate business need
guided by principle text: Primacy of public health, safety, and welfare
guided by principle text: Professional competence and due diligence
guided by principle text: Truthfulness and objectivity in professional undertakings
has agent: Engineer A
has mental state: deliberate
intended outcome: Secure consulting engagement and deliver compliant road and tidal crossing design within established regulatory framework
raises obligation text: Obligation to flag at intake that existing regulatory standards may be insufficient given climate change context
raises obligation text: Proactive duty to scope engagements broadly enough to protect public health, safety, and welfare
requires capability text: Civil/structural engineering design
requires capability text: Hydraulic and hydrologic engineering
requires capability text: Local permitting and regulatory navigation
requires capability text: Tidal crossing and bridge design
temporal marker: Pre-project scoping phase
temporal sequence: 1
within competence: true
comment: Engineer A accepts the consulting engagement from Client B with a scope limited to design and local permitting per existing 25-year storm regulations, without initially negotiating broader climate-risk evaluation into the scope.
generated at time: 2026-02-28T10:32:26.861432
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Accept Limited Scope Engagement (Action 1) → Flood Risk Discovered (Event 2)
type: CausalChain
type: NamedIndividual
causal language: Engineer A accepts the consulting engagement from Client B with a scope limited to design and local [evaluation], which enabled the hydraulic evaluation that revealed the flood risk
cause: Accept Limited Scope Engagement (Action 1)
counterfactual: Without Engineer A accepting the engagement, the hydraulic evaluation would not have been performed and the flood risk would not have been formally discovered at this stage
effect: Flood Risk Discovered (Event 2)
necessary factors: Completion of the hydraulic evaluation procedures
necessary factors: Engineer A's acceptance of the engagement
necessary factors: Scope inclusion of hydraulic evaluation work
responsibility type: direct
responsible agent: Engineer A
sufficient factors: Acceptance of engagement + defined scope including hydraulic work + professional execution of evaluation
within agent control: true
generated at time: 2026-02-28T10:32:26.870735
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Accept Tidal Crossing Engagement
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:31:11.075828
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Accept Tidal Crossing Engagement (Action 1) → Tidal Saltmarsh Crossing Identified (Event 1)
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:31:11.076301
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Analysis Deferral Imposed
type: Event
type: NamedIndividual
activates constraint: Duty_To_Engage_Client_On_Ethics
activates constraint: Prohibition_On_Concealing_Known_Hazards
activates constraint: PublicSafety_Paramount_Constraint
causes state change: Project proceeds without the flood impact analysis; known risk to upstream homeowners remains unquantified and undisclosed; Engineer A's continued participation now carries moral weight; the ethical threshold for withdrawal begins to approach
concept category: Event
creates obligation: Assess_Whether_Continued_Participation_Is_Ethical
creates obligation: Consider_Regulatory_Disclosure_Independently
creates obligation: Document_Client_Directive_And_Engineer_Response
creates obligation: Engage_Client_On_Risk_Disclosure
emergency status: high
event type: outcome
temporal marker: Following Engineer A's proposal for specialized flood analysis and Client B's direction
temporal sequence: 7
urgency level: high
comment: Following Client B's directive to skip the specialized flood analysis unless regulators require it, the detailed assessment of flood impacts on upstream homes is formally deferred, leaving the risk undocumented and unmitigated within the project scope.
generated at time: 2026-02-28T10:32:26.861795
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Analysis Deferral Imposed (Event 3) → Third Party Risk Unmitigated (Event 4)
type: CausalChain
type: NamedIndividual
causal language: As a consequence of the deferred analysis and the absence of disclosure, approximately twenty upstream properties remain exposed to uncharacterized and unmitigated flood risk
cause: Analysis Deferral Imposed (Event 3)
counterfactual: If the specialized analysis had been conducted, or if disclosure had been made to regulators or property owners, the risk to third parties would have been identified, quantified, and potentially mitigated through design modification or informed consent
effect: Third Party Risk Unmitigated (Event 4)
necessary factors: Absence of disclosure to regulators or affected third parties
necessary factors: Continuation of the bridge replacement project
necessary factors: Existence of approximately twenty upstream properties in the flood impact zone
necessary factors: Non-performance of the specialized flood analysis
responsibility type: shared
responsible agent: Client B (primary for deferral decision); Engineer A (shared for failure to escalate disclosure obligations)
sufficient factors: Deferred analysis + no disclosure + project continuation + presence of third-party properties in risk zone
within agent control: true
generated at time: 2026-02-28T10:32:26.872983
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Analysis Omission Directed
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Event
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:31:11.076197
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

BER Case 07-6 - Threatened Species Disclosure in Development Report
type: BERCasePrecedent
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.97
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case 07.6
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T00:09:39.155089+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T00:09:39.155089+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: BER Case Precedent
sourcetext: In BER Case 07.6, Engineer A was a principal in an environmental engineering firm and had been requested by a developer client to prepare an analysis of a piece of property adjacent to a wetlands area for potential development as a residential condominium.
textreferences: In BER Case 07.6, Engineer A was a principal in an environmental engineering firm and had been requested by a developer client to prepare an analysis of a piece of property adjacent to a wetlands area for potential development as a residential condominium.
textreferences: The BER determined that it was unethical for Engineer A to not include the information about the threat to the bird species in a written report that would be submitted to a public authority that was considering the developer's proposal.
textreferences: engineers have an obligation to be objective and truthful in professional reports, statements, or testimony and include all relevant and pertinent information in such reports
usedby: BER in reasoning about Engineer A's obligation to disclose potential flooding impacts
usedincontext: Cited as precedent establishing that engineers must include all relevant and pertinent information in professional reports submitted to public authorities, including information about environmental threats not legally required to be disclosed, grounding the obligation of objective and truthful reporting
version: 2007
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:31:11.058830
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

BER Case 07-6 Engineer A Environmental Engineering Consultant Upstream Flood Risk
type: UpstreamThird-PartyFloodRiskIdentificationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Upstream Third-Party Flood Risk Identification Capability
capabilitystatement: In BER Case 07.6, Engineer A as an environmental engineering consultant possessed the capability to identify upstream third-party flood risk associated with a proposed development project adjacent to a water body, providing precedent for the obligation to assess and disclose such risks.
casecontext: BER Case 07.6 precedent involving environmental engineering consultant identifying third-party environmental risks for a developer client.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.8
demonstratedthrough: Engineer A's role as a principal in an environmental engineering firm retained by a developer to analyze a property adjacent to a water body, identifying environmental risks to third parties.
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T14:16:13.646069+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T14:16:13.646069+00:00
importance: medium
possessedby: BER Case 07.6 Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: In the referenced BER Case 07.6, Engineer A was a principal in an environmental engineering firm retained by a developer to analyze a property adjacent to a water body.
textreferences: In the referenced BER Case 07.6, Engineer A was a principal in an environmental engineering firm retained by a developer to analyze a property adjacent to a water body.
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T10:32:26.860525
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

BER Case 07.6
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:52:37.590473
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

BER Case 07.6 before BER Case 18-9
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: Case numbering (07.6 vs 18-9) implies 07.6 preceded 18-9 chronologically; both cited as precedents before the current case
from entity text: BER Case 07.6
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: BER Case 18-9
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: BER Case 18-9
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:31:11.076712
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

BER Case 18-9 - Coastal Risk Assessment and Storm Surge Design Standard
type: BERCasePrecedent
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.97
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case 18-9
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T00:09:39.155089+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T00:09:39.155089+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: BER Case Precedent
sourcetext: In BER Case 18-9, Engineer A worked for a developer to perform hydrodynamic modeling and coastal risk assessment regarding a proposed residential development.
textreferences: Based on newly identified historic weather data, Engineer A advocated that the project be designed for the then-projected 100-year storm surge elevation due to public safety risks even at lower projections.
textreferences: In BER Case 18-9, Engineer A worked for a developer to perform hydrodynamic modeling and coastal risk assessment regarding a proposed residential development.
textreferences: The BER concluded that Engineer A should continue to attempt to convince the owner of the potential for damage to future residents and the public, and, failing agreement on Engineer A's proposed design standard, Engineer A should withdraw from the project.
usedby: BER in reasoning about Engineer A's obligations when Client B resists detailed climate impact evaluation
usedincontext: Cited as precedent establishing that engineers must advocate for protective design standards based on public safety risks even when owners refuse, and must withdraw from projects when agreement on adequate safety standards cannot be reached, directly analogous to Engineer A's situation regarding climate-adjusted flood risk
version: 2018
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:31:11.058967
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

BER Case 18-9 Engineer A Climate-Aware Coastal Infrastructure Tidal Hydraulic Analysis
type: TidalHydraulicandHydrologicAnalysisCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Tidal Hydraulic and Hydrologic Analysis Capability
capabilitystatement: In BER Case 18-9, Engineer A possessed the capability to perform hydrodynamic modeling and coastal risk assessment for a proposed residential development, including assessment of sea level rise effects and tidal dynamics relevant to coastal infrastructure.
casecontext: BER Case 18-9 precedent involving climate-aware coastal infrastructure engineering and hydrodynamic modeling.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.82
demonstratedthrough: Engineer A's work performing hydrodynamic modeling and coastal risk assessment for a proposed residential development in BER Case 18-9.
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T14:16:13.646069+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T14:16:13.646069+00:00
importance: medium
possessedby: BER Case 18-9 Engineer A
proficiencylevel: expert
sourcetext: In the referenced BER Case 18-9, Engineer A worked for a developer performing hydrodynamic modeling and coastal risk assessment for a proposed residential development.
textreferences: In the referenced BER Case 18-9, Engineer A worked for a developer performing hydrodynamic modeling and coastal risk assessment for a proposed residential development.
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T10:32:26.860363
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

BER Case 18-9 before current case analysis
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: In BER Case 18-9...Turning to the current case, Engineer A does have an ethical obligation...
from entity text: BER Case 18-9
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: current case analysis
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: current case analysis
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:31:11.076741
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Case 88 Timeline
type: NamedIndividual
type: TemporalEntity
action count: 7
event count: 6
total elements: 13
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:31:11.076863
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

CausalLink_Accept Limited Scope Engagemen
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T10:32:26.871629
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

CausalLink_Accept Tidal Crossing Engageme
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:52:37.590506
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

CausalLink_Client Directs Analysis Deferr
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T10:32:26.871730
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

CausalLink_Client Directs Analysis Omissi
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:52:37.594271
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

CausalLink_Engage Client on Risk Disclosu
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:52:37.594303
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

CausalLink_Form Climate Risk Judgment
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T10:32:26.871667
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

CausalLink_Propose Regulatory Disclosure
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T10:32:26.871782
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

CausalLink_Propose Specialized Flood Anal
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T10:32:26.871698
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

CausalLink_Propose Specialized Hydraulic
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:52:37.594238
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

CausalLink_Render Independent Flood Risk
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:52:37.590539
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

CausalLink_Submit Concerns to Regulators
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:52:37.594336
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

CausalLink_Withdraw from Project
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:52:37.594369
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Client-Directed Third-Party Risk Analysis Deferral Constraint - Engineer A Client B
type: Client-DirectedThird-PartyRiskAnalysisDeferralConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Client B has directed Engineer A to forgo the recommended specialized analysis, creating a constraint on Engineer A's ability to fully characterize the upstream flood risk while simultaneously triggering disclosure and documentation obligations.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.88
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Client-Directed Third-Party Risk Analysis Deferral Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A is constrained by Client B's explicit directive to proceed without the specialized hydrologic and hydraulic analysis, which limits Engineer A's ability to quantify the upstream flood risk but does not relieve Engineer A of the obligation to disclose the unquantified risk, document the client's override, and evaluate whether proactive regulatory disclosure is warranted without client authorization.
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T00:17:17.632152+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T00:17:17.632152+00:00
importance: high
severity: critical
source: Client B's directive; NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case 18-9
sourcetext: Client B directs Engineer A to proceed without the costly analysis unless and until such an analysis is requested by the applicable regulatory authorities.
temporalscope: From Client B's directive forward through the design and permitting phase
textreferences: Client B directs Engineer A to proceed without the costly analysis unless and until such an analysis is requested by the applicable regulatory authorities.
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:31:11.068431
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Client-Directed Third-Party Risk Analysis Deferral — Client B Refusal of Specialized Hydraulic Study
type: Client-DirectedThird-PartyRiskAnalysisDeferralConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Client B has explicitly directed Engineer A to proceed without the specialized hydrologic and hydraulic analysis recommended by Engineer A. This creates a constraint on Engineer A's ability to fully characterize the risk, but does not eliminate the disclosure obligation.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.92
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Client-Directed Third-Party Risk Analysis Deferral Constraint
constraintstatement: Client B's direction to proceed without the specialized hydrologic and hydraulic analysis limits Engineer A's ability to quantify the upstream flood risk but does not relieve Engineer A of the obligation to disclose the unquantified risk, document Client B's override directive in writing, and evaluate whether the unquantified risk warrants proactive disclosure to regulatory authorities or the twenty upstream homeowners without Client B's authorization.
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T14:24:36.668979+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T14:24:36.668979+00:00
importance: high
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case 18-9
sourcetext: If Client B remains unconvinced, Engineer A should propose to Client B that engineer a provides the potential concern that may necessitate more detailed evaluation in an engineering report for consideration by regulatory agencies and the public.
temporalscope: From Client B's refusal of the specialized analysis through project resolution
textreferences: If Client B remains unconvinced, Engineer A should propose to Client B that engineer a provides the potential concern that may necessitate more detailed evaluation in an engineering report for consideration by regulatory agencies and the public.
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T10:32:26.867147
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Client B Cost-Directing Developer Client
type: Cost-DirectingDeveloperClient
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'project_type': 'Health care facility development', 'cost_stance': 'Directs engineer to omit costly specialized analysis unless regulators require it', 'regulatory_context': 'Subject to local development regulations requiring 25-year fresh-water storm design standard'}
caseinvolvement: Developer proposing a health care facility requiring a significant access road upgrade across a tidal saltmarsh; directs Engineer A to forgo the recommended specialized hydrologic/hydraulic analysis on cost grounds unless required by regulatory authorities, creating a conflict between client cost-minimization authority and the engineer's public safety obligations.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.97
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T06:38:26.427475+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T06:38:26.427475+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'directs_scope_of', 'target': 'Engineer A Tidal Crossing Infrastructure Design Engineer'}
relationships: {'type': 'retains', 'target': 'Engineer A Tidal Crossing Infrastructure Design Engineer'}
rolecategory: provider_client
roleclass: Cost-Directing Developer Client
sourcetext: Client B, a developer who is proposing to develop a health care facility
textreferences: Client B directs Engineer A to proceed without the costly analysis unless and until such an analysis is requested by the applicable regulatory authorities
textreferences: Client B, a developer who is proposing to develop a health care facility
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T10:32:26.875237
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Client B Developer
type: Cost-DirectingDeveloperClient
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'entity_type': 'Private developer', 'project_type': 'Residential development in coastal/flood-risk area'}
caseinvolvement: Developer client who retained Engineer A for hydrodynamic modeling and coastal risk assessment for a proposed residential development, refused to agree that 100-year storm surge protection was required or appropriate, and declined to authorize detailed evaluation or disclosure of potential flooding impacts, triggering Engineer A's obligation to propose regulatory reporting or withdraw.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T00:09:53.405744+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T00:09:53.405744+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'provider', 'target': 'Engineer A Coastal Risk Assessment'}
relationships: {'type': 'regulatory_subject', 'target': 'Regulatory Agencies and Public'}
rolecategory: provider_client
roleclass: Cost-Directing Developer Client
sourcetext: The Owner refused to agree that such protection was required or appropriate
textreferences: Engineer A should engage Client B in discussions about the need for the detailed evaluation and disclosure of the potential impacts on the public
textreferences: Failing agreement by Client B to either of these courses of action
textreferences: The Owner refused to agree that such protection was required or appropriate
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:31:11.060128
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Client B's directive to skip the analysis before Engineer A's ethical obligation to engage Client B in discussions
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:31:11.076558
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Client B's refusal to agree on design standard (BER Case 18-9) before Engineer A's withdrawal from project (BER Case 18-9)
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: The Owner refused to agree that such protection was required or appropriate. The BER concluded that Engineer A should continue to attempt to convince the owner...and, failing agreement on Engineer A's proposed design standard, Engineer A should withdraw from the project
from entity text: Client B's refusal to agree on design standard (BER Case 18-9)
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: Engineer A's withdrawal from project (BER Case 18-9)
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: Engineer A s withdrawal from project BER Case 18-
generated at time: 2026-02-28T10:32:26.875886
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Client Budget Resource Constraint - Specialized Hydraulic Analysis
type: ClientBudgetLimitationConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Client B has directed Engineer A to proceed without the specialized hydrologic and hydraulic analysis unless and until requested by regulatory authorities, citing the cost of the analysis.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.91
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Client Budget Limitation Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A is constrained by Client B's unwillingness to fund the complex and costly specialized hydrologic and hydraulic subconsultant analysis proposed by Engineer A, which limits Engineer A's ability to quantify the foreseeable upstream flood risk with the precision that would be achievable through the specialized analysis.
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T00:17:17.632152+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T00:17:17.632152+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: Client B's directive to proceed without the costly analysis; resource constraints on project scope
sourcetext: Client B directs Engineer A to proceed without the costly analysis unless and until such an analysis is requested by the applicable regulatory authorities.
temporalscope: From Client B's directive forward through the design and permitting phase
textreferences: Client B directs Engineer A to proceed without the costly analysis unless and until such an analysis is requested by the applicable regulatory authorities.
textreferences: Engineer A proposes a complex and costly hydrologic and hydraulic analysis by a specialized subconsultant
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:31:11.068121
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Client Directs Analysis Deferral
type: Action
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
event role context: Developer
foreseen unintended effects: Creates ethical conflict for Engineer A
foreseen unintended effects: May expose Client B to future liability if flood damage occurs
foreseen unintended effects: Potential flood risk to twenty upstream homeowners remains unquantified and undisclosed
foreseen unintended effects: Relevant information may be withheld from regulatory agencies and the public
fulfills obligation text: Exercising client authority over project scope and budget within contractual relationship
guided by principle text: Client's legitimate authority over business decisions
guided by principle text: Developer's responsibility to avoid harm to affected communities
has agent: Client B
has mental state: deliberate
intended outcome: Avoid the cost and potential project complications of the specialized analysis; proceed to permitting on the basis of existing regulatory requirements only
requires capability text: Project management and budget authority
requires capability text: Understanding of regulatory requirements
temporal marker: Client directive moment, during design phase after Engineer A's proposal
temporal sequence: 6
violates obligation text: Duty not to direct licensed professionals to withhold material public safety information
violates obligation text: Responsibility to avoid harm to third parties (upstream homeowners) through project decisions
within competence: true
comment: Client B directs Engineer A to proceed with the project without conducting the costly specialized flood analysis unless and until regulatory authorities specifically request it, prioritizing cost control and regulatory minimums over proactive risk quantification.
generated at time: 2026-02-28T10:32:26.861575
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Client Directs Analysis Deferral (Action 4) + Third Party Risk Unmitigated (Event 4) → Withdraw from Project (Action 7)
type: CausalChain
type: NamedIndividual
causal language: If Client B refuses both further substantive engagement on the flood risk and agreement to disclose, Engineer A's ethical obligations under BER precedent require withdrawal from the project to avoid complicity in ongoing third-party harm
cause: Client Directs Analysis Deferral (Action 4) + Third Party Risk Unmitigated (Event 4)
counterfactual: If Client B had agreed to either substantive engagement or disclosure at any prior stage, withdrawal would not be required; if Engineer A withdraws without exhausting Actions 5 and 6 first, the withdrawal may itself be premature and ethically incomplete
effect: Withdraw from Project (Action 7)
necessary factors: Client B's refusal to agree to regulatory or third-party disclosure
necessary factors: Client B's refusal to engage substantively on flood risk disclosure
necessary factors: Engineer A's crystallized ethical obligation to protect public safety
necessary factors: Exhaustion of intermediate remediation options (Actions 5 and 6)
responsibility type: direct
responsible agent: Engineer A (obligation to withdraw); Client B (responsibility for creating conditions requiring withdrawal)
sufficient factors: Client refusal of disclosure + exhaustion of engagement options + Engineer A's operative professional ethics obligations
within agent control: true
generated at time: 2026-02-28T10:32:26.875591
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Client Directs Analysis Deferral (Action 4) → Analysis Deferral Imposed (Event 3)
type: CausalChain
type: NamedIndividual
causal language: Following Client B's directive to proceed with the project without conducting the costly specialized flood analysis, the Analysis Deferral Imposed event directly materializes as a consequence of that volitional client decision
cause: Client Directs Analysis Deferral (Action 4)
counterfactual: If Client B had approved the specialized flood analysis, or if Engineer A had withdrawn or escalated to regulators, the deferral would not have been imposed and third-party risk would have been characterized
effect: Analysis Deferral Imposed (Event 3)
necessary factors: Client B's authority over project scope and budget decisions
necessary factors: Client B's decision to prioritize cost over risk characterization
necessary factors: Engineer A's continuation on the project following the directive
responsibility type: shared
responsible agent: Client B (primary); Engineer A (shared for continuation)
sufficient factors: Client directive to defer + Engineer A's non-withdrawal + absence of regulatory mandate forcing the analysis
within agent control: true
generated at time: 2026-02-28T10:32:26.871050
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Client Directs Analysis Omission
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:31:11.075939
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Client Directs Analysis Omission (Action 4) → Analysis Omission Directed (Event 4) → Engineer-Client Impasse Reached (Event 5)
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:31:11.076384
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Client Loyalty vs. Public Safety Priority — Engineer A Upstream Homeowner Protection
type: ClientLoyaltyvs.PublicSafetyPriorityConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A faces a direct conflict between Client B's directive to proceed without the specialized analysis (client loyalty) and the obligation to protect twenty upstream homeowners from foreseeable flood damage (public safety). The constraint establishes that public safety takes precedence.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.93
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Client Loyalty vs. Public Safety Priority Constraint
constraintstatement: When Engineer A's obligation to serve Client B's project interests conflicts with the obligation to protect the twenty upstream homeowners from foreseeable flood damage, the public safety obligation takes precedence, constraining Engineer A from fulfilling Client B's directive to proceed without the specialized analysis when doing so would compromise the welfare of the upstream homeowners.
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T14:24:36.668979+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T14:24:36.668979+00:00
importance: high
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case 18-9
sourcetext: Engineer A does have an ethical obligation to address the impacts of the project on public health, safety, and welfare regardless of whether or not that is required by applicable law.
temporalscope: Throughout the tidal crossing project, from identification of the upstream flood risk through project resolution
textreferences: Engineer A does have an ethical obligation to address the impacts of the project on public health, safety, and welfare regardless of whether or not that is required by applicable law.
textreferences: Professional engineers have a primary ethical obligation to hold paramount the protection of public health, safety, and welfare.
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T10:32:26.868445
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Client Loyalty vs Public Safety Priority Constraint - Engineer A Upstream Homes
type: ClientLoyaltyvs.PublicSafetyPriorityConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A faces a direct conflict between Client B's directive to proceed without the specialized analysis and the professional obligation to protect the public safety of upstream homeowners who face foreseeable flood damage from the tidal crossing upgrade.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.93
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Client Loyalty vs. Public Safety Priority Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A is constrained by the priority hierarchy establishing that when the faithful agent obligation to Client B conflicts with the obligation to protect the public safety of approximately twenty upstream homeowners facing foreseeable flood damage, the public safety obligation takes precedence — prohibiting Engineer A from fulfilling Client B's directive to forgo analysis and disclosure in a manner that would compromise the welfare of the upstream residential community.
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T00:17:17.632152+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T00:17:17.632152+00:00
importance: critical
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section I.1; BER Case 18-9; public safety paramount provisions
sourcetext: It is Engineer A's judgment, based on hydraulic evaluation procedures presented at a recent transportation agency conference, that the proposed project may result in some upstream homes becoming uninhabitable a decade or more earlier than would otherwise be the case.
temporalscope: Throughout the design and permitting phase, particularly following Client B's directive to forgo the specialized analysis
textreferences: Client B directs Engineer A to proceed without the costly analysis unless and until such an analysis is requested by the applicable regulatory authorities.
textreferences: It is Engineer A's judgment, based on hydraulic evaluation procedures presented at a recent transportation agency conference, that the proposed project may result in some upstream homes becoming uninhabitable a decade or more earlier than would otherwise be the case.
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:31:11.068901
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Client Override Written Documentation Constraint - Engineer A Client B Hydraulic Analysis Deferral
type: ClientOverrideWrittenDocumentationConstraintEngineerAClientBHydraulicAnalysisDeferral
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Client B has directed Engineer A to proceed without the specialized analysis, creating an obligation to document the override directive and Engineer A's professional objection in writing.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.88
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Client Override of Safety Analysis Written Documentation Obligation
constraintstatement: Engineer A is constrained to document in writing Client B's directive to forgo the recommended specialized hydrologic and hydraulic analysis, including Engineer A's professional objection to that directive and the foreseeable risks of proceeding without the analysis — prohibiting Engineer A from treating Client B's oral directive as a sufficient basis for proceeding without a written record of the override and Engineer A's professional position.
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T00:17:17.632152+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T00:17:17.632152+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; professional documentation standards; BER Case 18-9
sourcetext: Client B directs Engineer A to proceed without the costly analysis unless and until such an analysis is requested by the applicable regulatory authorities.
temporalscope: Immediately following Client B's directive to forgo the specialized analysis
textreferences: Client B directs Engineer A to proceed without the costly analysis unless and until such an analysis is requested by the applicable regulatory authorities.
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:31:11.069503
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Client Relationship - Engineer A and Client B
type: ClientRelationshipEstablished
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From engagement commencement through project completion or disassociation
affectedparties: Client B
affectedparties: Engineer A
concept category: State
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T00:09:07.016855+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T00:09:07.016855+00:00
importance: medium
sourcetext: Engineer A is a consulting engineer representing Client B, a developer who is proposing to develop a health care facility that requires a significant upgrade to the property's access road that crosses a tidal saltmarsh.
stateclass: Client Relationship Established
subject: Engineer A's consulting engagement with Client B for design and local permitting of the roadway and tidal crossing upgrade
terminatedby: Project completion, contract termination, or Engineer A's disassociation
textreferences: Engineer A is a consulting engineer representing Client B, a developer who is proposing to develop a health care facility that requires a significant upgrade to the property's access road that crosses a tidal saltmarsh.
textreferences: Engineer A's scope includes design and local permitting of the roadway, including an upgrade of the tidal crossing from a small culvert to a small bridge, increasing its hydraulic capacity.
triggeringevent: Client B retaining Engineer A as consulting engineer for the health care facility access road and tidal crossing upgrade project
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:31:11.057723
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Client Risk Consequence Communication — Engineer A Client B Tidal Crossing Cost-Risk Disclosure
type: ClientRiskConsequenceCommunicationConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Client B has refused the specialized analysis on cost grounds. Engineer A's engagement with Client B must include communication of the consequences to Client B — not just to the public — of proceeding without the analysis, to ensure Client B has complete information for the decision.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.88
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Client Risk Consequence Communication Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A must communicate to Client B not only the public welfare rationale for the specialized hydrologic and hydraulic analysis but also the potential risk to Client B of not evaluating or disclosing the potential impacts — including legal, financial, and reputational consequences — as a component of the graduated client engagement sequence.
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T14:24:36.668979+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T14:24:36.668979+00:00
importance: medium
severity: medium
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case analysis — current case
sourcetext: Engineer A should engage Client B in discussions about the need for the detailed evaluation and disclosure of the potential impacts on the public and alternatives for the project to mitigate those impacts, and the potential risk to Client B of not evaluating the potential impacts.
temporalscope: During the initial client engagement phase of the graduated escalation sequence
textreferences: Engineer A should engage Client B in discussions about the need for the detailed evaluation and disclosure of the potential impacts on the public and alternatives for the project to mitigate those impacts, and the potential risk to Client B of not evaluating the potential impacts.
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T10:32:26.868125
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Climate-Adjusted Design Standard Gap — Engineer A Tidal Crossing Regulatory Floor
type: Climate-AdjustedDesignStandardGapConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The applicable local development regulation specifies a 25-year fresh-water storm event assuming weather conditions consistent with historical data. National design codes have not yet been updated to reflect sea level rise. Engineer A's professional judgment, informed by transportation agency conference guidance, identifies this gap.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.93
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Climate-Adjusted Design Standard Gap Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A is prohibited from treating compliance with the local 25-year storm standard — which has not been updated to reflect sea level rise, altered precipitation intensities, or shifting storm recurrence intervals — as a complete discharge of professional obligations when Engineer A has affirmative knowledge that the regulatory standard is climatically inadequate.
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T14:24:36.668979+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T14:24:36.668979+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; Local Development Regulation (25-year storm); National Design Codes and Standards for Hydraulic Infrastructure
sourcetext: The local development regulations applicable to the project specify that the access road and tidal crossing upgrade be designed for a 25-year fresh-water storm event, assuming weather conditions consistent with historical data.
temporalscope: Design and permitting phase of the tidal crossing upgrade
textreferences: National design codes and standards applicable to the hydraulic design of the tidal crossing have not yet been updated to reflect sea level rise, changes in precipitation intensity, or changes in storm recurrence intervals.
textreferences: The local development regulations applicable to the project specify that the access road and tidal crossing upgrade be designed for a 25-year fresh-water storm event, assuming weather conditions consistent with historical data.
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T10:32:26.866224
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Climate-Adjusted Hydraulic Design Standard - Moving Target Recognition
type: Climate-AdjustedHydraulicDesignStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.9
createdby: Professional engineering community and emerging practice norms
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: Emerging Professional Norms for Climate-Adjusted Engineering Design
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T00:09:39.155089+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T00:09:39.155089+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Climate-Adjusted Hydraulic Design Standard
sourcetext: For more than a century, engineers have assumed that future climate and weather conditions will be consistent with historical climate and weather data.
textreferences: Considering the effects of climate change in engineering planning and design adds substantial complexity to engineering decision-making as engineers consider 'going beyond' existing requirements to provide long-term protection of public health, safety, and welfare.
textreferences: For more than a century, engineers have assumed that future climate and weather conditions will be consistent with historical climate and weather data.
textreferences: This necessitates that climate and weather patterns be addressed not as fixed by historical patterns but rather recognized as a 'moving target.'
usedby: Engineer A in evaluating whether detailed climate impact modeling is required for the proposed development
usedincontext: Establishes that engineers must treat climate and weather patterns as a 'moving target' rather than fixed historical baselines, requiring consideration of future climate change effects in engineering planning and design to protect long-term public health, safety, and welfare
version: Current
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:31:11.059107
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Climate_Adjusted_Hydraulic_Design_Standard_Current_Case
type: Climate-AdjustedHydraulicDesignStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.88
createdby: Engineering profession (collective professional norm)
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: Climate-Adjusted Hydraulic and Coastal Design Standard
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T06:40:41.457669+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T06:40:41.457669+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Climate-Adjusted Hydraulic Design Standard
sourcetext: For more than a century, engineers have assumed that future climate and weather conditions will be consistent with historical climate and weather data.
textreferences: Engineer A has an obligation to consider climate and weather changes in the future with respect to potential impacts on public health, safety, and welfare, where such impacts are reasonably likely and significant.
textreferences: For more than a century, engineers have assumed that future climate and weather conditions will be consistent with historical climate and weather data.
textreferences: This necessitates that climate and weather patterns be addressed not as fixed by historical patterns but rather recognized as a 'moving target.'
usedby: Engineer A in evaluating whether detailed hydrologic and coastal modeling is required for the project
usedincontext: Frames the professional obligation to incorporate climate change projections — including shifting weather patterns and storm recurrence intervals — into engineering planning and design rather than relying solely on historical climate data
version: Emerging professional norm
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T10:32:26.876446
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Climate Baseline Moving Target Condition
type: MovingTargetClimateBaselineState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: Ongoing — persists across all climate-sensitive engineering projects in the current era of changing climate and weather patterns
affectedparties: All engineers engaged in climate-sensitive design
affectedparties: Client B
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Public relying on climate-resilient infrastructure
concept category: State
confidence: 0.87
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T00:10:17.210310+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T00:10:17.210310+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: For more than a century, engineers have assumed that future climate and weather conditions will be consistent with historical climate and weather data
stateclass: Moving Target Climate Baseline State
subject: The general professional engineering context for climate-sensitive design, and specifically Engineer A's project context
terminatedby: Not terminated in the current case — persists as a background condition affecting all climate-sensitive engineering judgment
textreferences: For more than a century, engineers have assumed that future climate and weather conditions will be consistent with historical climate and weather data
textreferences: In recent decades, as climate and weather data are updated, the historical dataset changes as climate and weather patterns continue to change
textreferences: This necessitates that climate and weather patterns be addressed not as fixed by historical patterns but rather recognized as a 'moving target'
triggeringevent: Recognition that historical climate and weather datasets are being updated to reflect changing patterns, such that they can no longer be treated as fixed proxies for future conditions
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:31:11.060608
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Climate Moving Target Design Baseline — Engineer A Tidal Crossing Hydraulic Design
type: ClimateMovingTargetDesignBaselineConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The local 25-year storm standard is based on historical weather data that does not reflect current climate science. Engineer A has professional knowledge from a transportation agency conference that the proposed upgrade may accelerate tidal flooding of upstream homes under future climate conditions.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.95
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Climate Moving Target Design Baseline Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A is prohibited from treating historical climate and weather data as a fixed, reliable baseline for the tidal crossing hydraulic design, and must instead incorporate dynamic, forward-looking climate projections — including sea level rise and shifting storm recurrence intervals — into design evaluation.
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T14:24:36.668979+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T14:24:36.668979+00:00
importance: high
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case 18-9; Transportation Agency Conference Hydraulic Procedures
sourcetext: For more than a century, engineers have assumed that future climate and weather conditions will be consistent with historical climate and weather data. In recent decades, as climate and weather data are updated, the historical dataset changes as climate and weather patterns continue to change. This necessitates that climate and weather patterns be addressed not as fixed by historical patterns but rather recognized as a 'moving target.'
temporalscope: Design phase of the tidal crossing upgrade project
textreferences: For more than a century, engineers have assumed that future climate and weather conditions will be consistent with historical climate and weather data. In recent decades, as climate and weather data are updated, the historical dataset changes as climate and weather patterns continue to change. This necessitates that climate and weather patterns be addressed not as fixed by historical patterns but rather recognized as a 'moving target.'
textreferences: The BER believes that Engineer A has an obligation to consider climate and weather changes in the future with respect to potential impacts on public health, safety, and welfare, where such impacts are reasonably likely and significant.
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T10:32:26.866031
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Climate Regulatory Gap Constraint - Engineer A Tidal Crossing Project
type: Climate-AdjustedDesignStandardGapConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A is designing a tidal crossing upgrade for Client B's healthcare facility access road, where local regulations require a 25-year storm standard based on historical data that does not account for sea level rise or climate change effects.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.87
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Climate-Adjusted Design Standard Gap Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A is constrained by the fact that applicable local development regulations require only a 25-year fresh-water storm design standard based on historical data, which has not been updated to reflect sea level rise or climate-altered precipitation — establishing a regulatory floor that Engineer A must meet but that does not discharge the professional obligation to disclose the gap between the regulatory standard and current climate-informed professional judgment.
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T00:17:17.632152+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T00:17:17.632152+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: Local development regulations; NSPE Code of Ethics; Climate-Adjusted Hydraulic Design Standard professional norms
sourcetext: Local development regulations require designing for a 25-year fresh-water storm, and assume that future weather conditions will be consistent with updated historical data.
temporalscope: Throughout the design and permitting phase of the tidal crossing upgrade project
textreferences: Local development regulations require designing for a 25-year fresh-water storm, and assume that future weather conditions will be consistent with updated historical data.
textreferences: The local development regulations and national design codes and standards have not yet been updated to reflect changing conditions and weather patterns, including effects of sea level rise and changes in precipitation intensities and recurrence intervals effected by on-going climate change.
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:31:11.067484
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Climate Resilience Infrastructure Policy (Applicable Jurisdiction)
type: ClimateResilienceInfrastructurePolicy
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.75
createdby: Municipal or governmental authority
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: Climate Resilience and Long-Term Sustainability Infrastructure Policy
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T00:08:43.605098+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T00:08:43.605098+00:00
importance: medium
resourceclass: Climate Resilience Infrastructure Policy
sourcetext: The local development regulations and national design codes and standards have not yet been updated to reflect changing conditions and weather patterns, including effects of sea level rise and changes in precipitation intensities and recurrence intervals effected by on-going climate change
textreferences: The local development regulations and national design codes and standards have not yet been updated to reflect changing conditions and weather patterns, including effects of sea level rise and changes in precipitation intensities and recurrence intervals effected by on-going climate change
usedby: Engineer A in evaluating scope of professional obligation
usedincontext: Provides normative grounding for Engineer A's professional obligation to consider climate change effects (sea level rise, altered precipitation) in infrastructure design even when formal codes have not yet been updated, supporting the argument that professional duty exceeds regulatory minimums
version: Current or emerging
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:31:11.056393
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Competence Boundary Constraint - Engineer A Specialized Coastal Hydraulic Modeling
type: CompetenceConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A's judgment about upstream flood risk is based on hydraulic evaluation procedures presented at a recent transportation agency conference, not on completed specialized hydrologic and hydraulic analysis, indicating a competence boundary in specialized coastal flood modeling.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.85
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Competence Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A's professional competence boundary in specialized coastal hydraulic modeling — including combined sea level rise, tidal dynamics, and storm surge prediction — constrains the degree to which Engineer A can independently quantify the upstream flood risk without engaging a specialized subconsultant, establishing that Engineer A's preliminary professional judgment is grounded in conference procedures rather than completed specialized analysis.
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T00:17:17.632152+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T00:17:17.632152+00:00
importance: medium
severity: medium
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.2; Professional Competence Standard - Hydrology and Coastal Modeling Threshold
sourcetext: It is Engineer A's judgment, based on hydraulic evaluation procedures presented at a recent transportation agency conference, that the proposed project may result in some upstream homes becoming uninhabitable a decade or more earlier than would otherwise be the case.
temporalscope: Throughout the design and permitting phase
textreferences: Engineer A proposes a complex and costly hydrologic and hydraulic analysis by a specialized subconsultant to predict the extent to which sea level rise and the increased hydraulic capacity of the tidal crossing will result in flood damage
textreferences: It is Engineer A's judgment, based on hydraulic evaluation procedures presented at a recent transportation agency conference, that the proposed project may result in some upstream homes becoming uninhabitable a decade or more earlier than would otherwise be the case.
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:31:11.068290
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Conclusion_1
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 2 d
cites provision: I 1
answers question1: 1
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: III.2.d.
conclusion number: 1
conclusion text: Engineer A has an obligation to consider potential impacts on public health, safety, and welfare, regardless of whether that is required by applicable law, including changing weather patterns and climate.
conclusion type: board_explicit
extraction reasoning: The Board interprets Engineer A's professional obligation to consider public health, safety, and welfare as extending beyond what applicable law requires, explicitly including climate change and changing weather patterns as factors that must be considered in engineering judgment.
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:52:37.591729
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Conclusion_101
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 2 d
cites provision: II 3 a
cites provision: I 1
answers question1: 1
answers question2: 101
answers question3: 404
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: III.2.d.
cited provision3: II.3.a.
conclusion number: 101
conclusion text: Beyond the Board's finding that Engineer A must consider public health, safety, and welfare regardless of applicable law, the obligation is not merely reactive but carries a proactive dimension: Engineer A must independently assess whether the regulatory standard itself is climatically adequate before accepting it as a sufficient design baseline. The 25-year fresh-water storm standard embedded in local development regulations was developed under historical precipitation assumptions that Engineer A's own professional judgment — informed by transportation agency conference procedures — identifies as no longer representative of future conditions at a tidal saltmarsh crossing subject to sea level rise and shifting storm surge dynamics. Accepting a regulatory minimum as ethically sufficient when professional knowledge indicates that minimum is structurally obsolete would reduce the engineer's public safety obligation to mere procedural compliance, which the NSPE Code explicitly rejects. Engineer A therefore bears an independent obligation to document, at the outset of design, the gap between the regulatory standard and the climate-adjusted conditions the structure will face over its service life, and to communicate that gap in writing to Client B. This documentation obligation is not contingent on Client B's authorization and is not satisfied by silent compliance with the 25-year standard.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:52:37.591923
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Conclusion_102
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 1 b
cites provision: II 1 a
cites provision: I 1
answers question1: 101
answers question2: 102
answers question3: 1
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: II.1.a.
cited provision3: III.1.b.
conclusion number: 102
conclusion text: The Board's conclusion that Engineer A must consider climate-change-induced conditions not yet occurred implicitly establishes that the temporal horizon of the public safety obligation extends across the reasonably foreseeable service life of the infrastructure, not merely its condition at the moment of construction or initial permitting. A tidal crossing bridge is a long-lived asset whose hydraulic interactions with upstream hydrology will intensify as sea levels rise and precipitation recurrence intervals compress. Engineer A's ethical obligation therefore encompasses not only present-state flood risk but the trajectory of risk over the structure's operational life. This temporal extension has a practical consequence: even if the upstream flood harm is not certain to materialize within the near term, the irreversibility of the harm — homes rendered uninhabitable potentially a decade earlier than otherwise — and the long lead time required for regulatory, planning, and community adaptation responses mean that disclosure obligations are triggered at a lower threshold of certainty than would apply to a readily reversible or short-duration harm. The Board's framework, read in light of the irreversibility and long-horizon nature of the harm, supports the conclusion that Engineer A's preliminary professional judgment, though unconfirmed by specialized subconsultant analysis, is sufficient to trigger at minimum a written notification obligation to Client B and a proposal to include the concern in regulatory submissions.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:52:37.592033
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Conclusion_103
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 1 a
cites provision: II 3 a
cites provision: II 3 b
answers question1: 101
answers question2: 2
answers question3: 103
cited provision1: II.1.a.
cited provision2: II.3.a.
cited provision3: II.3.b.
conclusion number: 103
conclusion text: The Board's conclusion that Engineer A must consider climate impacts regardless of whether law requires it implicitly resolves the tension between regulatory compliance and professional judgment in favor of professional judgment as the operative ethical floor. This resolution has a further implication the Board did not address: Engineer A's obligation to consider climate-adjusted conditions is not diminished by the fact that Client B's refusal to fund the specialized subconsultant analysis leaves the upstream flood risk quantitatively unresolved. The absence of a completed specialized analysis does not eliminate the ethical obligation; it merely shapes how that obligation is discharged. Engineer A must distinguish between the epistemic question — how certain is the harm — and the normative question — at what level of certainty does disclosure become obligatory. The Board's framework, combined with Code provisions requiring objective and truthful professional reports and non-acquiescence when judgment is overruled in circumstances endangering life or property, supports the conclusion that Engineer A's qualified professional judgment, explicitly labeled as preliminary and subject to further analysis, is a factual matter that must appear in any engineering report submitted to regulatory authorities. Omitting it entirely, at Client B's direction, would render the report incomplete and potentially misleading to the regulatory agencies and public who rely on it — a result incompatible with the objectivity and truthfulness obligations of Code Section II.3.a.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:52:37.592129
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Conclusion_104
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 1 b
cites provision: II 1 a
cites provision: I 4
answers question1: 2
answers question2: 201
answers question3: 403
cited provision1: I.4.
cited provision2: II.1.a.
cited provision3: III.1.b.
conclusion number: 104
conclusion text: The Board's recommended course of action — that Engineer A should include the upstream flood risk concern in an engineering report for regulatory agencies and the public if Client B denies the requisite evaluation — implicitly requires that Engineer A first exhaust a graduated sequence of engagement with Client B before resorting to unilateral disclosure. The Board's recommendation should not be read as authorizing immediate unilateral regulatory disclosure upon Client B's first refusal. The faithful agent obligation, bounded though it is by public safety, requires Engineer A to give Client B a meaningful opportunity to reconsider by communicating in writing: the specific nature of the foreseeable upstream harm, the professional basis for that judgment, the legal and reputational exposure Client B faces if the harm materializes and the omitted analysis is later discovered, and a formal proposal that the concern be included in the regulatory report in qualified form. This written notification serves the dual function of discharging the faithful agent duty at its highest expression — protecting Client B from foreseeable liability — and creating a documented record that Engineer A did not acquiesce silently to the suppression of safety-relevant information. Only after Client B has received this written notification and has nonetheless refused both the specialized analysis and the inclusion of the concern in regulatory submissions does Engineer A's obligation to proceed with independent disclosure to regulatory authorities become unambiguous and immediate.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:52:37.592219
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Conclusion_105
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 3 a
cites provision: II 3 b
cites provision: I 1
answers question1: 102
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: II.3.a.
cited provision3: II.3.b.
conclusion number: 105
conclusion text: The Board's recommendation that Engineer A include the upstream flood risk concern in an engineering report for regulatory agencies and the public does not fully resolve the question of whether disclosure to regulatory agencies through official reports is sufficient to satisfy Engineer A's third-party harm notification duty to the twenty upstream homeowners, or whether those homeowners — as the specific identifiable community facing foreseeable uninhabitability — are owed a more direct form of notification. The NSPE Code's paramount obligation to public safety, combined with the specificity and severity of the foreseeable harm to an identifiable group of twenty households, suggests that regulatory report disclosure, while necessary, may not be sufficient if there is reason to believe that regulatory processes will not reliably transmit the risk information to the affected community in time for meaningful adaptive response. Engineer A does not bear a general duty to notify all members of the public about every foreseeable project risk, but where the affected third parties are specifically identifiable, the harm is severe and potentially irreversible, and the regulatory process may not provide adequate notice, the public safety paramount obligation supports Engineer A at minimum ensuring that the engineering report is submitted in a public hearing context where affected homeowners have a realistic opportunity to access and respond to the disclosed concern. Engineer A should also consider whether the public hearing process for local permitting provides that opportunity, and if not, whether additional steps — such as ensuring the concern is communicated through the permitting authority's public notice process — are warranted.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:52:37.592319
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Conclusion_106
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 1 a
cites provision: I 1
cites provision: I 4
answers question1: 203
answers question2: 2
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: II.1.a.
cited provision3: I.4.
conclusion number: 106
conclusion text: The Board's conclusion that Engineer A should include the upstream flood risk concern in an engineering report if Client B denies the requisite evaluation implicitly addresses only the disclosure dimension of Engineer A's obligations and does not fully resolve the question of whether continued engagement with the project itself — proceeding to design and permit the tidal crossing under the 25-year standard without the specialized analysis — constitutes acquiescence to the suppression of safety-relevant information. If Engineer A proceeds to complete the design and submit permit applications while including only a qualified disclosure of the upstream flood concern in the engineering report, Engineer A is simultaneously advancing the project that generates the risk and disclosing the risk. This dual posture is ethically coherent only if the regulatory process can be reasonably expected to halt or condition the project based on the disclosed concern. If Engineer A has reason to believe that the regulatory process will not adequately respond to a qualified disclosure — for example, because the applicable regulations do not require consideration of climate-adjusted conditions and the regulatory authority lacks the technical capacity to evaluate the concern independently — then continued project advancement may itself constitute a form of acquiescence. In that scenario, the Board's graduated escalation framework supports the conclusion that Engineer A must consider conditional withdrawal from the engagement as the final step if regulatory disclosure proves insufficient to protect the upstream community, consistent with the withdrawal obligation recognized in analogous Board cases.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:52:37.592403
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Conclusion_2
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 1 b
cites provision: II 1 a
cites provision: II 3 a
cites provision: II 3 b
cites provision: I 1
cites provision: I 4
answers question1: 2
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: I.4.
cited provision3: II.1.a.
cited provision4: II.3.a.
cited provision5: II.3.b.
cited provision6: III.1.b.
conclusion number: 2
conclusion text: If Engineer A is reasonably certain that the project will result in adverse impacts to public health, safety, and welfare, and if the Client B denies the requisite evaluation, Engineer A should include the concern regarding potential adverse public health, safety, and welfare impacts in an engineering report for consideration by regulatory agencies and the public.
conclusion type: board_explicit
extraction reasoning: The Board recommends that when Engineer A is reasonably certain of adverse public health, safety, and welfare impacts and Client B refuses to authorize the necessary evaluation, Engineer A's ethical obligation is to include those concerns in an engineering report for regulatory agencies and the public, drawing on the faithful agent duty bounded by public welfare paramount, non-acquiescence to client suppression of safety analysis, and the proactive disclosure obligation supported by analogous BER cases.
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:52:37.591829
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Conclusion_201
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 3 a
cites provision: II 3 b
cites provision: I 1
answers question1: 101
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: II.3.a.
cited provision3: II.3.b.
conclusion number: 201
conclusion text: In response to Q101: The threshold of professional certainty sufficient to trigger a mandatory disclosure obligation does not require the completion of a specialized subconsultant analysis. Engineer A's preliminary judgment, grounded in hydraulic evaluation procedures presented at a recognized transportation agency conference, constitutes a professionally defensible basis for qualified disclosure — provided that disclosure is explicitly framed as a preliminary professional judgment rather than a confirmed finding. The ethical trigger is not certainty but reasonable professional concern: when a licensed engineer, applying recognized technical procedures within their competence, forms a judgment that a project may foreseeably harm third parties, the obligation to communicate that concern to appropriate parties is activated. The absence of the specialized analysis does not eliminate the disclosure duty; it shapes the epistemic framing of that disclosure. Engineer A should disclose the concern as a preliminary judgment requiring further investigation, not as a concluded finding. Suppressing even a qualified concern because it has not yet been fully quantified would allow the resource constraint imposed by Client B to functionally override a public safety obligation — an outcome the NSPE Code does not permit.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:52:37.592482
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Conclusion_202
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 1 a
cites provision: II 3 a
cites provision: I 1
answers question1: 102
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: II.1.a.
cited provision3: II.3.a.
conclusion number: 202
conclusion text: In response to Q102: Engineer A does not bear an independent ethical obligation to notify the twenty upstream homeowners directly and individually. The NSPE Code's public safety paramount obligation is satisfied through disclosure to regulatory agencies and the public via official engineering reports and public hearing testimony — channels that are structurally designed to aggregate and act upon exactly this kind of third-party risk information. Direct notification to individual homeowners would bypass the regulatory process, potentially create legal exposure for Engineer A, and could constitute communication outside the scope of the professional engagement without client authorization. However, this conclusion carries an important qualification: if regulatory disclosure proves ineffective — for example, if the engineering report is suppressed, if public hearings are not held, or if regulatory agencies demonstrably fail to act on the disclosed concern — the ethical calculus shifts. In such circumstances, Engineer A's obligation to hold public safety paramount may require escalation beyond the standard regulatory channel. The sufficiency of regulatory disclosure is therefore conditional on that channel remaining genuinely functional and accessible to the affected community.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:52:37.592559
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Conclusion_203
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 2 d
cites provision: I 1
answers question1: 103
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: III.2.d.
conclusion number: 203
conclusion text: In response to Q103: Engineer A's ethical obligation to consider climate-change-induced conditions does not, in the context of this specific engagement, extend to a proactive duty to advocate for updates to local development regulations or national design codes beyond the scope of the immediate project. The NSPE Code encourages sustainable development and environmental stewardship, but these are aspirational provisions that do not generate mandatory obligations equivalent to the public safety paramount duty. Engineer A's primary obligation is to address the regulatory gap as it affects this project — by exercising independent professional judgment that exceeds the minimum regulatory standard where necessary to protect public safety, and by disclosing the gap to regulatory authorities in the context of the project's permitting process. Broader advocacy for code reform, while professionally commendable and consistent with the spirit of the Code, is a discretionary professional contribution rather than a binding ethical requirement arising from this engagement. The distinction matters: conflating aspirational encouragement with mandatory obligation would impose an unworkable burden on individual practitioners and obscure the more immediate and actionable duties that the Code does impose.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:52:37.592633
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Conclusion_204
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 1 b
cites provision: II 3 a
cites provision: I 1
answers question1: 104
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: II.3.a.
cited provision3: III.1.b.
conclusion number: 204
conclusion text: In response to Q104: The public benefit of the proposed healthcare facility does not alter the fundamental ethical calculus for disclosure of upstream flood risk, but it does bear on the question of project withdrawal. The competing public goods dimension — a healthcare facility serving a broader community versus flood protection for twenty upstream households — is a policy and planning judgment that belongs to regulatory agencies and elected officials, not to Engineer A acting unilaterally. Engineer A's ethical role is to ensure that decision-makers have complete and accurate information about both the benefits and the foreseeable harms of the project, not to resolve the competing goods question by suppressing one side of it. Accordingly, the existence of a genuine public benefit from the healthcare facility strengthens rather than weakens the case for full disclosure: regulatory authorities cannot make a legitimate public interest determination if the upstream flood risk is withheld from the record. The competing public goods dimension does, however, counsel against reflexive withdrawal — Engineer A's continued engagement, conditioned on honest reporting of the risk, may produce a better outcome for all affected parties than withdrawal that transfers the project to a less risk-aware engineer.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:52:37.592714
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Conclusion_205
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 1 a
cites provision: I 1
cites provision: I 4
answers question1: 201
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: I.4.
cited provision3: II.1.a.
conclusion number: 205
conclusion text: In response to Q201: The faithful agent obligation to Client B and the proactive risk disclosure obligation to upstream homeowners and regulatory authorities are in genuine tension in this case, but the tension is resolved by the hierarchical structure of the NSPE Code. The public safety paramount obligation (Canon I.1) is explicitly positioned above the faithful agent obligation (Canon I.4), and the Code's provisions on overruled judgment (II.1.a) make clear that when a client directive endangers life or property, the engineer's duty to notify appropriate authorities supersedes the duty of client loyalty. Client B's explicit direction to suppress the climate risk analysis does not transform that suppression into an ethically permissible act — it transforms it into precisely the kind of client override that activates Engineer A's independent disclosure obligation. The faithful agent principle is not eliminated by this hierarchy; it continues to operate within its proper domain, requiring Engineer A to act in Client B's legitimate interests, to maintain confidentiality of proprietary information, and to pursue the project's objectives competently. But it cannot be invoked to justify withholding safety-relevant information from regulatory authorities when Engineer A has formed a reasonable professional judgment that third-party harm is foreseeable.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:52:37.592800
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Conclusion_206
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 2 a
cites provision: II 3 a
cites provision: II 3 b
answers question1: 202
cited provision1: II.2.a.
cited provision2: II.3.a.
cited provision3: II.3.b.
conclusion number: 206
conclusion text: In response to Q202: The principle of Professional Competence in Risk Assessment and the principle of Fact-Based Disclosure Obligation do not conflict in a way that eliminates the disclosure duty, but they do shape its form and scope. Engineer A's competence boundary — the recognition that a specialized hydrologic and hydraulic subconsultant analysis is needed for full quantification — does not preclude disclosure; it defines the epistemic register of that disclosure. A professionally competent engineer is expected to recognize the limits of their own analysis and to communicate those limits transparently. Engineer A's obligation under II.2.a is not to perform the specialized coastal hydraulic modeling personally, but to recognize that such modeling is needed and to communicate that need — along with the preliminary judgment that motivated it — to appropriate parties. The competence boundary constraint therefore reinforces rather than limits the disclosure duty: it requires Engineer A to disclose both the preliminary concern and the analytical gap that prevents its full quantification, rather than either overstating the certainty of the preliminary judgment or using the absence of full certainty as a reason to remain silent.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:52:37.592877
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Conclusion_207
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 1 b
cites provision: II 1 a
cites provision: I 1
answers question1: 203
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: II.1.a.
cited provision3: III.1.b.
conclusion number: 207
conclusion text: In response to Q203: The principle of Graduated Escalation Before Withdrawal and the principle of Non-Acquiescence to Unsafe Client Directives are not in fundamental conflict, but they operate on different timescales and with different triggers. Graduated escalation is the appropriate first response to Client B's refusal: Engineer A should document the risk concern in writing to Client B, formally propose inclusion of the concern in the regulatory report as an intermediate step, and make explicit the professional and legal consequences of proceeding without the analysis. This sequence preserves the client relationship where possible and ensures that Client B's refusal is fully informed and documented. However, continued engagement with the project beyond this escalation sequence — particularly if Engineer A proceeds to submit regulatory documents that omit the upstream flood risk concern — would itself constitute acquiescence to the suppression of safety-relevant information. The ethical boundary is not the moment of Client B's initial refusal but the moment at which Engineer A's own professional work product begins to reflect that suppression. At that point, continued engagement without disclosure or withdrawal crosses from graduated escalation into complicity.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:52:37.592952
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Conclusion_208
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 2 d
cites provision: II 3 a
cites provision: I 1
answers question1: 204
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: II.3.a.
cited provision3: III.2.d.
conclusion number: 208
conclusion text: In response to Q204: The conflict between Regulatory Gap Awareness and Regulatory Compliance is real and significant in this case. Engineer A is legally required to design to the 25-year fresh-water storm standard, and compliance with that standard is not itself an ethical violation. However, the NSPE Code makes clear that regulatory compliance represents a floor, not a ceiling, for professional ethical obligation. Engineer A's independent professional judgment — that compliance with the applicable standard will foreseeably cause harm to third parties under climate-adjusted conditions — creates an obligation that operates above and independent of the regulatory minimum. The regulatory gap does not excuse Engineer A from acting on that judgment; it is precisely the existence of such gaps that makes independent professional judgment ethically necessary. Engineer A's obligation is therefore to comply with the regulatory standard in the design itself while simultaneously disclosing, through appropriate channels, the professional judgment that the standard is climatically inadequate for this project and that the resulting design may foreseeably harm upstream residents. Regulatory compliance and ethical disclosure are not mutually exclusive — they are complementary obligations that must both be honored.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:52:37.593033
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Conclusion_209
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 1 a
cites provision: II 3 a
cites provision: I 1
answers question1: 301
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: II.1.a.
cited provision3: II.3.a.
conclusion number: 209
conclusion text: In response to Q301: From a deontological perspective, Engineer A's duty to hold public safety paramount does generate a strong and largely non-negotiable obligation to disclose foreseeable upstream flood risks to regulatory authorities, independent of client authorization. Deontological reasoning treats the duty not to be complicit in foreseeable harm to identifiable third parties as categorical — it cannot be overridden by consequentialist calculations about project benefits, client financial interests, or the uncertainty of the causal chain. The twenty upstream homeowners are identifiable, the harm is foreseeable based on Engineer A's professional judgment, and the mechanism of harm runs directly through Engineer A's own design work. Under a Kantian framework, Engineer A cannot universalize a maxim that permits engineers to suppress foreseeable third-party harm information when clients direct them to do so — such a maxim would systematically undermine the social trust that makes professional engineering practice possible. The deontological conclusion therefore aligns with the Board's recommendation: disclosure to regulatory authorities is obligatory, not merely permissible, once Engineer A has formed a reasonable professional judgment of foreseeable harm.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:52:37.593129
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Conclusion_210
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 3 a
cites provision: II 3 b
cites provision: I 1
answers question1: 302
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: II.3.a.
cited provision3: II.3.b.
conclusion number: 210
conclusion text: In response to Q302: From a consequentialist perspective, the ethical case for Engineer A's unilateral disclosure to regulators is strong but not unconditional. The magnitude of harm — twenty households rendered uninhabitable a decade or more earlier than otherwise — is significant and largely irreversible. The causal chain, while running through uncertain future climate conditions, is grounded in Engineer A's professional judgment based on recognized hydraulic evaluation procedures, giving it sufficient probability weight to count heavily in a consequentialist calculus. The professional and financial costs to Engineer A of disclosure are real but bounded and recoverable. Against this, the consequentialist must also weigh the possibility that disclosure triggers a more thorough regulatory review that results in project redesign, mitigation measures, or denial — outcomes that could protect both the upstream community and, ultimately, Client B from greater legal and reputational liability. The consequentialist analysis therefore supports disclosure, with the important caveat that the form of disclosure matters: a qualified, professionally framed disclosure through official channels is more likely to produce beneficial outcomes than an unqualified or inflammatory disclosure that could be dismissed or that could unnecessarily damage the project's legitimate public benefit.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:52:37.593227
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Conclusion_211
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 1 b
cites provision: II 3 a
cites provision: II 3 b
cites provision: I 1
answers question1: 303
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: II.3.a.
cited provision3: II.3.b.
cited provision4: III.1.b.
conclusion number: 211
conclusion text: In response to Q303: From a virtue ethics perspective, a professionally virtuous engineer in Engineer A's position does not proceed silently under a regulatory standard they personally judge to be climatically obsolete and foreseeably harmful. The virtue of practical wisdom (phronesis) requires Engineer A to recognize that the situation calls for more than technical compliance — it calls for the exercise of professional judgment about what the situation actually demands, independent of what the minimum standard permits. The virtue of courage (andreia) requires Engineer A to communicate that judgment openly, even at the cost of client displeasure and potential loss of the engagement. The virtue of integrity requires that Engineer A's professional work product — including engineering reports submitted to regulatory agencies — accurately reflect their actual professional judgment rather than a sanitized version shaped by client economic preferences. A virtuous engineer does not contest the regulatory standard by refusing to design to it — that would be both legally impermissible and professionally inappropriate. Rather, a virtuous engineer designs to the required standard while openly and honestly communicating, through appropriate professional channels, the judgment that the standard is inadequate for the conditions this project will face. Virtue ethics thus supports the Board's conclusion while adding the dimension that the manner of disclosure — honest, measured, professionally framed, and courageously delivered — is itself an expression of professional character.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:52:37.593347
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Conclusion_212
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 1 b
cites provision: II 1 a
cites provision: I 4
answers question1: 304
cited provision1: I.4.
cited provision2: II.1.a.
cited provision3: III.1.b.
conclusion number: 212
conclusion text: In response to Q304: From a deontological perspective, Engineer A's duty as faithful agent to Client B does independently generate an obligation to warn Client B in writing of the legal, reputational, and financial liabilities that could follow if upstream flood harm materializes and the omitted hydraulic analysis is later discovered. This framing is not merely strategically useful — it is ethically required. A faithful agent who possesses professional knowledge that their client's chosen course of action exposes the client to foreseeable legal and reputational harm, and who fails to communicate that knowledge, has failed in the agent duty regardless of whether the client has directed the agent to proceed. The written risk notification to Client B therefore serves a dual function: it fulfills the faithful agent obligation by ensuring Client B's decision to proceed without the analysis is fully informed, and it creates a documented record that Engineer A discharged their professional duty. This framing also recharacterizes the disclosure obligation not as a betrayal of client loyalty but as its highest expression — the agent who tells the client only what the client wants to hear is not a faithful agent but a sycophant. The NSPE Code provision at III.1.b, requiring engineers to advise clients when a project will not be successful, supports this reading directly.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:52:37.593432
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Conclusion_213
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 1 a
cites provision: I 1
answers question1: 401
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: II.1.a.
conclusion number: 213
conclusion text: In response to Q401: Engineer A's hypothetical refusal of the engagement at the outset would not have constituted a clearly superior ethical outcome. While such a refusal would have preserved Engineer A's personal ethical integrity with respect to this project, it would not have protected the upstream community — and might have made their situation worse. A less climate-aware engineer, unaware of or indifferent to the hydraulic interaction between the tidal crossing upgrade and upstream flood risk, would likely have proceeded without any concern for upstream harm, without recommending a specialized subconsultant analysis, and without any inclination to disclose the risk to regulatory authorities. The upstream community's protection depends not merely on Engineer A's personal non-participation but on the risk concern being surfaced, documented, and communicated to decision-makers. Engineer A's continued engagement — conditioned on honest professional reporting — is therefore more likely to produce a protective outcome than withdrawal at the outset. This counterfactual reinforces the ethical importance of Engineer A remaining engaged while insisting on disclosure, rather than treating withdrawal as the primary expression of ethical integrity.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:52:37.593507
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Conclusion_214
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 1 b
cites provision: II 1 a
cites provision: II 3 a
cites provision: I 1
answers question1: 402
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: II.1.a.
cited provision3: II.3.a.
cited provision4: III.1.b.
conclusion number: 214
conclusion text: In response to Q402: If Client B had authorized the specialized hydrologic and hydraulic subconsultant analysis and that analysis confirmed Engineer A's preliminary judgment, the ethical obligations triggered would be substantially more demanding than those arising from the preliminary judgment alone. Confirmed quantitative findings of foreseeable upstream uninhabitability would eliminate the epistemic qualification that currently attaches to Engineer A's disclosure obligation — the concern would no longer be a preliminary professional judgment but a documented engineering finding. In that scenario, Engineer A's obligation to include the concern in the regulatory report would become unambiguous and non-negotiable; the option of proceeding without disclosure would be foreclosed. Additionally, confirmed findings would trigger obligations regarding project redesign: Engineer A would be obligated to advise Client B of design alternatives that could mitigate the upstream harm, and to document that advice. The Board's conclusion would likely be more demanding in that scenario — the graduated escalation framework would compress, and the threshold for withdrawal in the event of continued client suppression would be reached more quickly. The counterfactual thus illustrates that the current case, while ethically demanding, involves a somewhat more qualified disclosure obligation than would arise from a completed and confirmed analysis.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:52:37.593595
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Conclusion_215
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 1 b
cites provision: II 1 a
cites provision: I 1
cites provision: I 4
answers question1: 403
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: I.4.
cited provision3: II.1.a.
cited provision4: III.1.b.
conclusion number: 215
conclusion text: In response to Q403: If Engineer A had submitted the upstream flood risk concern to regulatory agencies without first exhausting graduated engagement with Client B — specifically without written notification of risk consequences and a formal proposal to include the concern in the regulatory report — that unilateral disclosure would have constituted a procedural breach of the faithful agent obligation, even if the substantive disclosure was ethically required. The faithful agent duty requires Engineer A to give Client B the opportunity to respond to a fully informed presentation of the professional and legal consequences of suppression before taking unilateral action. This procedural sequence is not merely a courtesy — it is ethically significant because it preserves the possibility that Client B, once fully informed, will authorize the disclosure voluntarily, avoiding the need for unilateral action and preserving the professional relationship. However, the ethical weight of procedural sequence is not unlimited: if Client B has already issued an explicit and unambiguous refusal after being fully informed, the procedural requirement is satisfied and Engineer A may proceed to disclosure without further delay. The urgency of public safety does not justify bypassing the graduated engagement sequence when that sequence can be completed quickly, but it does justify compressing the timeline and does not require Engineer A to accept indefinite delay in the name of client process.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:52:37.593677
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Conclusion_216
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 2 d
cites provision: II 2 a
cites provision: I 1
answers question1: 404
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: II.2.a.
cited provision3: III.2.d.
conclusion number: 216
conclusion text: In response to Q404: If local development regulations and national design codes had already incorporated sea level rise projections and climate-adjusted precipitation recurrence intervals, Client B's directive to omit the specialized hydraulic analysis would have constituted a clearer and more unambiguous ethical violation — because it would have been simultaneously a regulatory violation and an ethical one, with no ambiguity about the applicable standard. The absence of updated standards does meaningfully complicate the ethical landscape by creating a zone of regulatory ambiguity in which Engineer A's professional judgment operates without external validation from the regulatory framework. However, this complication does not reduce Engineer A's ethical obligation — it makes the exercise of independent professional judgment more important, not less. The NSPE Code's public safety paramount obligation is explicitly stated to operate regardless of whether it is required by applicable law, and the Board's first conclusion affirms this directly. The regulatory gap therefore functions as a context that increases the ethical burden on Engineer A's independent judgment, rather than as a shield that reduces it. A professionally competent engineer is expected to recognize when applicable standards are inadequate for the conditions at hand and to exercise judgment accordingly — that is precisely the professional function that licensing and ethical codes are designed to protect and require.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:52:37.593755
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Conclusion_301
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 1 b
cites provision: II 1 a
cites provision: I 1
cites provision: I 4
answers question1: 201
answers question2: 304
answers question3: 2
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: I.4.
cited provision3: II.1.a.
cited provision4: III.1.b.
conclusion number: 301
conclusion text: The tension between Client Loyalty Bounded by Public Welfare and Public Welfare Paramount was resolved not by eliminating client loyalty as an obligation but by reframing it hierarchically: Engineer A's duty to Client B is real and operative, but it is lexically subordinate to the duty to hold public safety paramount. The case teaches that these two principles are not symmetrically weighted competing considerations to be balanced on a case-by-case basis. Rather, Public Welfare Paramount functions as a side-constraint that sets the outer boundary within which client loyalty may legitimately operate. Client B's directive to omit the specialized hydraulic analysis does not merely compete with Engineer A's public safety duty — it attempts to push Engineer A across that boundary. Once Client B's directive crosses into territory that foreseeably endangers third parties, the faithful agent obligation does not disappear but transforms: Engineer A's highest expression of client loyalty becomes warning Client B in writing of the legal, reputational, and financial consequences of suppressing the analysis, rather than complying with the suppression. This reframing means that disclosure to Client B of risk consequences is not a betrayal of the faithful agent role but its most sophisticated fulfillment, and it also means that if Client B persists in the directive after that warning, the faithful agent obligation is fully exhausted and the public safety obligation becomes unambiguously dominant.
conclusion type: principle_synthesis
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:52:37.593852
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Conclusion_302
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 1 a
cites provision: II 2 a
cites provision: II 3 a
cites provision: II 3 b
answers question1: 202
answers question2: 101
cited provision1: II.1.a.
cited provision2: II.2.a.
cited provision3: II.3.a.
cited provision4: II.3.b.
conclusion number: 302
conclusion text: The tension between Professional Competence in Risk Assessment and Fact-Based Disclosure Obligation reveals a nuanced principle interaction that the case partially resolves but does not fully settle. Engineer A's hydraulic judgment is grounded in conference procedures rather than a completed specialized analysis, which means the Competence Boundary Constraint is genuinely operative: Engineer A cannot claim the same epistemic authority for a preliminary judgment as for a completed subconsultant study. However, the case teaches that the competence boundary constraint modulates the form and confidence level of disclosure rather than eliminating the disclosure obligation entirely. A professionally competent engineer who recognizes that a question exceeds their current analytical capacity is not thereby relieved of the obligation to flag that the question exists and that it is consequential. The Interdisciplinary Threshold Recognition principle reinforces this: recognizing the limits of one's own competence and recommending specialized analysis is itself a competence-based obligation, not a retreat from it. Therefore, the disclosure that Engineer A is ethically required to make — whether to Client B, to regulatory authorities, or in an engineering report — must be appropriately qualified to reflect the preliminary nature of the judgment, but the qualification of the disclosure does not reduce it to silence. The ethical floor is a clearly framed, uncertainty-acknowledged disclosure that the upstream flood risk question is real, unresolved, and consequential, not a definitive quantitative finding.
conclusion type: principle_synthesis
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:52:37.593942
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Conclusion_303
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 1 b
cites provision: II 1 a
cites provision: I 1
cites provision: I 4
answers question1: 203
answers question2: 2
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: I.4.
cited provision3: II.1.a.
cited provision4: III.1.b.
conclusion number: 303
conclusion text: The tension between Graduated Escalation Before Withdrawal and Non-Acquiescence to Client Directive Suppressing Safety Analysis reveals that procedural sequence carries genuine ethical weight in this case, but that weight is not unlimited. The Graduated Escalation Before Withdrawal principle reflects the recognition that withdrawal is a drastic remedy that should not be invoked prematurely, and that Engineer A's continued engagement — provided it is not itself an act of acquiescence — preserves the opportunity to protect the upstream community through internal advocacy, written risk notification to Client B, and formal proposals to include the concern in regulatory reports. However, the case also teaches that continued engagement has a threshold beyond which it becomes indistinguishable from complicity. That threshold is crossed when Engineer A proceeds with project deliverables in a manner that affirmatively suppresses or omits the upstream flood risk concern from documents that regulatory authorities and the public will rely upon. The ethical resolution is therefore sequential and conditional: Engineer A must first exhaust graduated engagement — written notification to Client B of risk consequences, formal proposal to include the concern in the regulatory report — before withdrawal is triggered. But if Client B refuses both the specialized analysis and the inclusion of the concern in the regulatory report, the graduated escalation sequence is exhausted, and continued project participation without disclosure would itself constitute acquiescence to the suppression of safety-relevant information, triggering the withdrawal obligation. This means the procedural sequence is not merely a formality but a substantive ethical requirement that both protects the client relationship and establishes the factual predicate for justified withdrawal.
conclusion type: principle_synthesis
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:52:37.594076
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Conclusion_304
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 2 d
cites provision: II 3 a
cites provision: II 3 b
cites provision: I 1
answers question1: 204
answers question2: 103
answers question3: 1
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: II.3.a.
cited provision3: II.3.b.
cited provision4: III.2.d.
conclusion number: 304
conclusion text: The tension between Regulatory Gap Awareness and Regulatory Compliance is resolved in this case by establishing that regulatory compliance sets a legal floor, not an ethical ceiling, and that professional engineering judgment operates independently of and above that floor. The applicable 25-year fresh-water storm design standard represents the minimum legal requirement, but Engineer A's independent professional judgment — informed by climate-adjusted hydraulic evaluation procedures — identifies a foreseeable harm to third parties that compliance with that standard will not prevent. The case teaches that the existence of a regulatory gap does not reduce Engineer A's ethical obligation; if anything, it heightens it, because the gap means that regulatory compliance will not automatically protect the upstream community and that Engineer A's professional judgment is the only mechanism available to surface the risk. The Climate Change as Moving Target principle reinforces this: because design standards have not yet been updated to reflect sea level rise and shifting precipitation patterns, the engineer's independent obligation to consider those conditions is more demanding, not less, precisely because the regulatory framework has not yet caught up. The absence of updated standards does not provide ethical cover for ignoring foreseeable climate-driven harm; it creates an affirmative professional obligation to identify and disclose the gap. This conclusion also has implications for Q103: while Engineer A's primary obligation is to address the gap within the scope of the immediate project, the broader professional obligation to advocate for updated codes and standards — through professional societies, public comment, and technical publications — is a legitimate and encouraged extension of the same underlying principle, even if it is not a mandatory obligation in the immediate project context.
conclusion type: principle_synthesis
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:52:37.594199
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Conclusion_305
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 3 a
cites provision: II 3 b
cites provision: I 1
answers question1: 2
answers question2: 402
answers question3: 404
cited provision1: II.3.a.
cited provision2: II.3.b.
cited provision3: I.1.
conclusion number: 305
conclusion text: The principle of objectivity and completeness in professional reports — synthesized with the principle of third-party flood risk community notification — resolves the question of to whom Engineer A's disclosure obligations run in a way that extends beyond the immediate client relationship. Drawing on the precedent established in BER Case 07.6, where an engineer was required to include adverse environmental findings in a report submitted to public authorities even when those findings were inconvenient to the client, the current case confirms that Engineer A's reporting obligations run simultaneously to Client B, to regulatory authorities, and implicitly to the public whose interests those authorities represent. The upstream homeowners, as identifiable third parties facing foreseeable material harm, are the ultimate beneficiaries of this multi-directional disclosure obligation even if they are not direct recipients of Engineer A's report. This synthesis teaches that the objectivity principle is not merely a constraint on what engineers may omit from reports they choose to write; it is an affirmative obligation to ensure that the information necessary for informed regulatory and public decision-making reaches the appropriate institutional channels, regardless of whether the client has authorized or funded the analysis that would have quantified that information more precisely. The absence of quantification does not eliminate the disclosure obligation; it shapes its form — a qualified, professionally bounded statement of foreseeable risk rather than a quantified finding.
conclusion type: principle_synthesis
generated at time: 2026-02-28T10:32:26.871539
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Conditional Withdrawal Trigger Exhaustion — Engineer A Tidal Crossing Both Avenues Refused
type: ConditionalWithdrawalTriggerExhaustionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The BER concludes that Engineer A should withdraw from the project if Client B refuses both courses of action. This constraint establishes that withdrawal is mandatory — not optional — once both intermediate steps have been refused, and prohibits both premature withdrawal and indefinite continuation.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.97
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Conditional Withdrawal Trigger Exhaustion Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A's obligation to withdraw from the tidal crossing project is triggered only after Engineer A has exhausted both available graduated engagement steps — direct client discussion and the regulatory report inclusion proposal — and Client B has refused both; once Client B refuses both intermediate options, withdrawal becomes ethically mandatory, not merely permissible.
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T14:24:36.668979+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T14:24:36.668979+00:00
importance: high
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case 18-9
sourcetext: Failing agreement by Client B to either of these courses of action the BER believes that Engineer A should withdraw from the project.
temporalscope: After Client B refuses both the specialized analysis discussion and the regulatory report inclusion proposal
textreferences: Failing agreement by Client B to either of these courses of action the BER believes that Engineer A should withdraw from the project.
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T10:32:26.867808
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

DP1
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP1
decision question: When Engineer A has formed a preliminary professional judgment — grounded in hydraulic evaluation procedures from a recognized transportation agency conference — that the tidal crossing upgrade may accelerate upstream uninhabitability for twenty households, but Client B has directed Engineer A to proceed without the specialized subconsultant analysis, what course of action does Engineer A's ethical obligation require?
focus: Engineer A's obligation to disclose preliminary professional judgment about upstream flood risk to Client B and regulatory authorities, despite the absence of a completed specialized subconsultant analysis and Client B's explicit directive to omit the costly evaluation.
option1: Notify Client B in writing of the preliminary upstream flood risk judgment, formally recommend engagement of a specialized subconsultant, propose including the qualified concern in the engineering report for regulatory consideration, and proceed to include that qualified disclosure in regulatory submissions if Client B refuses both the analysis and the report inclusion
option2: Proceed with the design to the applicable 25-year storm standard as directed by Client B, document Engineer A's recommendation for specialized subconsultant analysis in internal project files, and await regulatory authority request before raising the upstream flood concern in any public or regulatory submission
option3: Verbally advise Client B of the upstream flood concern at the next project meeting, note the concern in meeting minutes, and proceed with design under the regulatory standard while deferring formal written disclosure and regulatory report inclusion until the concern can be confirmed by a completed specialized analysis
role label: Engineer A Coastal Risk Assessment
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:52:37.590277
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

DP10
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP10
decision question: When Client B explicitly refuses to fund the specialized hydraulic analysis and directs Engineer A to omit the upstream flood risk concern, what sequence of actions does Engineer A's ethical obligation require before proceeding to unilateral regulatory disclosure or withdrawal from the project?
focus: Engineer A's Graduated Escalation Sequence Before Unilateral Regulatory Disclosure or Project Withdrawal
option1: Deliver written notification to Client B documenting the specific foreseeable upstream harm, the professional basis for the preliminary judgment, and the legal and reputational exposure Client B faces if the omitted analysis is later discovered, then formally propose including the qualified concern in the regulatory report — and proceed to independent regulatory disclosure only if Client B refuses both after receiving this fully informed written notification
option2: Treat Client B's explicit refusal as a sufficient and final impasse, bypass further written engagement with Client B, and immediately include the upstream flood risk concern as a qualified preliminary judgment in the engineering report submitted to regulatory authorities without additional client notification
option3: Continue project engagement under the applicable 25-year storm standard while documenting Engineer A's professional disagreement in internal project files, deferring any regulatory disclosure or written client notification until the design phase is complete and a formal permit application is being prepared
role label: Engineer A
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:52:37.596429
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

DP11
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP11
decision question: Given that Engineer A's upstream flood risk assessment is a preliminary professional judgment grounded in conference procedures rather than a completed specialized subconsultant analysis — and that Client B has refused to fund that analysis — what form of disclosure does Engineer A's ethical obligation require, and at what threshold of professional certainty does that obligation attach?
focus: Form and Threshold of Engineer A's Disclosure Obligation Given Preliminary — Not Confirmed — Professional Judgment of Upstream Flood Risk
option1: Include the upstream flood risk concern in the engineering report submitted to regulatory authorities, explicitly framed as a preliminary professional judgment grounded in recognized hydraulic evaluation procedures, noting that specialized subconsultant analysis is needed for quantitative confirmation and that Client B has declined to fund that analysis
option2: Omit the upstream flood risk concern from the regulatory report on the grounds that the preliminary judgment has not been confirmed by specialized subconsultant analysis, and instead document the concern solely in internal project correspondence and in written notification to Client B, treating the unconfirmed judgment as below the professional reliability threshold for regulatory submission
option3: Include in the regulatory report a general notation that climate-adjusted hydraulic conditions were considered but that the applicable 25-year storm standard was applied as required by local development regulations, without specifically disclosing the preliminary judgment regarding upstream uninhabitability, thereby acknowledging climate awareness while deferring the specific risk finding to a future analysis if the project advances
role label: Engineer A
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:52:37.596507
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

DP12
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP12
decision question: Does Engineer A's faithful agent obligation to Client B independently require a written warning documenting the legal, reputational, and financial liabilities Client B faces if upstream flood harm materializes and the omitted hydraulic analysis is later discovered — and does discharging this obligation reframe disclosure not as a betrayal of client loyalty but as its most sophisticated fulfillment?
focus: Engineer A's Obligation to Warn Client B in Writing of Legal, Reputational, and Financial Consequences as the Highest Expression of Faithful Agent Duty
option1: Deliver a formal written notification to Client B specifically documenting the legal liability exposure, reputational risk, and financial consequences Client B faces if upstream flood harm materializes and the omitted hydraulic analysis is later discovered — framing this notification as the highest expression of the faithful agent duty and creating a documented record of Engineer A's non-acquiescence before proceeding to any regulatory disclosure
option2: Treat the prior verbal recommendation to conduct the specialized subconsultant analysis as sufficient discharge of the faithful agent notification duty, proceed without a separate written liability warning to Client B, and move directly to including the qualified upstream flood risk concern in the regulatory report — on the grounds that Client B's refusal was already an informed business decision that a written notification would not change
option3: Document Engineer A's professional recommendation and Client B's refusal in project correspondence using standard scope-change and professional-disagreement language, without specifically framing the notification in terms of Client B's legal and reputational liability exposure — treating the liability consequences as a matter for Client B's own legal counsel rather than within the scope of Engineer A's professional advisory role
role label: Client
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:52:37.596583
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

DP13
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP13
decision question: When Client B directs Engineer A to suppress a preliminary professional judgment of foreseeable upstream flood harm from regulatory submissions, what is Engineer A's ethically required course of action with respect to disclosure obligations, graduated engagement with the client, and continued project participation?
focus: Engineer A must decide how to respond when Client B explicitly directs omission of the specialized hydraulic analysis and refuses to authorize disclosure of the preliminary upstream flood risk concern in regulatory submissions, given Engineer A's independent professional judgment that the tidal crossing upgrade will foreseeably accelerate uninhabitability of twenty upstream homes under climate-adjusted conditions.
option1: Issue written notification to Client B documenting the preliminary upstream flood risk judgment, the professional and legal consequences of suppressing the analysis, and a formal proposal to include the concern in the regulatory report in qualified form; if Client B refuses after receiving this notification, independently include the upstream flood risk concern — explicitly framed as a preliminary professional judgment requiring further investigation — in the engineering report submitted to regulatory agencies and the public, and consider conditional withdrawal if regulatory response is foreseeably inadequate
option2: Continue project engagement and complete the tidal crossing design to the applicable 25-year storm standard, documenting Engineer A's recommendation for specialized subconsultant analysis in internal project files and in direct written communications to Client B, while deferring any regulatory disclosure of the upstream flood concern until Client B either authorizes the specialized analysis or the regulatory permitting process independently raises the question
option3: Immediately include the upstream flood risk concern in the engineering report submitted to regulatory agencies without first issuing written notification to Client B of the risk consequences, on the grounds that Client B's explicit refusal to fund the specialized analysis constitutes a constructive refusal of the intermediate graduated engagement step and that the urgency of public safety justifies bypassing the written notification sequence
role label: Engineer A
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:52:37.596658
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

DP14
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP14
decision question: Does Engineer A's ethical obligation to protect public health, safety, and welfare require independent professional assessment of whether the applicable 25-year storm regulatory standard is climatically adequate for a tidal saltmarsh crossing, and must Engineer A document and communicate any identified gap between that standard and climate-adjusted conditions regardless of whether Client B or applicable law requires it?
focus: Engineer A must determine whether the public safety obligation to consider climate-change-induced conditions — including sea level rise and shifting precipitation patterns — applies independently of the applicable 25-year fresh-water storm regulatory standard, and whether that obligation requires proactive documentation of the regulatory gap and independent professional judgment about the adequacy of the design baseline before proceeding with the tidal saltmarsh crossing design.
option1: Independently assess the climate adequacy of the 25-year storm standard for this tidal saltmarsh crossing at the outset of design, document in writing to Client B the identified gap between the regulatory standard and climate-adjusted conditions the structure will face over its service life, propose a specialized hydrologic and hydraulic subconsultant analysis to quantify the upstream flood risk, and proceed with design to the regulatory standard while ensuring the gap and preliminary judgment are disclosed in all engineering reports submitted to regulatory authorities
option2: Design the tidal crossing to the applicable 25-year fresh-water storm standard as required by local development regulations, treating regulatory compliance as the operative design baseline, and raise climate adequacy concerns only if Client B or the regulatory authority independently requests an assessment of conditions beyond the regulatory minimum
option3: Document the climate adequacy concern in internal project files and verbally advise Client B of the potential upstream flood risk, but defer formal written notification and regulatory report disclosure until the specialized subconsultant analysis is completed and the preliminary judgment is quantitatively confirmed, on the grounds that disclosing an unconfirmed preliminary judgment could be professionally misleading and prematurely alarm regulatory authorities
role label: Engineer A
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:52:37.596750
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

DP2
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP2
decision question: After Client B has issued an explicit directive to omit the specialized hydraulic analysis, what sequence of escalation steps does Engineer A's ethical obligation require before proceeding to include the upstream flood risk concern in regulatory submissions or withdrawing from the project, and at what point does continued project engagement itself constitute acquiescence to the suppression of safety-relevant information?
focus: Engineer A's obligation to pursue a graduated escalation sequence — including written notification to Client B of legal and reputational risk consequences, formal proposal to include the upstream flood concern in the regulatory engineering report, and conditional withdrawal — before and as a condition of any unilateral disclosure to regulatory authorities.
option1: Deliver written notification to Client B identifying the specific foreseeable upstream harm, the professional and legal consequences of proceeding without the analysis, and a formal proposal to include the qualified concern in the engineering report for regulatory consideration; proceed to include the concern in regulatory submissions if Client B refuses both the analysis and the report inclusion; withdraw from the project if Client B refuses all avenues for addressing the identified risk
option2: Treat Client B's explicit directive as a fully informed client decision that exhausts the graduated engagement requirement, and proceed immediately to include the upstream flood risk concern as a qualified preliminary judgment in the engineering report submitted to regulatory authorities without further written notification to Client B
option3: Continue project engagement through the public regulatory hearing, raise the upstream flood risk concern verbally at the hearing in response to public questions, and treat the public hearing process as the appropriate channel for surfacing the concern without prior written notification to Client B or formal proposal to include the concern in the engineering report
role label: Engineer A
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:52:37.590359
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

DP3
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP3
decision question: Given that local development regulations require designing only to the 25-year fresh-water storm standard and do not yet incorporate sea level rise or climate-adjusted precipitation, does Engineer A bear an independent ethical obligation to apply climate-informed hydraulic evaluation procedures and to assess and disclose the tidal saltmarsh ecological impacts of the proposed crossing upgrade — and does regulatory compliance with the existing standard satisfy or merely establish the floor of Engineer A's professional ethical obligation?
focus: Engineer A's obligation to apply climate-informed hydraulic evaluation standards — going beyond the applicable 25-year fresh-water storm regulatory minimum — when assessing the tidal saltmarsh crossing upgrade, and to assess and disclose the ecological and hydraulic impacts on the tidal saltmarsh ecosystem, even when local regulations do not yet require such analysis.
option1: Apply climate-informed hydraulic evaluation procedures from the transportation agency conference to assess the climate-adjusted flood risk of the tidal crossing upgrade, document in writing to Client B the gap between the 25-year regulatory standard and the climate-adjusted conditions the structure will face over its service life, assess and disclose the tidal saltmarsh ecological impacts, and communicate both assessments to Client B and the regulatory authority regardless of whether local regulations require such analysis
option2: Design the tidal crossing to the applicable 25-year fresh-water storm standard as required by local development regulations, note in the engineering report that the design complies with all applicable regulatory requirements, and defer climate-adjusted analysis to future regulatory review cycles when updated standards are adopted
option3: Design the tidal crossing to the applicable 25-year storm standard while noting in the engineering report that climate change may affect future conditions, recommend that Client B commission a separate climate impact study as a future project phase, and proceed with permitting under the current regulatory standard without formally disclosing the specific upstream flood risk judgment or the regulatory gap to the applicable regulatory authority in the current submission
role label: Engineer A
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:52:37.590440
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

DP4
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP4
decision question: When Engineer A's preliminary professional judgment — grounded in recognized hydraulic evaluation procedures — indicates foreseeable upstream flood harm, but Client B has refused to fund the specialized subconsultant analysis needed for full quantification, what form of disclosure obligation does Engineer A bear, and at what threshold of certainty is it triggered?
focus: Engineer A's obligation to independently assess and disclose the upstream flood risk based on preliminary professional judgment, even without a completed specialized subconsultant analysis, when Client B has refused to fund that analysis
option1: Include the upstream flood risk concern in the engineering report as an explicitly qualified preliminary professional judgment, identifying the analytical gap and recommending specialized subconsultant analysis, regardless of Client B's refusal to fund that analysis
option2: Withhold the upstream flood risk concern from the engineering report on the grounds that the preliminary judgment lacks the quantitative hydraulic confirmation required to meet the professional standard of care for a disclosed engineering finding, and document internally that specialized analysis was recommended but refused
option3: Include in the engineering report only a general notation that climate-adjusted hydraulic conditions were considered beyond the scope of the current engagement, without disclosing the specific preliminary judgment about upstream uninhabitability, pending Client B's reconsideration of the subconsultant analysis budget
role label: Engineer A Coastal Risk Assessment
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:52:37.595896
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

DP5
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP5
decision question: When Client B has refused both the specialized hydraulic analysis and authorization to include the upstream flood risk concern in regulatory submissions, must Engineer A first exhaust a graduated written-notification sequence before proceeding to unilateral regulatory disclosure, and at what point does continued project participation without disclosure cross from graduated escalation into complicity with the suppression of safety-relevant information?
focus: Engineer A's obligation to exhaust graduated engagement with Client B — including written notification of legal and reputational risk consequences — before proceeding to unilateral disclosure of the upstream flood risk to regulatory authorities, and the point at which continued project engagement itself constitutes acquiescence to suppression
option1: Deliver written notification to Client B documenting the specific upstream flood risk, the professional basis for the preliminary judgment, the legal and reputational liabilities Client B faces if the harm materializes, and a formal proposal to include the concern in the regulatory report in qualified form — then proceed to independent regulatory disclosure only if Client B refuses after receiving this fully informed notification
option2: Proceed immediately to include the upstream flood risk concern in the engineering report submitted to regulatory agencies without further written notification to Client B, on the grounds that Client B's explicit refusal already constitutes a fully informed rejection and additional written notification would merely delay disclosure of a public safety concern without adding substantive value to the client's decision-making
option3: Continue performing non-suppressive project tasks while formally suspending submission of any regulatory documents pending Client B's reconsideration, and notify Client B in writing that Engineer A cannot submit engineering reports that omit the upstream flood risk concern without authorization to include it — treating the submission hold as the operative escalation mechanism rather than unilateral disclosure
role label: Engineer A
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:52:37.595985
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

DP6
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP6
decision question: Does the genuine public benefit of the proposed healthcare facility — serving a broader community — alter Engineer A's ethical calculus for disclosure of upstream flood risk or for continued project engagement, and does the competing public goods dimension of this case belong to Engineer A's professional judgment or to regulatory decision-makers?
focus: How Engineer A should weigh the competing public goods of the healthcare facility against foreseeable upstream flood harm when determining whether the public benefit of the project alters the ethical calculus for disclosure, withdrawal, or continued engagement
option1: Remain engaged with the project while ensuring the engineering report fully discloses both the upstream flood risk and the competing public goods tension, explicitly framing the policy resolution of those competing goods as a matter for regulatory authorities rather than for Engineer A's unilateral judgment
option2: Treat the healthcare facility's public benefit as a professionally relevant factor that, when weighed against the probabilistic and temporally uncertain upstream flood harm, justifies proceeding with the design under the applicable regulatory standard without elevating the upstream risk concern beyond a standard project notation — deferring the competing goods resolution to the permitting process without independent advocacy
option3: Withdraw from the engagement on the grounds that the competing public goods tension — combined with Client B's refusal to fund the specialized analysis — creates an irresolvable conflict between Engineer A's obligations to the upstream community and to the healthcare facility's beneficiaries that Engineer A cannot ethically navigate within the constraints of the current engagement scope
role label: Engineer A
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:52:37.596096
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

DP7
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP7
decision question: When Client B refuses to fund the specialized hydraulic analysis and directs Engineer A to omit the upstream flood risk concern, how should Engineer A discharge the disclosure obligation given that the professional judgment is preliminary rather than confirmed?
focus: Engineer A's obligation to disclose preliminary upstream flood risk judgment to Client B and regulatory authorities when Client B has directed omission of the specialized hydraulic analysis
option1: Notify Client B in writing of the preliminary flood risk judgment, the professional basis for it, and the legal and reputational consequences of suppression; formally propose including the qualified concern in the regulatory report; and, if Client B refuses both, include the explicitly framed preliminary concern in the engineering report submitted to regulatory agencies without further client authorization
option2: Document the preliminary flood risk concern internally and in correspondence to Client B, but defer inclusion in any regulatory submission until the specialized subconsultant analysis is completed and confirms the judgment, treating the absence of quantitative confirmation as a sufficient basis for withholding the concern from public-facing documents
option3: Include the upstream flood risk concern in the engineering report submitted to regulatory agencies immediately upon forming the preliminary judgment, without first providing Client B a written opportunity to respond to the fully informed professional and legal consequences of suppression
role label: Engineer A
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:52:37.596175
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

DP8
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP8
decision question: Does Engineer A bear an ethical obligation to independently assess and disclose foreseeable upstream flood risk arising from climate-adjusted conditions at a tidal saltmarsh crossing, even though the applicable 25-year fresh-water storm design standard does not require such analysis and the climate-induced harm has not yet occurred?
focus: Engineer A's obligation to consider climate-change-induced upstream flood risk as within the scope of the public safety paramount duty, independent of whether applicable regulations require it or whether the harm has yet occurred
option1: Independently assess the climate adequacy of the 25-year storm standard for this tidal saltmarsh crossing, document the gap between the regulatory standard and climate-adjusted conditions in writing to Client B at the outset of design, propose a specialized hydraulic subconsultant analysis, and disclose the upstream flood risk concern through appropriate regulatory channels regardless of whether Client B authorizes the analysis
option2: Design to the applicable 25-year storm standard as required by local development regulations, note in project correspondence to Client B that climate-adjusted conditions may warrant additional analysis, and treat the absence of a regulatory requirement for that analysis as sufficient basis for proceeding without independent assessment or disclosure of the upstream flood risk
option3: Assess the climate adequacy of the applicable standard and document the regulatory gap internally, but limit disclosure to Client B to a verbal recommendation for additional analysis and proceed with design under the 25-year standard without written documentation of the gap or formal proposal to include the upstream flood risk concern in regulatory submissions, treating the preliminary nature of the judgment as insufficient to trigger a formal written obligation
role label: Engineer A
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:52:37.596252
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

DP9
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP9
decision question: When Engineer A has exhausted graduated engagement with Client B and Client B has refused both the specialized analysis and inclusion of the upstream flood risk concern in regulatory submissions, does the competing public benefit of the healthcare facility counsel continued engagement conditioned on honest reporting, or does the suppression of safety-relevant information require withdrawal from the project?
focus: Engineer A's obligation to balance the competing public goods of the healthcare facility against foreseeable upstream flood harm, and to determine whether continued project engagement or withdrawal better serves the public safety paramount obligation
option1: Continue engagement with the project while including the explicitly framed preliminary upstream flood risk concern in the engineering report submitted to regulatory agencies over Client B's objection, ensuring the regulatory process has complete information to make a legitimate public interest determination about the healthcare facility versus upstream flood harm
option2: Withdraw from the project upon Client B's refusal to authorize either the specialized analysis or inclusion of the concern in regulatory submissions, treating non-participation as the clearest expression of non-acquiescence to suppression of safety-relevant information, and document the reasons for withdrawal in writing to Client B
option3: Continue engagement and complete the design to the applicable 25-year standard without including the upstream flood risk concern in the regulatory report, treating the public benefit of the healthcare facility and the preliminary nature of the flood risk judgment as jointly sufficient to justify proceeding under the applicable regulatory framework while preserving the client relationship for future risk advocacy
role label: Engineer A
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:52:37.596343
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Developer Client BER Case 07.6
type: DeveloperClient
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'entity_type': 'Private developer', 'project_type': 'Residential condominium development adjacent to protected wetlands', 'case_reference': 'BER Case 07.6'}
caseinvolvement: Developer who retained an environmental engineering firm to analyze a property adjacent to a wetlands area for potential residential condominium development, bearing authority over project scope and subject to the engineer's obligation to include environmental threat information in reports to public authorities regardless of client preference.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.85
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T00:09:53.405744+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T00:09:53.405744+00:00
importance: medium
relationships: {'type': 'provider', 'target': 'Engineer A Environmental Firm Principal'}
relationships: {'type': 'regulatory_subject', 'target': 'Public Authority Considering Developer Proposal'}
rolecategory: provider_client
roleclass: Developer Client
sourcetext: had been requested by a developer client to prepare an analysis of a piece of property adjacent to a wetlands area for potential development as a residential condominium
textreferences: had been requested by a developer client to prepare an analysis of a piece of property adjacent to a wetlands area for potential development as a residential condominium
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:31:11.060275
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Engage Client on Risk Disclosure
type: Action
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
event role context: Consulting Engineer
foreseen unintended effects: Client B may remain unconvinced and maintain the directive
foreseen unintended effects: Engagement may strain or damage the professional relationship
foreseen unintended effects: Failure to persuade will require escalation to disclosure or withdrawal
fulfills obligation text: Duty to advise client of actions necessary to protect public health, safety, and welfare
fulfills obligation text: Duty to attempt to resolve ethical conflicts through client engagement before escalating
fulfills obligation text: Obligation to be objective and truthful with client about risks and professional obligations
guided by principle text: Duty to inform client of consequences of decisions affecting public safety
guided by principle text: Objectivity and truthfulness in professional communications
guided by principle text: Obligation to act as a faithful agent while not compromising public safety
guided by principle text: Primacy of public health, safety, and welfare
has agent: Engineer A
has mental state: deliberate and obligatory
intended outcome: Persuade Client B to authorize the specialized analysis or agree to disclose the potential flood risk in regulatory submissions; protect public safety while preserving the professional relationship if possible
requires capability text: Ability to articulate technical risk in terms of client business risk
requires capability text: Knowledge of NSPE ethical obligations and BER precedents
requires capability text: Professional communication and negotiation
requires capability text: Understanding of regulatory disclosure requirements
temporal marker: Ethical crossroads, immediately following Client B's directive to defer analysis
temporal sequence: 9
within competence: true
comment: Engineer A should engage Client B in substantive discussions about the necessity of the detailed flood evaluation, the obligation to disclose potential impacts to regulatory agencies and the public, and the potential legal and reputational risk to Client B of proceeding without the analysis.
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:31:11.075975
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Engineer-Client Impasse Reached
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Event
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:31:11.076232
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Engineer-Client Impasse Reached (Event 5) → Public Safety Obligation Triggered (Event 6)
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:31:11.076433
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Engineer A BER 07.6 Public Authority Submission Completeness Bird Species
type: PublicAuthoritySubmissionCompletenessObligationRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Public Authority Submission Completeness Obligation Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A in BER Case 07.6 possessed — but failed to exercise — the capability to recognize that the obligation to be objective and truthful in professional reports required inclusion of the biologist's finding about the threatened bird species in the written report submitted to the public authority, and to advise the developer client of its inclusion.
casecontext: BER Case 07.6: Engineer A preparing environmental analysis for developer client for submission to public authority considering residential condominium development adjacent to protected wetlands.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstratedthrough: BER determination that it was unethical for Engineer A to not include the information about the threat to the bird species in the written report submitted to the public authority, and that Engineer A should have included the information and advised the client of its inclusion.
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T14:24:46.782065+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T14:24:46.782065+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A (BER Case 07.6 Environmental Engineering Consultant)
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: The BER determined that it was unethical for Engineer A to not include the information about the threat to the bird species in a written report that would be submitted to a public authority that was considering the developer's proposal.
textreferences: Engineer A should have included the information in the written report and advised the client of its inclusion.
textreferences: The BER determined that it was unethical for Engineer A to not include the information about the threat to the bird species in a written report that would be submitted to a public authority that was considering the developer's proposal.
textreferences: The BER noted that engineers have an obligation to be objective and truthful in professional reports, statements, or testimony and include all relevant and pertinent information in such reports, and that it would be reasonable to assume that the public authority approving the development would be interested in this information.
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T10:32:26.869862
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Engineer A BER 18-9 Graduated Escalation Coastal Development
type: GraduatedEscalationNavigationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Graduated Escalation Navigation Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A in BER Case 18-9 possessed the capability to navigate a graduated escalation sequence with the developer owner: first continuing to attempt to convince the owner of the potential for damage from storm surge; and, failing agreement on the proposed design standard, withdrawing from the project.
casecontext: BER Case 18-9: Engineer A performing hydrodynamic modeling and coastal risk assessment for proposed residential development, advocating for 100-year storm surge design standard refused by owner.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstratedthrough: BER conclusion in Case 18-9 that Engineer A should continue to attempt to convince the owner of the potential for damage to future residents and the public, and, failing agreement, should withdraw from the project.
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T14:24:46.782065+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T14:24:46.782065+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A (BER Case 18-9 Climate-Aware Coastal Infrastructure Engineer)
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: The BER concluded that Engineer A should continue to attempt to convince the owner of the potential for damage to future residents and the public, and, failing agreement on Engineer A's proposed design standard, Engineer A should withdraw from the project.
textreferences: The BER concluded that Engineer A should continue to attempt to convince the owner of the potential for damage to future residents and the public, and, failing agreement on Engineer A's proposed design standard, Engineer A should withdraw from the project.
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T10:32:26.869999
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Engineer A BER Dual-Precedent Climate Safety Synthesis Tidal Crossing
type: BERDual-PrecedentClimateSafetySynthesisCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: BER Dual-Precedent Climate Safety Synthesis Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A possesses the capability to synthesize the ethical frameworks from BER Cases 07.6 (objective and complete reporting to public authorities) and 18-9 (graduated escalation and withdrawal in coastal climate risk contexts) to determine the correct sequence of actions for the tidal crossing case: complete reporting of climate risks, client engagement, graduated escalation including regulatory report submission, and conditional withdrawal.
casecontext: Engineer A applying BER precedent to determine the correct ethical action sequence for the tidal crossing upgrade case.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.87
demonstratedthrough: Application of the synthesized BER 07.6 and 18-9 framework to determine that Engineer A must: include climate risk information in public authority submissions, engage Client B in discussions, propose regulatory report submission as an intermediate step, and withdraw if both options are refused.
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T14:24:46.782065+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T14:24:46.782065+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A (Tidal Crossing Infrastructure Design Engineer)
proficiencylevel: expert
sourcetext: In BER Case 07.6, Engineer A was a principal in an environmental engineering firm...
textreferences: In BER Case 07.6, Engineer A was a principal in an environmental engineering firm...
textreferences: In BER Case 18-9, Engineer A worked for a developer to perform hydrodynamic modeling and coastal risk assessment...
textreferences: Turning to the current case, Engineer A does have an ethical obligation to address the impacts of the project on public health, safety, and welfare regardless of whether or not that is required by applicable law.
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T10:32:26.870202
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Engineer A Client Override Written Documentation
type: EngineerAClientOverrideWrittenDocumentation
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Client Override of Safety Analysis Written Documentation Obligation
capabilitystatement: Engineer A was obligated to document in writing Client B's directive to forgo the recommended specialized hydraulic analysis, and possessed the capability to recognize this documentation obligation and fulfill it
casecontext: The case facts do not confirm whether Engineer A actually documented the client override in writing; the capability is attributed based on the professional obligation triggered by Client B's directive
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.82
demonstratedthrough: The case facts establish that Client B directed Engineer A to proceed without the costly analysis, triggering Engineer A's obligation to document this override in writing
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T00:17:16.446228+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T00:17:16.446228+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: Client B directs Engineer A to proceed without the costly analysis unless and until such an analysis is requested by the applicable regulatory authorities.
textreferences: Client B directs Engineer A to proceed without the costly analysis unless and until such an analysis is requested by the applicable regulatory authorities.
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:31:11.066278
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Engineer A Client Risk Consequence Communication Constraint Tidal Crossing
type: IncompleteRiskDisclosureProhibition
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A's obligation to communicate to Client B not only the public welfare rationale for specialized analysis but also the potential risk to Client B of proceeding without it.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.85
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Incomplete Risk Disclosure Prohibition
constraintstatement: Engineer A was prohibited from omitting from client communications the potential risk to Client B of not evaluating the upstream flood impacts — including legal, reputational, and regulatory risks — when engaging Client B in discussions about the need for specialized analysis, establishing that complete risk communication extends to consequences for the client as well as for the public.
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T00:23:20.563103+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T00:23:20.563103+00:00
importance: medium
severity: medium
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; Faithful Agent obligation
sourcetext: Engineer A should engage Client B in discussions about the need for the detailed evaluation and disclosure of the potential impacts on the public and alternatives for the project to mitigate those impacts, and the potential risk to Client B of not evaluating the potential impacts.
temporalscope: During client engagement discussions about the specialized hydraulic analysis recommendation
textreferences: Engineer A should engage Client B in discussions about the need for the detailed evaluation and disclosure of the potential impacts on the public and alternatives for the project to mitigate those impacts, and the potential risk to Client B of not evaluating the potential impacts.
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:31:11.075344
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Engineer A Climate-Adjusted Design Standard Gap Identification Tidal Crossing
type: Climate-AdjustedDesignStandardGapIdentificationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Climate-Adjusted Design Standard Gap Identification Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A possesses the capability to recognize that the local 25-year storm standard and historical data assumptions in local development regulations have not been updated to reflect sea level rise and changing precipitation patterns, and to identify the resulting gap between regulatory compliance and actual public safety risk.
casecontext: Tidal crossing culvert-to-bridge upgrade design and permitting for Client B's health care facility access road across a tidal saltmarsh.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.92
demonstratedthrough: Engineer A's identification that local development regulations and national design codes have not been updated to reflect climate change effects, and application of hydraulic evaluation procedures from a recent transportation agency conference to assess upstream flood risk.
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T14:16:13.646069+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T14:16:13.646069+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: The local development regulations and national design codes and standards have not yet been updated to reflect changing conditions and weather patterns, including effects of sea level rise and changes in precipitation intensities and recurrence intervals effected by on-going climate change.
textreferences: It is Engineer A's judgment, based on hydraulic evaluation procedures presented at a recent transportation agency conference, that the proposed project may result in some upstream homes becoming uninhabitable a decade or more earlier than would otherwise be the case.
textreferences: The local development regulations and national design codes and standards have not yet been updated to reflect changing conditions and weather patterns, including effects of sea level rise and changes in precipitation intensities and recurrence intervals effected by on-going climate change.
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T10:32:26.858500
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Engineer A Climate Adjusted Design Standard Gap Identification
type: Climate-AdjustedDesignStandardGapIdentificationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Climate-Adjusted Design Standard Gap Identification Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A possessed the capability to identify that applicable local development regulations and national design codes had not been updated to reflect climate change effects, and to apply emerging climate-informed hydraulic evaluation procedures from a recent transportation agency conference to assess the resulting risk gap
casecontext: Engineer A independently identified the regulatory gap and applied emerging professional knowledge from a conference to form a preliminary judgment about upstream risk, demonstrating advanced capability to recognize and apply climate-informed standards beyond regulatory minimums
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.91
demonstratedthrough: Engineer A's recognition that the locally required 25-year fresh-water storm design standard does not account for climate change, and application of hydraulic evaluation procedures from a recent transportation agency conference to form a professional judgment about upstream uninhabitability risk
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T00:17:16.446228+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T00:17:16.446228+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: The local development regulations and national design codes and standards have not yet been updated to reflect changing conditions and weather patterns, including effects of sea level rise and changes in precipitation intensities and recurrence intervals effected by on-going climate change.
textreferences: It is Engineer A's judgment, based on hydraulic evaluation procedures presented at a recent transportation agency conference, that the proposed project may result in some upstream homes becoming uninhabitable a decade or more earlier than would otherwise be the case.
textreferences: The local development regulations and national design codes and standards have not yet been updated to reflect changing conditions and weather patterns, including effects of sea level rise and changes in precipitation intensities and recurrence intervals effected by on-going climate change.
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:31:11.065652
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Engineer A Climate Moving Target Baseline Prohibition Tidal Crossing
type: ClimateMovingTargetDesignBaselineConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A's design of a tidal crossing upgrade for Client B, where applicable local regulations required only a 25-year fresh-water storm standard that did not account for climate change effects on sea level rise and storm surge.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.88
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Climate Moving Target Design Baseline Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was prohibited from treating the historical 25-year fresh-water storm design standard as a complete and adequate baseline for the tidal crossing upgrade design, given professional knowledge that climate and weather patterns are a moving target requiring dynamic forward-looking assessment of sea level rise and altered precipitation intensities.
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T00:23:20.563103+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T00:23:20.563103+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; Transportation Agency Conference Hydraulic Evaluation Procedures; BER Case 18-9
sourcetext: For more than a century, engineers have assumed that future climate and weather conditions will be consistent with historical climate and weather data.
temporalscope: Throughout the design and permitting phase of the tidal crossing upgrade project
textreferences: Engineer A has an obligation to consider climate and weather changes in the future with respect to potential impacts on public health, safety, and welfare, where such impacts are reasonably likely and significant.
textreferences: For more than a century, engineers have assumed that future climate and weather conditions will be consistent with historical climate and weather data.
textreferences: This necessitates that climate and weather patterns be addressed not as fixed by historical patterns but rather recognized as a 'moving target.'
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:31:11.074238
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Engineer A Climate Moving Target Design Adaptation Tidal Crossing
type: Climate-AdjustedDesignStandardGapIdentificationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Climate-Adjusted Design Standard Gap Identification Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A possessed the capability to recognize that the locally required 25-year fresh-water storm design standard represented a fixed historical baseline that did not account for climate change as a moving target, and that this gap created foreseeable public welfare risks for the tidal crossing project.
casecontext: Engineer A designing tidal crossing infrastructure for Client B's healthcare facility project, identifying that applicable regulatory standards did not reflect current climate science.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.87
demonstratedthrough: Recognition that climate and weather patterns must be treated as a moving target rather than fixed historical data when assessing the adequacy of the tidal crossing design standard for long-term public welfare protection.
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T00:22:58.787560+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T00:22:58.787560+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: This necessitates that climate and weather patterns be addressed not as fixed by historical patterns but rather recognized as a 'moving target.'
textreferences: Engineer A has an obligation to consider climate and weather changes in the future with respect to potential impacts on public health, safety, and welfare, where such impacts are reasonably likely and significant.
textreferences: This necessitates that climate and weather patterns be addressed not as fixed by historical patterns but rather recognized as a 'moving target.'
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:31:11.073283
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Engineer A Coastal Risk Assessment
type: Climate-AwareCoastalInfrastructureEngineer
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'license': 'Professional Engineer', 'specialty': 'Hydrodynamic modeling, coastal risk assessment, hydrology and hydraulics', 'case_reference': 'BER Case 18-9 and current case'}
caseinvolvement: Performed hydrodynamic modeling and coastal risk assessment for a proposed residential development, advocated for design to the 100-year storm surge elevation based on newly identified historic weather data, faced client refusal to agree to that protection standard, and was obligated to either engage the client in detailed evaluation and disclosure discussions, propose inclusion of concerns in an engineering report for regulatory review, or withdraw from the project.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T00:09:53.405744+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T00:09:53.405744+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'client', 'target': 'Client B Developer'}
relationships: {'type': 'public_responsibility', 'target': 'Upstream Residential Flood Risk Community'}
relationships: {'type': 'regulatory_reporting', 'target': 'Regulatory Agencies and Public'}
rolecategory: public_responsibility
roleclass: Climate-Aware Coastal Infrastructure Engineer
sourcetext: Engineer A worked for a developer to perform hydrodynamic modeling and coastal risk assessment regarding a proposed residential development
textreferences: Engineer A advocated that the project be designed for the then-projected 100-year storm surge elevation due to public safety risks
textreferences: Engineer A needs to have sufficient understanding of hydrology, hydraulics, and coastal modeling to form a reasonable judgment
textreferences: Engineer A should engage Client B in discussions about the need for the detailed evaluation
textreferences: Engineer A worked for a developer to perform hydrodynamic modeling and coastal risk assessment regarding a proposed residential development
textreferences: Failing agreement by Client B to either of these courses of action the BER believes that Engineer A should withdraw from the project
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:31:11.059813
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Engineer A Competing Public Goods Healthcare Upstream Community Non-Distortion Tidal Crossing
type: CompetingPublicGoodsNon-DistortionAdvisoryConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The genuine conflict between the public benefit of improved healthcare facility access and the foreseeable harm to approximately twenty upstream homeowners from the tidal crossing upgrade.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.86
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Competing Public Goods Non-Distortion Advisory Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was prohibited from structuring any advisory report or regulatory submission in a manner that selectively emphasized the public benefit of the healthcare facility access road while omitting or minimizing the foreseeable harm to upstream homeowners — establishing that the genuine conflict between two legitimate public goods (healthcare access and upstream residential safety) must be presented honestly and completely.
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T00:23:20.563103+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T00:23:20.563103+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case 98-5; Competing Public Goods Non-Distortion Advisory Constraint
sourcetext: Engineer A has an obligation to consider climate and weather changes in the future with respect to potential impacts on public health, safety, and welfare, where such impacts are reasonably likely and significant.
temporalscope: Throughout any advisory reporting or regulatory submission related to the tidal crossing upgrade
textreferences: Engineer A has an obligation to consider climate and weather changes in the future with respect to potential impacts on public health, safety, and welfare, where such impacts are reasonably likely and significant.
textreferences: Engineer A should engage Client B in discussions about the need for the detailed evaluation and disclosure of the potential impacts on the public and alternatives for the project to mitigate those impacts.
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:31:11.075487
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Engineer A Competing Public Goods Healthcare Upstream Community Recognition
type: CompetingPublicGoodsConflictRecognitionandAdvisoryCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Competing Public Goods Conflict Recognition and Advisory Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A possessed the capability to recognize that the proposed healthcare facility development created a genuine conflict between the public benefit of the healthcare facility and the public welfare of approximately twenty upstream homeowners facing accelerated flood risk, and to address this conflict explicitly in advisory communications and regulatory submissions
casecontext: Engineer A recognized the competing public goods tension between the healthcare facility's public benefit and the upstream community's flood risk, as evidenced by the anticipation of difficult public hearing questions; the obligation to explicitly address this conflict in advisory reports and regulatory submissions was triggered by this recognition
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.86
demonstratedthrough: Engineer A's anticipation that the upstream flood risk would be 'a difficult question to answer in the project's public hearings,' indicating awareness of the competing public goods conflict requiring explicit acknowledgment
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T00:17:16.446228+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T00:17:16.446228+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer A proposes a complex and costly hydrologic and hydraulic analysis by a specialized subconsultant to predict the extent to which sea level rise and the increased hydraulic capacity of the tidal crossing will result in flood damage to a neighborhood of twenty upstream homes during future high tides and storm surges, anticipating this to be a difficult question to answer in the project's public hearings.
textreferences: Engineer A proposes a complex and costly hydrologic and hydraulic analysis by a specialized subconsultant to predict the extent to which sea level rise and the increased hydraulic capacity of the tidal crossing will result in flood damage to a neighborhood of twenty upstream homes during future high tides and storm surges, anticipating this to be a difficult question to answer in the project's public hearings.
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:31:11.066685
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Engineer A Conditional Proceeding Documented Uncertainty Tidal Crossing Alternative
type: ConditionalProceedingUnderDocumentedUncertaintyCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Conditional Proceeding Under Documented Uncertainty Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A possesses — but in the facts of this case does not exercise, because the risk threshold is too high — the capability to conditionally proceed with the tidal crossing project while formally documenting in writing and in public statements that the preliminary judgment has not been confirmed by detailed analysis, applicable only if Engineer A had been reasonably confident that significant public health, safety, and welfare impacts were unlikely.
casecontext: Counterfactual alternative pathway identified by the BER for the tidal crossing case — not the path taken, but the path that would have been available under different factual circumstances.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.85
demonstratedthrough: The BER's identification of an alternative ethical pathway that would have been available to Engineer A had the professional judgment been that significant impacts were unlikely — proceeding while noting in writing and public statements that more detailed analysis would be required to confirm that judgment.
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T14:24:46.782065+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T14:24:46.782065+00:00
importance: medium
possessedby: Engineer A (Tidal Crossing Infrastructure Design Engineer)
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: The outcome of this case might have been different had Engineer A been comfortable with predicting that significant public health, safety, and welfare impacts were unlikely, in which case Engineer A might have ethically been able to proceed while noting both in writing and in public statements that more detailed analysis would be required to confirm that judgment.
textreferences: The outcome of this case might have been different had Engineer A been comfortable with predicting that significant public health, safety, and welfare impacts were unlikely, in which case Engineer A might have ethically been able to proceed while noting both in writing and in public statements that more detailed analysis would be required to confirm that judgment.
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T10:32:26.869331
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Engineer A Conditional Withdrawal Trigger Exhaustion Tidal Crossing
type: ConditionalWithdrawalTriggerExhaustionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The final stage of Engineer A's graduated escalation sequence with Client B, where Client B's refusal of all intermediate options triggered the mandatory withdrawal obligation.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.9
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Conditional Withdrawal Trigger Exhaustion Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A's obligation to withdraw from the tidal crossing project was triggered only after exhausting all graduated engagement steps — including direct client discussion and proposal of regulatory report inclusion — and became ethically mandatory once Client B refused both intermediate options, prohibiting Engineer A from continuing project participation after that point of refusal.
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T00:23:20.563103+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T00:23:20.563103+00:00
importance: critical
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case 18-9; Non-Acquiescence to Client Economic Override Constraint
sourcetext: Failing agreement by Client B to either of these courses of action the BER believes that Engineer A should withdraw from the project.
temporalscope: Following Client B's refusal of both the specialized analysis recommendation and the regulatory report inclusion proposal
textreferences: Failing agreement by Client B to either of these courses of action the BER believes that Engineer A should withdraw from the project.
textreferences: The BER concluded that Engineer A should continue to attempt to convince the owner of the potential for damage to future residents and the public, and, failing agreement on Engineer A's proposed design standard, Engineer A should withdraw from the project.
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:31:11.074758
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Engineer A Cross-Disciplinary Threshold Recognition Hydraulic Referral Tidal Crossing
type: Domain-SpecificCompetenceBoundaryRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Domain-Specific Competence Boundary Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A possessed sufficient cross-disciplinary understanding of hydrology, hydraulics, and coastal modeling to form a reasonable professional judgment that the tidal crossing project raised technical questions requiring specialized subconsultant engagement, even though Engineer A was not required to be a modeling expert.
casecontext: Engineer A evaluating whether the tidal crossing upgrade's potential upstream flood impacts could be assessed through general engineering judgment or required specialized hydraulic modeling expertise.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstratedthrough: Application of cross-disciplinary understanding to recognize that the complex hydrologic and hydraulic analysis of tidal prism changes, sea level rise effects, and upstream flood propagation exceeded the scope of general engineering judgment and required specialized expertise.
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T00:22:58.787560+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T00:22:58.787560+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer A need not necessarily be a modelling expert.
textreferences: Based on the facts in this case, it is clear that Engineer A has such an understanding of the broad project issues.
textreferences: Engineer A need not necessarily be a modelling expert.
textreferences: However, Engineer A needs to have sufficient understanding of hydrology, hydraulics, and coastal modeling to form a reasonable judgment that there is sufficient potential for flooding of other properties to merit a detailed, complex evaluation of future conditions.
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:31:11.073564
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Engineer A Cross-Disciplinary Threshold Recognition Hydraulic Tidal Crossing
type: Cross-DisciplinaryThresholdRecognitionforSpecializedReferralCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Cross-Disciplinary Threshold Recognition for Specialized Referral Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A possesses the capability to apply sufficient cross-disciplinary understanding of hydrology, hydraulics, and coastal modeling to form a reasonable professional judgment that the tidal crossing upgrade raises technical questions exceeding Engineer A's own modeling expertise and requiring engagement of a specialized hydrologic and hydraulic subconsultant.
casecontext: Engineer A determining that the culvert-to-bridge upgrade requires specialized hydrologic and hydraulic analysis and recommending engagement of a specialized subconsultant.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.93
demonstratedthrough: Recognition that the tidal crossing upgrade raises complex hydrodynamic and coastal hydraulic questions — including sea level rise effects, tidal prism changes, and upstream flood propagation — that require specialized modeling expertise beyond Engineer A's general civil engineering competence.
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T14:24:46.782065+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T14:24:46.782065+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A (Tidal Crossing Infrastructure Design Engineer)
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Such judgments increasingly necessitate engineers to have sufficient understanding of related areas of engineering practice and science to determine when more specialized evaluation is needed to assure protection of public health, safety, and welfare.
textreferences: Engineer A need not necessarily be a modelling expert. However, Engineer A needs to have sufficient understanding of hydrology, hydraulics, and coastal modeling to form a reasonable judgment that there is sufficient potential for flooding of other properties to merit a detailed, complex evaluation of future conditions.
textreferences: Such judgments increasingly necessitate engineers to have sufficient understanding of related areas of engineering practice and science to determine when more specialized evaluation is needed to assure protection of public health, safety, and welfare.
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T10:32:26.869162
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Engineer A Environmental Firm Principal
type: EnvironmentalThreatReportingDesignEngineer
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'license': 'Professional Engineer', 'specialty': 'Environmental engineering, site analysis', 'firm_role': 'Principal', 'case_reference': 'BER Case 07.6'}
caseinvolvement: Principal in an environmental engineering firm retained by a developer to analyze a property adjacent to a wetlands area for residential condominium development; received a biologist's report of threat to a bird species in the adjacent protected wetlands; was obligated to include that information in the written report submitted to the public authority and to advise the client of its inclusion.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T00:09:53.405744+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T00:09:53.405744+00:00
importance: medium
relationships: {'type': 'client', 'target': 'Developer Client'}
relationships: {'type': 'employer', 'target': 'Environmental Engineering Firm'}
relationships: {'type': 'peer', 'target': 'Firm Biologist Specialist'}
relationships: {'type': 'regulatory_reporting', 'target': 'Public Authority Considering Developer Proposal'}
rolecategory: public_responsibility
roleclass: Environmental Threat Reporting Design Engineer
sourcetext: Engineer A was a principal in an environmental engineering firm and had been requested by a developer client to prepare an analysis of a piece of property adjacent to a wetlands area
textreferences: Engineer A should have included the information in the written report and advised the client of its inclusion
textreferences: Engineer A was a principal in an environmental engineering firm and had been requested by a developer client to prepare an analysis of a piece of property adjacent to a wetlands area
textreferences: The BER determined that it was unethical for Engineer A to not include the information about the threat to the bird species in a written report
textreferences: one of the engineering firm's biologists reported to Engineer A that, in his opinion, the condominium project could threaten a bird species
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:31:11.059970
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Engineer A Environmental Justice Upstream Homes Disclosure
type: DisproportionateImpactAssessmentCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Disproportionate Impact Assessment Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A possessed the capability to identify and assess whether the proposed tidal crossing upgrade would disproportionately burden the approximately twenty upstream homeowners — a specific residential community — by accelerating their properties' uninhabitability through increased flood risk, and to communicate this disproportionate impact finding to Client B and the applicable regulatory authority
casecontext: Engineer A identified a specific community of approximately twenty upstream homeowners who would bear disproportionate adverse impacts from the proposed infrastructure upgrade, triggering environmental justice disclosure obligations
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.85
demonstratedthrough: Engineer A's identification that the project may result in upstream homes becoming uninhabitable a decade or more earlier than would otherwise be the case, and the proposal to quantify this impact through specialized subconsultant analysis
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T00:17:16.446228+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T00:17:16.446228+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: the proposed project may result in some upstream homes becoming uninhabitable a decade or more earlier than would otherwise be the case
textreferences: predict the extent to which sea level rise and the increased hydraulic capacity of the tidal crossing will result in flood damage to a neighborhood of twenty upstream homes during future high tides and storm surges
textreferences: the proposed project may result in some upstream homes becoming uninhabitable a decade or more earlier than would otherwise be the case
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:31:11.066995
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Engineer A Evolving Climate Standard Awareness
type: EvolvingProfessionalStandardAwarenessCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Evolving Professional Standard Awareness Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A possessed awareness of evolving professional standards for climate-informed infrastructure design — including hydraulic evaluation procedures presented at a recent transportation agency conference — and applied this awareness to identify that applicable local regulations had not yet been updated to reflect current climate science
casecontext: Engineer A's awareness of emerging climate-informed hydraulic evaluation procedures from a professional conference enabled identification of the regulatory gap and the upstream flood risk, demonstrating advanced capability to track and apply evolving professional standards
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.87
demonstratedthrough: Engineer A's application of hydraulic evaluation procedures from a recent transportation agency conference to form a professional judgment about upstream uninhabitability risk, demonstrating awareness of emerging professional standards beyond current regulatory requirements
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T00:17:16.446228+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T00:17:16.446228+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: It is Engineer A's judgment, based on hydraulic evaluation procedures presented at a recent transportation agency conference, that the proposed project may result in some upstream homes becoming uninhabitable a decade or more earlier than would otherwise be the case.
textreferences: It is Engineer A's judgment, based on hydraulic evaluation procedures presented at a recent transportation agency conference, that the proposed project may result in some upstream homes becoming uninhabitable a decade or more earlier than would otherwise be the case.
textreferences: The local development regulations and national design codes and standards have not yet been updated to reflect changing conditions and weather patterns
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:31:11.067342
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Engineer A Faithful Agent Written Risk Notification Tidal Crossing
type: FaithfulAgentWrittenRiskNotificationScopeCalibrationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Faithful Agent Written Risk Notification Scope Calibration Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A possessed the capability to correctly calibrate the faithful agent obligation triggered by Client B's directive to forgo the specialized hydraulic analysis — recognizing that the duty extends to advising Client B in writing of the foreseeable risk that the tidal crossing upgrade may accelerate upstream home uninhabitability, without expanding the contracted scope to independently conduct the analysis
casecontext: Engineer A's obligation to provide written risk notification to Client B was triggered by Client B's directive to forgo the recommended analysis; the capability to correctly scope this notification — advising of risk without overstepping contracted scope — is required for ethical compliance
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.87
demonstratedthrough: Engineer A's identification of the upstream flood risk and proposal for specialized analysis, which established the factual predicate for a written risk notification to Client B upon Client B's override directive
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T00:17:16.446228+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T00:17:16.446228+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Client B directs Engineer A to proceed without the costly analysis unless and until such an analysis is requested by the applicable regulatory authorities.
textreferences: Client B directs Engineer A to proceed without the costly analysis unless and until such an analysis is requested by the applicable regulatory authorities.
textreferences: It is Engineer A's judgment, based on hydraulic evaluation procedures presented at a recent transportation agency conference, that the proposed project may result in some upstream homes becoming uninhabitable a decade or more earlier than would otherwise be the case.
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:31:11.066414
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Engineer A Formal Written Project Failure Risk Advisory Tidal Crossing
type: FormalWrittenProjectFailureRiskAdvisoryCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Formal Written Project Failure Risk Advisory Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A possesses the capability to formally advise Client B in writing that proceeding without the specialized hydrologic and hydraulic analysis creates a material risk that the project will fail — including regulatory rejection at public hearings — and to communicate this advisory with sufficient professional authority to enable Client B to make a genuinely informed decision.
casecontext: Formal written advisory to Client B after Client B's direction to proceed without the specialized analysis.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.86
demonstratedthrough: Engineer A's obligation to formally advise Client B in writing that proceeding without the specialized analysis risks project failure, particularly given the anticipated difficulty of answering upstream flood risk questions at public hearings.
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T14:16:13.646069+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T14:16:13.646069+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Client B directs Engineer A to proceed without the costly analysis unless and until such an analysis is requested by the applicable regulatory authorities.
textreferences: Client B directs Engineer A to proceed without the costly analysis unless and until such an analysis is requested by the applicable regulatory authorities.
textreferences: Engineer A proposes a complex and costly hydrologic and hydraulic analysis by a specialized subconsultant to predict the extent to which sea level rise and the increased hydraulic capacity of the tidal crossing will result in flood damage to a neighborhood of twenty upstream homes during future high tides and storm surges, anticipating this to be a difficult question to answer in the project's public hearings.
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T10:32:26.860024
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Engineer A Graduated Client Engagement Before Withdrawal Tidal Crossing
type: GraduatedEscalationNavigationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Graduated Escalation Navigation Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A was required to possess the capability to pursue a graduated sequence of client engagement steps before withdrawing from the tidal crossing project — first engaging Client B in substantive discussion about the need for specialized analysis and disclosure, then proposing submission of a concern report to regulatory agencies, and only withdrawing after both intermediate options were refused.
casecontext: Engineer A navigating Client B's refusal to authorize recommended specialized hydraulic analysis for the tidal crossing project, required to exhaust intermediate escalation options before withdrawing.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.89
demonstratedthrough: The BER's determination that Engineer A should engage Client B in discussions, then propose regulatory report submission as an intermediate step, and only withdraw if Client B refused both courses of action — demonstrating the graduated nature of the required escalation sequence.
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T00:22:58.787560+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T00:22:58.787560+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer A should engage Client B in discussions about the need for the detailed evaluation and disclosure of the potential impacts on the public and alternatives for the project to mitigate those impacts, and the potential risk to Client B of not evaluating the potential impacts.
textreferences: Engineer A should engage Client B in discussions about the need for the detailed evaluation and disclosure of the potential impacts on the public and alternatives for the project to mitigate those impacts, and the potential risk to Client B of not evaluating the potential impacts.
textreferences: Failing agreement by Client B to either of these courses of action the BER believes that Engineer A should withdraw from the project.
textreferences: If Client B remains unconvinced, Engineer A should propose to Client B that engineer a provides the potential concern that may necessitate more detailed evaluation in an engineering report for consideration by regulatory agencies and the public.
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:31:11.073754
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Engineer A Graduated Escalation Navigation Tidal Crossing Client B
type: GraduatedEscalationNavigationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Graduated Escalation Navigation Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A possesses the capability to navigate a graduated escalation sequence with Client B: first engaging Client B in discussions about the need for detailed evaluation and disclosure of potential impacts and alternatives; then, if Client B remains unconvinced, proposing to submit a concern report to regulatory agencies; and only withdrawing from the project if Client B refuses both courses of action.
casecontext: Engineer A navigating Client B's refusal to authorize specialized hydrologic and hydraulic analysis for the tidal crossing upgrade.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.92
demonstratedthrough: The BER's prescribed three-step escalation sequence: (1) engage Client B in discussions about need for evaluation and disclosure; (2) propose submission of concern report to regulatory agencies; (3) withdraw if both options refused.
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T14:24:46.782065+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T14:24:46.782065+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A (Tidal Crossing Infrastructure Design Engineer)
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer A should engage Client B in discussions about the need for the detailed evaluation and disclosure of the potential impacts on the public and alternatives for the project to mitigate those impacts, and the potential risk to Client B of not evaluating the potential impacts.
textreferences: Engineer A should engage Client B in discussions about the need for the detailed evaluation and disclosure of the potential impacts on the public and alternatives for the project to mitigate those impacts, and the potential risk to Client B of not evaluating the potential impacts.
textreferences: Failing agreement by Client B to either of these courses of action the BER believes that Engineer A should withdraw from the project.
textreferences: If Client B remains unconvinced, Engineer A should propose to Client B that engineer a provides the potential concern that may necessitate more detailed evaluation in an engineering report for consideration by regulatory agencies and the public.
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T10:32:26.869484
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Engineer A Gray Area Public Safety Judgment Qualified Disclosure Tidal Crossing
type: GrayAreaPublicSafetyJudgmentDisclosureQualificationConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A's professional judgment — grounded in transportation agency conference procedures rather than completed specialized analysis — that the tidal crossing upgrade may accelerate the uninhabitability of approximately twenty upstream homes under projected climate conditions.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.87
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Gray Area Public Safety Judgment Disclosure Qualification Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was required to disclose the preliminary professional judgment that the tidal crossing upgrade may accelerate upstream home uninhabitability, while simultaneously qualifying that disclosure as based on preliminary judgment requiring more detailed evaluation to confirm — and was prohibited from either remaining silent about the gray area risk or overstating it as an established finding, given that the risk had not yet been confirmed by specialized analysis.
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T00:23:20.563103+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T00:23:20.563103+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; Preliminary Professional Judgment Disclosure Qualification Constraint; BER Case 07-6
sourcetext: That obligation leads to not uncommon 'gray areas' in practice requiring judgment as to what issues potentially impacting public health, safety, and welfare merit more detailed evaluation and what issues do not.
temporalscope: Throughout client engagement and any regulatory submissions during the tidal crossing project
textreferences: That obligation leads to not uncommon 'gray areas' in practice requiring judgment as to what issues potentially impacting public health, safety, and welfare merit more detailed evaluation and what issues do not.
textreferences: The outcome of this case might have been different had Engineer A been comfortable with predicting that significant public health, safety, and welfare impacts were unlikely, in which case Engineer A might have ethically been able to proceed while noting both in writing and in public statements that more detailed analysis would be required to confirm that judgment.
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:31:11.074905
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Engineer A Gray Area Public Welfare Threshold Judgment Tidal Crossing
type: Fact-OpinionThresholdDiscriminationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Fact-Opinion Threshold Discrimination Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A possessed the capability to exercise professional judgment in the gray area situation presented by the tidal crossing project — recognizing that the potential for upstream flooding was sufficiently likely and significant to merit detailed evaluation rather than proceeding with only a noted caveat, and calibrating the escalation response accordingly.
casecontext: Engineer A assessing whether the preliminary professional judgment about upstream flood risk from the tidal crossing upgrade rose to the threshold requiring detailed evaluation, specialized subconsultant engagement, and client escalation.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: Professional judgment that the potential for flooding of upstream properties was sufficient to require specialized hydraulic analysis rather than proceeding on the basis that significant impacts were unlikely, distinguishing this case from one where proceeding with written caveats would have been ethically permissible.
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T00:22:58.787560+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T00:22:58.787560+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: expert
sourcetext: That obligation leads to not uncommon 'gray areas' in practice requiring judgment as to what issues potentially impacting public health, safety, and welfare merit more detailed evaluation and what issues do not.
textreferences: That obligation leads to not uncommon 'gray areas' in practice requiring judgment as to what issues potentially impacting public health, safety, and welfare merit more detailed evaluation and what issues do not.
textreferences: The outcome of this case might have been different had Engineer A been comfortable with predicting that significant public health, safety, and welfare impacts were unlikely, in which case Engineer A might have ethically been able to proceed while noting both in writing and in public statements that more detailed analysis would be required to confirm that judgment.
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:31:11.073421
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Engineer A Interdisciplinary Threshold Competence Hydraulic Referral Tidal Crossing
type: InterdisciplinaryThresholdCompetenceReferralConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A's professional engagement on the tidal crossing upgrade, where Engineer A possessed sufficient cross-disciplinary understanding to recognize the need for specialized hydraulic analysis even without being a modeling specialist.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.89
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Interdisciplinary Threshold Competence Referral Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A, while not required to be a hydrodynamic modeling expert, was constrained by the threshold competence they possessed in hydrology, hydraulics, and coastal modeling to form a reasonable professional judgment that the tidal crossing upgrade created sufficient potential for upstream flooding to merit specialized evaluation — and was prohibited from treating the absence of specialist credentials as a basis for declining to form or act on that threshold judgment.
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T00:23:20.563103+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T00:23:20.563103+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; Transportation Agency Conference Hydraulic Evaluation Procedures; Professional Competence Standard
sourcetext: Engineer A need not necessarily be a modelling expert.
temporalscope: Throughout the design and permitting phase of the tidal crossing upgrade project
textreferences: Based on the facts in this case, it is clear that Engineer A has such an understanding of the broad project issues.
textreferences: Engineer A need not necessarily be a modelling expert.
textreferences: However, Engineer A needs to have sufficient understanding of hydrology, hydraulics, and coastal modeling to form a reasonable judgment that there is sufficient potential for flooding of other properties to merit a detailed, complex evaluation of future conditions.
textreferences: Such judgments increasingly necessitate engineers to have sufficient understanding of related areas of engineering practice and science to determine when more specialized evaluation is needed to assure protection of public health, safety, and welfare.
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:31:11.074588
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Engineer A Law-Bounded Obligation Non-Limitation Recognition Tidal Crossing
type: Law-BoundedObligationNon-LimitationRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Law-Bounded Obligation Non-Limitation Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A possesses the capability to recognize that the ethical obligation to protect public health, safety, and welfare in the tidal crossing project is not bounded by the applicable 25-year storm regulatory standard or other legal requirements, and that ethical obligations require evaluation of climate-related flood risks to upstream homes regardless of whether such evaluation is legally mandated.
casecontext: Engineer A designing culvert-to-bridge tidal crossing upgrade for Client B's healthcare facility access road, identifying upstream flood risk to twenty homes not addressed by applicable regulatory standards.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: Recognition that the tidal crossing upgrade raises public welfare obligations exceeding the local 25-year storm regulatory standard, leading to recommendation of specialized hydrologic and hydraulic analysis not required by applicable regulations.
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T14:24:46.782065+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T14:24:46.782065+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A (Tidal Crossing Infrastructure Design Engineer)
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: That obligation is not bounded by what is required by law, or by regulations, but rather is stated broadly.
textreferences: Engineer A does have an ethical obligation to address the impacts of the project on public health, safety, and welfare regardless of whether or not that is required by applicable law.
textreferences: That obligation is not bounded by what is required by law, or by regulations, but rather is stated broadly.
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T10:32:26.868774
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Engineer A Low Probability High Consequence Upstream Flood Risk Disclosure Tidal Crossing
type: Low-ProbabilityHigh-ConsequenceRiskDisclosureConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A's preliminary professional judgment that the tidal crossing upgrade may accelerate the uninhabitability of approximately twenty upstream homes under projected climate conditions, where the risk had not yet been confirmed by specialized analysis.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.88
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Low-Probability High-Consequence Risk Disclosure Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was prohibited from omitting or minimizing the upstream flood risk to approximately twenty homes on the basis that the risk was not yet confirmed by specialized analysis — given that the foreseeable consequence of accelerated uninhabitability of residential properties constituted a high-consequence outcome that required disclosure regardless of the preliminary nature of the probability assessment.
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T00:23:20.563103+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T00:23:20.563103+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; Low-Probability High-Consequence Risk Disclosure Constraint
sourcetext: Engineer A has an obligation to consider climate and weather changes in the future with respect to potential impacts on public health, safety, and welfare, where such impacts are reasonably likely and significant.
temporalscope: Throughout the design and permitting phase of the tidal crossing upgrade project
textreferences: Engineer A has an obligation to consider climate and weather changes in the future with respect to potential impacts on public health, safety, and welfare, where such impacts are reasonably likely and significant.
textreferences: However, with the facts as presented, Engineer A should engage Client B in discussions about the need for the detailed evaluation and disclosure of the potential impacts on the public.
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:31:11.075644
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Engineer A Non-Acquiescence Client Safety Analysis Suppression
type: EconomicPressureResistanceinContractAcceptanceCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Economic Pressure Resistance in Contract Acceptance Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A was obligated to resist Client B's directive to forgo the recommended specialized hydraulic analysis by formally objecting to the directive rather than simply acquiescing, demonstrating the capability to resist client pressure to suppress a recommended safety analysis
casecontext: Client B's directive to forgo the specialized hydraulic analysis constituted client pressure to suppress a recommended safety analysis; Engineer A's obligation to formally object rather than acquiesce required the capability to resist this client pressure
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.83
demonstratedthrough: The case facts establish that Client B directed Engineer A to proceed without the costly analysis, creating the ethical obligation for Engineer A to formally object rather than acquiesce; whether Engineer A exercised this capability is not confirmed in the case facts
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T00:17:16.446228+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T00:17:16.446228+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Client B directs Engineer A to proceed without the costly analysis unless and until such an analysis is requested by the applicable regulatory authorities.
textreferences: Client B directs Engineer A to proceed without the costly analysis unless and until such an analysis is requested by the applicable regulatory authorities.
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:31:11.067133
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Engineer A Post-Client-Override Regulatory Escalation Assessment Tidal Crossing
type: Post-Client-OverrideRegulatoryEscalationAssessmentCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Post-Client-Override Regulatory Escalation Assessment Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A possesses the capability to assess whether the preliminary finding of material flood risk to twenty upstream homes is sufficiently serious to require escalation to regulatory authorities without Client B's authorization, evaluating the gravity of the potential danger against the threshold for mandatory disclosure.
casecontext: Client B's refusal to authorize safety analysis requiring Engineer A to assess whether independent regulatory escalation is required.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstratedthrough: Engineer A's obligation to evaluate whether the identified upstream flood risk — potentially rendering homes uninhabitable a decade or more earlier — meets the threshold for proactive regulatory disclosure without client authorization.
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T14:16:13.646069+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T14:16:13.646069+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Client B directs Engineer A to proceed without the costly analysis unless and until such an analysis is requested by the applicable regulatory authorities.
textreferences: Client B directs Engineer A to proceed without the costly analysis unless and until such an analysis is requested by the applicable regulatory authorities.
textreferences: It is Engineer A's judgment, based on hydraulic evaluation procedures presented at a recent transportation agency conference, that the proposed project may result in some upstream homes becoming uninhabitable a decade or more earlier than would otherwise be the case.
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T10:32:26.859390
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Engineer A Preliminary Judgment Qualified Risk Disclosure
type: Fact-OpinionThresholdDiscriminationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Fact-Opinion Threshold Discrimination Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A possessed the capability to distinguish between the preliminary professional judgment that the project may accelerate upstream uninhabitability — which requires qualified disclosure — and a confirmed quantitative finding that would require more definitive reporting, and to disclose the preliminary judgment with appropriate qualification as to its basis and confidence level
casecontext: Engineer A correctly framed the upstream risk as a professional judgment rather than a confirmed finding, demonstrating the threshold discrimination capability; the obligation to disclose this qualified judgment to Client B and relevant parties was triggered by the preliminary finding
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.85
demonstratedthrough: Engineer A's characterization of the upstream risk as a professional judgment based on conference-presented evaluation procedures, rather than as a confirmed finding, indicating awareness of the preliminary nature of the assessment
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T00:17:16.446228+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T00:17:16.446228+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: It is Engineer A's judgment, based on hydraulic evaluation procedures presented at a recent transportation agency conference, that the proposed project may result in some upstream homes becoming uninhabitable a decade or more earlier than would otherwise be the case.
textreferences: It is Engineer A's judgment, based on hydraulic evaluation procedures presented at a recent transportation agency conference, that the proposed project may result in some upstream homes becoming uninhabitable a decade or more earlier than would otherwise be the case.
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:31:11.066553
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Engineer A Preliminary Judgment Qualified Risk Disclosure Tidal Crossing
type: PreliminaryProfessionalJudgmentQualifiedRiskDisclosureCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Preliminary Professional Judgment Qualified Risk Disclosure Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A possesses the capability to disclose the preliminary professional judgment that the tidal crossing upgrade may accelerate upstream flooding in a manner that accurately qualifies the preliminary nature of the finding, identifies the additional specialized analysis needed to confirm or refute the risk, and ensures the disclosure is neither overstated nor understated.
casecontext: Engineer A disclosing preliminary flood risk findings to Client B while recommending specialized analysis for confirmation.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: Engineer A's communication to Client B and relevant parties of the preliminary finding of material flood risk to twenty upstream homes, qualified as a preliminary judgment requiring specialized hydrologic and hydraulic analysis for confirmation.
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T14:24:46.782065+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T14:24:46.782065+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A (Tidal Crossing Infrastructure Design Engineer)
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: The outcome of this case might have been different had Engineer A been comfortable with predicting that significant public health, safety, and welfare impacts were unlikely, in which case Engineer A might have ethically been able to proceed while noting both in writing and in public statements that more detailed analysis would be required to confirm that judgment.
textreferences: The outcome of this case might have been different had Engineer A been comfortable with predicting that significant public health, safety, and welfare impacts were unlikely, in which case Engineer A might have ethically been able to proceed while noting both in writing and in public statements that more detailed analysis would be required to confirm that judgment.
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T10:32:26.870509
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Engineer A Preliminary Professional Judgment Qualified Risk Disclosure Tidal Crossing
type: PreliminaryProfessionalJudgmentQualifiedRiskDisclosureCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Preliminary Professional Judgment Qualified Risk Disclosure Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A possesses the capability to disclose the preliminary professional judgment that the tidal crossing upgrade may accelerate upstream home uninhabitability in a manner that accurately qualifies the preliminary nature of the finding, identifies the additional specialized analysis needed to confirm or refute the risk, and avoids both overstating and understating the identified risk.
casecontext: Preliminary risk identification requiring qualified disclosure to client and regulatory authorities before specialized analysis is conducted.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.91
demonstratedthrough: Engineer A's judgment, based on hydraulic evaluation procedures from a recent conference, that the project 'may result in some upstream homes becoming uninhabitable a decade or more earlier than would otherwise be the case' — a qualified preliminary finding that prompted the proposal for specialized analysis.
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T14:16:13.646069+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T14:16:13.646069+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: It is Engineer A's judgment, based on hydraulic evaluation procedures presented at a recent transportation agency conference, that the proposed project may result in some upstream homes becoming uninhabitable a decade or more earlier than would otherwise be the case.
textreferences: It is Engineer A's judgment, based on hydraulic evaluation procedures presented at a recent transportation agency conference, that the proposed project may result in some upstream homes becoming uninhabitable a decade or more earlier than would otherwise be the case.
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T10:32:26.859018
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Engineer A Proactive Design Alternatives Exploration Tidal Crossing
type: ProactiveDesignAlternativesExplorationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Proactive Design Alternatives Exploration Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A possesses the capability to proactively explore and evaluate alternative design approaches for the tidal crossing upgrade that might mitigate the potential upstream flood impacts, and to present those alternatives to Client B as part of the graduated escalation discussions.
casecontext: Engineer A exploring design alternatives to mitigate upstream flood risk as part of client engagement discussions.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.85
demonstratedthrough: BER direction that Engineer A engage Client B in discussions about 'alternatives for the project to mitigate those impacts' as part of the graduated escalation sequence.
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T14:24:46.782065+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T14:24:46.782065+00:00
importance: medium
possessedby: Engineer A (Tidal Crossing Infrastructure Design Engineer)
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer A should engage Client B in discussions about the need for the detailed evaluation and disclosure of the potential impacts on the public and alternatives for the project to mitigate those impacts, and the potential risk to Client B of not evaluating the potential impacts.
textreferences: Engineer A should engage Client B in discussions about the need for the detailed evaluation and disclosure of the potential impacts on the public and alternatives for the project to mitigate those impacts, and the potential risk to Client B of not evaluating the potential impacts.
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T10:32:26.870693
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Engineer A Professional Withdrawal Decision Tidal Crossing
type: ProfessionalWithdrawalDecisionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Professional Withdrawal Decision Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A possesses the capability to recognize when continued work on the tidal crossing project — after Client B has refused both the specialized analysis and regulatory disclosure — would constitute ethical acquiescence to a client override of public safety requirements, and to withdraw from the project rather than proceeding under those conditions.
casecontext: Conditional project withdrawal after Client B's refusal of safety disclosure and specialized analysis authorization.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstratedthrough: Engineer A's conditional obligation to withdraw from the project if Client B refuses both the specialized hydrologic and hydraulic analysis and the proposal to submit a concern report to regulatory authorities.
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T14:16:13.646069+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T14:16:13.646069+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Client B directs Engineer A to proceed without the costly analysis unless and until such an analysis is requested by the applicable regulatory authorities.
textreferences: Client B directs Engineer A to proceed without the costly analysis unless and until such an analysis is requested by the applicable regulatory authorities.
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T10:32:26.859528
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Engineer A Professional Withdrawal Decision Tidal Crossing Last Resort
type: ProfessionalWithdrawalDecisionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Professional Withdrawal Decision Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A possesses the capability to recognize when continued work on the tidal crossing project — after Client B has refused both the specialized analysis and the regulatory report submission — would constitute ethical acquiescence to a client's override of public safety requirements, and to act on that recognition by withdrawing from the project.
casecontext: Engineer A's obligation to withdraw from the tidal crossing project as a last resort after exhausting graduated escalation options with Client B.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.92
demonstratedthrough: BER conclusion that Engineer A should withdraw from the tidal crossing project if Client B refuses both the opportunity to conduct the recommended specialized analysis and the proposal to submit a concern report to regulatory agencies.
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T14:24:46.782065+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T14:24:46.782065+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A (Tidal Crossing Infrastructure Design Engineer)
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Failing agreement by Client B to either of these courses of action the BER believes that Engineer A should withdraw from the project.
textreferences: Failing agreement by Client B to either of these courses of action the BER believes that Engineer A should withdraw from the project.
textreferences: In BER Case 18-9 ... The BER concluded that Engineer A should continue to attempt to convince the owner of the potential for damage to future residents and the public, and, failing agreement on Engineer A's proposed design standard, Engineer A should withdraw from the project.
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T10:32:26.869650
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Engineer A Public Safety Paramount Obligation Beyond Regulatory Compliance Tidal Crossing
type: PublicSafetyParamountConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A's design of a tidal crossing upgrade where compliance with the locally required 25-year storm standard did not address foreseeable climate-driven flood risk to approximately twenty upstream homes.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.95
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Public Safety Paramount Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A's primary ethical obligation to hold paramount the protection of public health, safety, and welfare was not bounded by compliance with the applicable 25-year fresh-water storm design standard — constraining Engineer A from treating regulatory compliance as a complete discharge of professional obligations when professional judgment indicated that the regulatory standard was climatically inadequate to protect upstream homeowners.
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T00:23:20.563103+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T00:23:20.563103+00:00
importance: critical
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section I.1; BER Case 18-9; BER Case 07-6
sourcetext: Professional engineers have a primary ethical obligation to hold paramount the protection of public health, safety, and welfare.
temporalscope: Throughout the design and permitting phase of the tidal crossing upgrade project
textreferences: Engineer A does have an ethical obligation to address the impacts of the project on public health, safety, and welfare regardless of whether or not that is required by applicable law.
textreferences: Professional engineers have a primary ethical obligation to hold paramount the protection of public health, safety, and welfare.
textreferences: That obligation is not bounded by what is required by law, or by regulations, but rather is stated broadly.
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:31:11.075053
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Engineer A Public Welfare Paramountcy Recognition Tidal Crossing
type: PublicWelfareParamountcyRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Public Welfare Paramountcy Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A possesses the capability to recognize that the primary ethical obligation to protect public health, safety, and welfare — including the welfare of twenty upstream homeowners — must be held paramount over Client B's cost-reduction directives and project schedule preferences.
casecontext: Engineer A navigating Client B's refusal to authorize recommended safety analysis for tidal crossing upgrade affecting upstream residential properties.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.92
demonstratedthrough: Refusal to subordinate the recommended specialized hydrologic and hydraulic analysis to Client B's cost-reduction directive, and willingness to withdraw from the project if Client B refuses both the analysis and regulatory report submission.
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T14:24:46.782065+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T14:24:46.782065+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A (Tidal Crossing Infrastructure Design Engineer)
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Professional engineers have a primary ethical obligation to hold paramount the protection of public health, safety, and welfare.
textreferences: Engineer A does have an ethical obligation to address the impacts of the project on public health, safety, and welfare regardless of whether or not that is required by applicable law.
textreferences: Professional engineers have a primary ethical obligation to hold paramount the protection of public health, safety, and welfare.
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T10:32:26.868917
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Engineer A Regulatory-Minimum Compliance Public Safety Insufficiency Recognition Tidal Crossing
type: Regulatory-MinimumCompliancePublicSafetyInsufficiencyRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Regulatory-Minimum Compliance Public Safety Insufficiency Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A possesses the capability to recognize and disclose that compliance with the 25-year storm standard based on historical data is insufficient to protect public safety given current climate science, and to communicate this insufficiency to Client B and applicable regulatory authorities.
casecontext: Regulatory compliance gap identification in tidal crossing design where current standards do not reflect climate change.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: Engineer A's recognition that the local 25-year storm standard and historical data assumptions do not capture the actual risk posed by sea level rise and changing precipitation patterns, and the obligation to disclose this insufficiency even though the regulatory standard has not been formally updated.
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T14:16:13.646069+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T14:16:13.646069+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Local development regulations require designing for a 25-year fresh-water storm, and assume that future weather conditions will be consistent with updated historical data.
textreferences: Local development regulations require designing for a 25-year fresh-water storm, and assume that future weather conditions will be consistent with updated historical data.
textreferences: The local development regulations and national design codes and standards have not yet been updated to reflect changing conditions and weather patterns, including effects of sea level rise and changes in precipitation intensities and recurrence intervals effected by on-going climate change.
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T10:32:26.859746
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Engineer A Regulatory Authority Proactive Disclosure Assessment
type: Post-Client-OverrideRegulatoryEscalationAssessmentCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Post-Client-Override Regulatory Escalation Assessment Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A possessed the capability to assess whether Client B's directive to forgo the specialized hydraulic analysis — combined with the preliminary professional judgment that the project may render upstream homes uninhabitable — triggered an obligation to proactively disclose the identified risk to the applicable regulatory authority without client authorization
casecontext: Engineer A's obligation to evaluate whether proactive regulatory disclosure was required arose from the combination of the identified upstream flood risk and Client B's override directive; this capability is required to correctly navigate the tension between faithful agent duties and paramount public welfare obligations
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: The case facts establish that Engineer A identified a material risk to public welfare and that Client B directed Engineer A to proceed without the analysis needed to quantify it, creating the factual predicate for Engineer A to assess whether regulatory escalation was required
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T00:17:16.446228+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T00:17:16.446228+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Client B directs Engineer A to proceed without the costly analysis unless and until such an analysis is requested by the applicable regulatory authorities.
textreferences: Client B directs Engineer A to proceed without the costly analysis unless and until such an analysis is requested by the applicable regulatory authorities.
textreferences: It is Engineer A's judgment, based on hydraulic evaluation procedures presented at a recent transportation agency conference, that the proposed project may result in some upstream homes becoming uninhabitable a decade or more earlier than would otherwise be the case.
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:31:11.066820
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Engineer A Regulatory Report Inclusion Proposal Intermediate Step Tidal Crossing
type: RegulatoryReportInclusionProposalasIntermediateEscalationConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The graduated escalation sequence required of Engineer A following Client B's refusal to authorize the specialized hydrologic and hydraulic analysis of upstream flood risk.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.87
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Regulatory Report Inclusion Proposal as Intermediate Escalation Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was required, as a mandatory intermediate escalation step before withdrawing from the tidal crossing project, to propose to Client B that Engineer A's professional concern about upstream flood risk be included in an engineering report submitted to regulatory agencies and the public for consideration — and was prohibited from treating Client B's refusal of specialized analysis as a direct trigger for immediate withdrawal without first offering this intermediate disclosure pathway.
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T00:23:20.563103+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T00:23:20.563103+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case 18-9
sourcetext: If Client B remains unconvinced, Engineer A should propose to Client B that engineer a provides the potential concern that may necessitate more detailed evaluation in an engineering report for consideration by regulatory agencies and the public.
temporalscope: After Client B's refusal of specialized analysis recommendation and before project withdrawal
textreferences: Failing agreement by Client B to either of these courses of action the BER believes that Engineer A should withdraw from the project.
textreferences: If Client B remains unconvinced, Engineer A should propose to Client B that engineer a provides the potential concern that may necessitate more detailed evaluation in an engineering report for consideration by regulatory agencies and the public.
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:31:11.074428
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Engineer A Regulatory Report Submission Escalation Step Tidal Crossing
type: RegulatoryReportSubmissionEscalationStepCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Regulatory Report Submission Escalation Step Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A possesses the capability to identify and propose, as an intermediate graduated escalation step after Client B's refusal to authorize the specialized analysis, that Engineer A submit a concern report directly to the applicable regulatory authority — informing the authority of the identified upstream flood risk so that the authority can independently determine whether to require the analysis.
casecontext: Graduated escalation sequence after Client B's refusal to authorize specialized analysis, before considering project withdrawal.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.85
demonstratedthrough: Engineer A's obligation to propose regulatory report submission to Client B as an intermediate step between client engagement and project withdrawal, fulfilling the disclosure obligation while preserving the client relationship as long as possible.
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T14:16:13.646069+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T14:16:13.646069+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Client B directs Engineer A to proceed without the costly analysis unless and until such an analysis is requested by the applicable regulatory authorities.
textreferences: Client B directs Engineer A to proceed without the costly analysis unless and until such an analysis is requested by the applicable regulatory authorities.
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T10:32:26.860199
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Engineer A Regulatory Report Submission Proposal Escalation Step Tidal Crossing
type: Post-Client-OverrideRegulatoryEscalationAssessmentCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Post-Client-Override Regulatory Escalation Assessment Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A was required to possess the capability to propose, as an intermediate escalation step after Client B's initial refusal, that Engineer A submit a concern report to regulatory agencies and the public — recognizing this as a professionally appropriate intermediate option between continued acquiescence and full project withdrawal.
casecontext: Engineer A pursuing graduated escalation with Client B after initial refusal to authorize specialized hydraulic analysis, proposing regulatory report submission as an intermediate step before withdrawal.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.85
demonstratedthrough: The BER's determination that Engineer A should propose regulatory report submission as an intermediate escalation step before withdrawing, demonstrating the capability to identify and propose regulatory escalation as a client-facing intermediate option.
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T00:22:58.787560+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T00:22:58.787560+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: If Client B remains unconvinced, Engineer A should propose to Client B that engineer a provides the potential concern that may necessitate more detailed evaluation in an engineering report for consideration by regulatory agencies and the public.
textreferences: If Client B remains unconvinced, Engineer A should propose to Client B that engineer a provides the potential concern that may necessitate more detailed evaluation in an engineering report for consideration by regulatory agencies and the public.
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:31:11.073969
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Engineer A Sea Level Rise Infrastructure Design Integration Tidal Crossing
type: SeaLevelRiseInfrastructureDesignIntegrationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Sea Level Rise Infrastructure Design Integration Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A possesses the technical capability to integrate sea level rise projections and updated precipitation intensity data into the tidal crossing design analysis, applying emerging evaluation procedures from professional conferences to assess whether the regulatory-compliant design is adequate under projected future conditions.
casecontext: Tidal crossing design requiring integration of sea level rise and climate change projections beyond regulatory minimum requirements.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.87
demonstratedthrough: Engineer A's application of hydraulic evaluation procedures from a recent transportation agency conference to assess the interaction of sea level rise with the increased hydraulic capacity of the tidal crossing and its effects on upstream flood risk.
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T14:16:13.646069+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T14:16:13.646069+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: It is Engineer A's judgment, based on hydraulic evaluation procedures presented at a recent transportation agency conference, that the proposed project may result in some upstream homes becoming uninhabitable a decade or more earlier than would otherwise be the case.
textreferences: It is Engineer A's judgment, based on hydraulic evaluation procedures presented at a recent transportation agency conference, that the proposed project may result in some upstream homes becoming uninhabitable a decade or more earlier than would otherwise be the case.
textreferences: The local development regulations and national design codes and standards have not yet been updated to reflect changing conditions and weather patterns, including effects of sea level rise and changes in precipitation intensities and recurrence intervals effected by on-going climate change.
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T10:32:26.859883
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Engineer A Specialized Subconsultant Engagement Recommendation
type: Domain-SpecificCompetenceBoundaryRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Domain-Specific Competence Boundary Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A recognized that the complex hydrologic and hydraulic analysis required to quantify upstream flood risk from the tidal crossing upgrade exceeded the scope of routine design work and required engagement of a specialized subconsultant, demonstrating capability to identify the boundary of their own competence and recommend appropriate specialized expertise
casecontext: Engineer A correctly identified that the tidal hydraulic analysis was sufficiently complex and specialized to require a dedicated subconsultant, and formally proposed this to Client B before Client B directed otherwise
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: Engineer A's proposal to engage a specialized subconsultant for the complex hydrologic and hydraulic analysis rather than attempting to perform it within the existing scope
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T00:17:16.446228+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T00:17:16.446228+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer A proposes a complex and costly hydrologic and hydraulic analysis by a specialized subconsultant to predict the extent to which sea level rise and the increased hydraulic capacity of the tidal crossing will result in flood damage to a neighborhood of twenty upstream homes during future high tides and storm surges, anticipating this to be a difficult question to answer in the project's public hearings.
textreferences: Engineer A proposes a complex and costly hydrologic and hydraulic analysis by a specialized subconsultant to predict the extent to which sea level rise and the increased hydraulic capacity of the tidal crossing will result in flood damage to a neighborhood of twenty upstream homes during future high tides and storm surges, anticipating this to be a difficult question to answer in the project's public hearings.
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:31:11.066125
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Engineer A Tidal Hydraulic Analysis Capability
type: TidalHydraulicandHydrologicAnalysisCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Tidal Hydraulic and Hydrologic Analysis Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A possessed sufficient tidal hydraulic and hydrologic analysis capability to recognize that the proposed tidal crossing upgrade may cause upstream flood damage, and to propose a specialized subconsultant analysis to quantify the risk
casecontext: Engineer A identified the upstream flood risk through professional judgment but recognized the need for specialized subconsultant expertise to perform the full quantitative analysis, indicating intermediate rather than expert proficiency in this specialized domain
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.87
demonstratedthrough: Engineer A's proposal to engage a specialized subconsultant for complex hydrologic and hydraulic analysis of sea level rise and tidal crossing capacity effects on upstream homes
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T00:17:16.446228+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T00:17:16.446228+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: Engineer A proposes a complex and costly hydrologic and hydraulic analysis by a specialized subconsultant to predict the extent to which sea level rise and the increased hydraulic capacity of the tidal crossing will result in flood damage to a neighborhood of twenty upstream homes during future high tides and storm surges
textreferences: Engineer A proposes a complex and costly hydrologic and hydraulic analysis by a specialized subconsultant to predict the extent to which sea level rise and the increased hydraulic capacity of the tidal crossing will result in flood damage to a neighborhood of twenty upstream homes during future high tides and storm surges
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:31:11.065518
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Engineer A Tidal Hydraulic and Hydrologic Analysis Tidal Crossing
type: TidalHydraulicandHydrologicAnalysisCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Tidal Hydraulic and Hydrologic Analysis Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A possesses sufficient tidal hydraulic and hydrologic analysis capability to recognize the need for complex analysis of sea level rise effects, tidal prism changes, and upstream flood propagation resulting from the increased hydraulic capacity of the tidal crossing, and to specify the scope of specialized subconsultant analysis required.
casecontext: Tidal crossing culvert-to-bridge upgrade requiring assessment of sea level rise and upstream flood impacts.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.93
demonstratedthrough: Engineer A's proposal of a complex and costly hydrologic and hydraulic analysis by a specialized subconsultant to predict flood damage to upstream homes from sea level rise and increased hydraulic capacity during future high tides and storm surges.
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T14:16:13.646069+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T14:16:13.646069+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: Engineer A proposes a complex and costly hydrologic and hydraulic analysis by a specialized subconsultant to predict the extent to which sea level rise and the increased hydraulic capacity of the tidal crossing will result in flood damage to a neighborhood of twenty upstream homes during future high tides and storm surges, anticipating this to be a difficult question to answer in the project's public hearings.
textreferences: Engineer A proposes a complex and costly hydrologic and hydraulic analysis by a specialized subconsultant to predict the extent to which sea level rise and the increased hydraulic capacity of the tidal crossing will result in flood damage to a neighborhood of twenty upstream homes during future high tides and storm surges, anticipating this to be a difficult question to answer in the project's public hearings.
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T10:32:26.858675
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Engineer A Tidal Saltmarsh Ecological Impact Assessment
type: TidalSaltmarshEcologicalImpactAssessmentCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Tidal Saltmarsh Ecological Impact Assessment Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A, as the design and permitting engineer for a roadway crossing a tidal saltmarsh, possessed the capability to assess and disclose the hydraulic and ecological impacts of replacing a small culvert with a small bridge on the tidal saltmarsh environment
casecontext: Engineer A's scope explicitly included local permitting of the tidal crossing, which requires assessment of saltmarsh impacts; the degree to which Engineer A fully exercised this capability is not fully established in the case facts
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.83
demonstratedthrough: Engineer A's scope of work included design and local permitting of the tidal crossing upgrade, requiring assessment of impacts on the tidal saltmarsh for regulatory permitting purposes
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T00:17:16.446228+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T00:17:16.446228+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: Engineer A is a consulting engineer representing Client B, a developer who is proposing to develop a health care facility that requires a significant upgrade to the property's access road that crosses a tidal saltmarsh.
textreferences: Engineer A is a consulting engineer representing Client B, a developer who is proposing to develop a health care facility that requires a significant upgrade to the property's access road that crosses a tidal saltmarsh.
textreferences: Engineer A's scope includes design and local permitting of the roadway, including an upgrade of the tidal crossing from a small culvert to a small bridge, increasing its hydraulic capacity.
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:31:11.065945
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Engineer A Tidal Saltmarsh Ecological Impact Assessment Tidal Crossing
type: TidalSaltmarshEcologicalImpactAssessmentCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Tidal Saltmarsh Ecological Impact Assessment Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A possesses the capability to assess and disclose the hydraulic and ecological impacts of the culvert-to-bridge upgrade on the tidal saltmarsh environment, including changes to tidal prism, saltmarsh hydrology, and sensitive estuarine habitat, as part of the design and local permitting scope.
casecontext: Tidal crossing upgrade across a tidal saltmarsh requiring environmental impact assessment for local permitting.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstratedthrough: Engineer A's scope includes design and local permitting of the roadway upgrade across a tidal saltmarsh, requiring assessment of environmental impacts of the tidal crossing modification.
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T14:16:13.646069+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T14:16:13.646069+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: Engineer A is a consulting engineer representing Client B, a developer who is proposing to develop a health care facility that requires a significant upgrade to the property's access road that crosses a tidal saltmarsh.
textreferences: Engineer A is a consulting engineer representing Client B, a developer who is proposing to develop a health care facility that requires a significant upgrade to the property's access road that crosses a tidal saltmarsh.
textreferences: Engineer A's scope includes design and local permitting of the roadway, including an upgrade of the tidal crossing from a small culvert to a small bridge, increasing its hydraulic capacity.
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T10:32:26.858859
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Engineer A Tidal Saltmarsh Environmental Impact Assessment Constraint Tidal Crossing
type: TidalSaltmarshEcologicalSensitivityDesignConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The tidal saltmarsh environment crossed by the access road, subject to sea level rise, storm surge, and tidal dynamics, requiring assessment beyond the minimum regulatory standard.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.86
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Tidal Saltmarsh Ecological Sensitivity Design Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was constrained from treating local development regulation compliance as a complete discharge of environmental impact assessment obligations for the tidal crossing upgrade, given the ecological sensitivity of the tidal saltmarsh crossed by the access road and its vulnerability to sea level rise and storm surge under projected climate conditions.
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T00:23:20.563103+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T00:23:20.563103+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; Environmental Regulatory Compliance Constraint; Tidal Saltmarsh Ecological Sensitivity Design Constraint
sourcetext: Engineer A does have an ethical obligation to address the impacts of the project on public health, safety, and welfare regardless of whether or not that is required by applicable law.
temporalscope: Throughout the design and permitting phase of the tidal crossing upgrade project
textreferences: Engineer A does have an ethical obligation to address the impacts of the project on public health, safety, and welfare regardless of whether or not that is required by applicable law.
textreferences: Engineer A has an obligation to consider climate and weather changes in the future with respect to potential impacts on public health, safety, and welfare, where such impacts are reasonably likely and significant.
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:31:11.075788
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Engineer A Upstream Third-Party Flood Risk Identification Tidal Crossing
type: UpstreamThird-PartyFloodRiskIdentificationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Upstream Third-Party Flood Risk Identification Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A possesses the technical capability to identify, through professional judgment and emerging hydraulic evaluation procedures, that the proposed culvert-to-bridge upgrade — which materially increases hydraulic capacity of the tidal crossing — may accelerate flood risk to twenty upstream homes by altering tidal prism dynamics and storm surge propagation.
casecontext: Tidal crossing upgrade design identifying third-party flood risk to upstream residential community.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.95
demonstratedthrough: Engineer A's judgment, based on hydraulic evaluation procedures from a recent transportation agency conference, that the project may result in upstream homes becoming uninhabitable a decade or more earlier than otherwise.
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T14:16:13.646069+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T14:16:13.646069+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: It is Engineer A's judgment, based on hydraulic evaluation procedures presented at a recent transportation agency conference, that the proposed project may result in some upstream homes becoming uninhabitable a decade or more earlier than would otherwise be the case.
textreferences: Engineer A proposes a complex and costly hydrologic and hydraulic analysis by a specialized subconsultant to predict the extent to which sea level rise and the increased hydraulic capacity of the tidal crossing will result in flood damage to a neighborhood of twenty upstream homes during future high tides and storm surges.
textreferences: It is Engineer A's judgment, based on hydraulic evaluation procedures presented at a recent transportation agency conference, that the proposed project may result in some upstream homes becoming uninhabitable a decade or more earlier than would otherwise be the case.
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T10:32:26.870355
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Engineer A Upstream Third Party Flood Risk Identification
type: UpstreamThird-PartyFloodRiskIdentificationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Upstream Third-Party Flood Risk Identification Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A possessed the capability to identify, through professional judgment, that the proposed tidal crossing upgrade from culvert to bridge would increase hydraulic capacity in a manner that may accelerate upstream flood risk to approximately twenty homes, rendering them uninhabitable earlier than would otherwise be the case
casecontext: Engineer A applied emerging hydraulic evaluation procedures to identify a third-party upstream flood risk that was not required to be analyzed under local regulations, demonstrating advanced capability to identify impacts beyond regulatory scope
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.89
demonstratedthrough: Engineer A's professional judgment that the project may result in upstream homes becoming uninhabitable a decade or more earlier, and the proposal to engage a specialized subconsultant to quantify this risk
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T00:17:16.446228+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T00:17:16.446228+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: It is Engineer A's judgment, based on hydraulic evaluation procedures presented at a recent transportation agency conference, that the proposed project may result in some upstream homes becoming uninhabitable a decade or more earlier than would otherwise be the case.
textreferences: Engineer A proposes a complex and costly hydrologic and hydraulic analysis by a specialized subconsultant to predict the extent to which sea level rise and the increased hydraulic capacity of the tidal crossing will result in flood damage to a neighborhood of twenty upstream homes
textreferences: It is Engineer A's judgment, based on hydraulic evaluation procedures presented at a recent transportation agency conference, that the proposed project may result in some upstream homes becoming uninhabitable a decade or more earlier than would otherwise be the case.
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:31:11.065790
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Engineer A Written Report Completeness Bird Species BER Case 07-6 Analogy
type: WrittenReportCompletenessConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The analogy drawn in the case discussion between BER Case 07-6 (threatened bird species disclosure) and Engineer A's obligation to disclose upstream flood risk concerns in regulatory submissions.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.9
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Written Report Completeness Constraint
constraintstatement: By analogy to BER Case 07-6, Engineer A was constrained from omitting the identified upstream flood risk concern from any written report submitted to public regulatory authorities considering the tidal crossing upgrade — even if Client B preferred that the concern not be disclosed — on the grounds that regulatory authorities would reasonably be interested in this information.
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T00:23:20.563103+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T00:23:20.563103+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.3; BER Case 07-6
sourcetext: The BER determined that it was unethical for Engineer A to not include the information about the threat to the bird species in a written report that would be submitted to a public authority that was considering the developer's proposal.
temporalscope: At the time of any written report or regulatory submission related to the tidal crossing upgrade
textreferences: The BER determined that it was unethical for Engineer A to not include the information about the threat to the bird species in a written report that would be submitted to a public authority that was considering the developer's proposal.
textreferences: The BER noted that engineers have an obligation to be objective and truthful in professional reports, statements, or testimony and include all relevant and pertinent information in such reports, and that it would be reasonable to assume that the public authority approving the development would be interested in this information.
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:31:11.075199
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Engineer A Written Third-Party Safety Notification Upstream Homeowners Tidal Crossing
type: WrittenThird-PartySafetyNotificationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Written Third-Party Safety Notification Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A possesses the capability to notify the twenty upstream homeowners in writing of the identified risk that the tidal crossing upgrade may accelerate the uninhabitability of their homes, ensuring that the at-risk community has documented, actionable safety information sufficient to take protective measures.
casecontext: Third-party flood risk notification obligation to twenty upstream homes identified as potentially affected by the tidal crossing upgrade.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstratedthrough: Engineer A's obligation to notify upstream homeowners of the flood risk identified through preliminary professional judgment, even though those homeowners are third parties not in a contractual relationship with Engineer A.
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T14:16:13.646069+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T14:16:13.646069+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: It is Engineer A's judgment, based on hydraulic evaluation procedures presented at a recent transportation agency conference, that the proposed project may result in some upstream homes becoming uninhabitable a decade or more earlier than would otherwise be the case.
textreferences: Engineer A proposes a complex and costly hydrologic and hydraulic analysis by a specialized subconsultant to predict the extent to which sea level rise and the increased hydraulic capacity of the tidal crossing will result in flood damage to a neighborhood of twenty upstream homes during future high tides and storm surges.
textreferences: It is Engineer A's judgment, based on hydraulic evaluation procedures presented at a recent transportation agency conference, that the proposed project may result in some upstream homes becoming uninhabitable a decade or more earlier than would otherwise be the case.
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T10:32:26.859193
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Engineer A engaging Client B in discussions before Engineer A proposing an engineering report to regulatory agencies
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:31:11.076591
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Engineer A proposing engineering report to regulatory agencies before Engineer A withdrawing from the project
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:31:11.076622
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Engineer A's engagement with Client B about detailed evaluation before Engineer A's withdrawal from project
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: Engineer A should engage Client B in discussions about the need for the detailed evaluation...Failing agreement by Client B to either of these courses of action the BER believes that Engineer A should withdraw from the project
from entity text: Engineer A's engagement with Client B about detailed evaluation
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: Engineer A's withdrawal from project
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: Engineer A s withdrawal from project
generated at time: 2026-02-28T10:32:26.875854
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Engineer A's proposal for specialized analysis before Client B's directive to proceed without analysis
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: Engineer A proposes a complex and costly hydrologic and hydraulic analysis...Client B directs Engineer A to proceed without the costly analysis unless and until such an analysis is requested
from entity text: Engineer A's proposal for specialized analysis
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: Client B's directive to proceed without analysis
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: Client B s directive to proceed without analysis
generated at time: 2026-02-28T10:32:26.875712
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Engineer Dissent Framework - Withdrawal from Climate Risk Project
type: EngineerDissentFramework
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.87
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: Professional Ethics Framework for Engineer Withdrawal from Projects with Unresolved Safety Risks
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T00:09:39.155089+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T00:09:39.155089+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Engineer Dissent Framework
sourcetext: Failing agreement by Client B to either of these courses of action the BER believes that Engineer A should withdraw from the project.
textreferences: Failing agreement by Client B to either of these courses of action the BER believes that Engineer A should withdraw from the project.
usedby: BER in determining the ultimate ethical obligation of Engineer A when client agreement cannot be reached
usedincontext: Establishes that Engineer A must withdraw from the project if Client B refuses to authorize detailed climate impact evaluation or to allow disclosure of potential flooding concerns to regulatory agencies and the public, consistent with the precedent established in BER Case 18-9
version: Current
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:31:11.059526
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Engineer Ethical Obligation Crystallized
type: Event
type: NamedIndividual
activates constraint: Mandatory_Client_Engagement_Constraint
activates constraint: PublicSafety_Paramount_Constraint
activates constraint: Regulatory_Disclosure_Obligation
activates constraint: Withdrawal_If_Refused_Constraint
causes state change: Engineer A's permissible options narrow; passive compliance is no longer ethically available; the three-step obligation sequence (engage, disclose, withdraw) becomes the operative professional standard
concept category: Event
creates obligation: Engage_Client_On_Risk_Disclosure
creates obligation: Propose_Regulatory_Disclosure_Report
creates obligation: Withdraw_From_Project_If_Client_Refuses
emergency status: high
event type: automatic_trigger
temporal marker: Discussion/analysis phase, following identification of the ethical conflict
temporal sequence: 10
urgency level: high
comment: Following the BER precedent analysis, it becomes clear that Engineer A's professional obligations have crystallized into three specific required actions: engaging Client B about detailed evaluation, disclosing potential impacts to regulators and the public, and withdrawing if Client B refuses either course.
generated at time: 2026-02-28T10:32:26.861872
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Engineer_Public_Safety_Escalation_Standard_Current_Case
type: EngineerPublicSafetyEscalationStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.91
createdby: NSPE / Engineering profession
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: Engineer Public Safety Escalation and Withdrawal Standard
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T06:40:41.457669+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T06:40:41.457669+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Engineer Public Safety Escalation Standard
sourcetext: Engineer A should engage Client B in discussions about the need for the detailed evaluation and disclosure of the potential impacts on the public and alternatives for the project to mitigate those impacts.
textreferences: Engineer A should engage Client B in discussions about the need for the detailed evaluation and disclosure of the potential impacts on the public and alternatives for the project to mitigate those impacts.
textreferences: Failing agreement by Client B to either of these courses of action the BER believes that Engineer A should withdraw from the project.
textreferences: If Client B remains unconvinced, Engineer A should propose to Client B that engineer A provides the potential concern that may necessitate more detailed evaluation in an engineering report for consideration by regulatory agencies and the public.
usedby: Engineer A in determining the sequence of escalation steps when client refuses to act on safety concerns
usedincontext: Governs Engineer A's obligation to escalate public safety concerns to Client B, propose disclosure to regulatory agencies, and ultimately withdraw from the project if Client B refuses to address climate-related flooding risks
version: Current professional norm
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T10:32:26.873473
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Faithful Agent Constraint - Engineer A Client B Tidal Crossing
type: EthicalConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A's faithful agent obligation to Client B constrains the manner and sequence in which Engineer A may disclose upstream flood risk to regulatory authorities and affected parties, requiring formal objection and documentation before unilateral disclosure.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.9
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Ethical Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A is constrained by the faithful agent obligation to Client B — requiring that Engineer A act as a faithful agent and trustee in professional matters — which limits Engineer A's ability to take unilateral actions adverse to Client B's interests, including proactive disclosure to regulatory authorities or upstream homeowners without first formally objecting to Client B and seeking Client B's concurrence, except where public safety obligations override the faithful agent constraint.
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T00:17:17.632152+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T00:17:17.632152+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.4; faithful agent provisions
sourcetext: Engineer A is a consulting engineer representing Client B, a developer who is proposing to develop a health care facility
temporalscope: Throughout the consulting engagement with Client B
textreferences: Client B directs Engineer A to proceed without the costly analysis unless and until such an analysis is requested by the applicable regulatory authorities.
textreferences: Engineer A is a consulting engineer representing Client B, a developer who is proposing to develop a health care facility
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:31:11.068755
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Flood Risk Discovered
type: Event
type: NamedIndividual
activates constraint: Duty_To_Disclose_Known_Hazards
activates constraint: Protect_Third_Party_Interests
activates constraint: PublicSafety_Paramount_Constraint
causes state change: Project status changes from routine infrastructure upgrade to potentially harmful development; twenty upstream households are now identified as at-risk third parties; Engineer A's ethical obligations expand beyond client service to encompass public protection
concept category: Event
creates obligation: Consider_Regulatory_Disclosure
creates obligation: Document_Risk_Assessment
creates obligation: Inform_Client_Of_Risk_Findings
creates obligation: Propose_Further_Analysis
creates obligation: Protect_Uninvolved_Third_Parties
emergency status: high
event type: outcome
temporal marker: Upon completion of hydraulic evaluation, early-to-mid project phase
temporal sequence: 3
urgency level: high
comment: The hydraulic evaluation reveals that replacing the culvert with a bridge will increase hydraulic capacity in ways that, combined with sea level rise, may render approximately twenty upstream homes uninhabitable a decade or more earlier than would otherwise occur.
generated at time: 2026-02-28T10:32:26.861757
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Flood Risk Discovered (Event 2) → Propose Specialized Flood Analysis (Action 3)
type: CausalChain
type: NamedIndividual
causal language: The hydraulic evaluation reveals that replacing the culvert with a bridge will increase hydraulic capacity, directly prompting Engineer A to proactively propose commissioning a complex and costly hydrologic and hydraulic analysis
cause: Flood Risk Discovered (Event 2)
counterfactual: Without the flood risk discovery, there would have been no basis or professional impetus for Engineer A to propose the specialized flood analysis
effect: Propose Specialized Flood Analysis (Action 3)
necessary factors: Discovery of upstream flood risk through hydraulic evaluation
necessary factors: Engineer A's professional obligation to address identified risks
necessary factors: Existence of a recognized specialized analytical method capable of quantifying the risk
responsibility type: direct
responsible agent: Engineer A
sufficient factors: Identified flood risk + professional duty of care + availability of specialized analysis methodology
within agent control: true
generated at time: 2026-02-28T10:32:26.870770
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Flood Risk Knowledge Activated
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Event
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:31:11.076124
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Form Climate Risk Judgment
type: Action
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
event role context: Consulting Engineer
foreseen unintended effects: Conclusion may conflict with client's interest in proceeding efficiently and cost-effectively
foreseen unintended effects: Finding creates obligation to act beyond minimum regulatory requirements
foreseen unintended effects: Raises the prospect of difficult public hearing scrutiny
fulfills obligation text: Duty to apply current and relevant technical knowledge beyond minimum code requirements
fulfills obligation text: Obligation to proactively identify risks to public health, safety, and welfare
fulfills obligation text: Professional competence in recognizing when specialized evaluation may be needed
guided by principle text: Objectivity and truthfulness in technical assessment
guided by principle text: Obligation to consider reasonably likely and significant future impacts
guided by principle text: Primacy of public health, safety, and welfare
guided by principle text: Professional competence and continuing education
has agent: Engineer A
has mental state: deliberate and reflective
intended outcome: Accurately characterize the hydraulic and climate risk implications of the tidal crossing upgrade to inform project decision-making
requires capability text: Ability to recognize when specialized subconsultant expertise is needed
requires capability text: Climate change impact assessment at a generalist level
requires capability text: Coastal and tidal dynamics understanding
requires capability text: Hydrology and hydraulic engineering
temporal marker: During design phase, following review of transportation agency conference materials
temporal sequence: 4
within competence: true
comment: Engineer A exercises independent professional judgment, drawing on hydraulic evaluation procedures presented at a recent transportation agency conference, to conclude that the proposed project may cause upstream homes to become uninhabitable a decade or more earlier than would otherwise be the case.
generated at time: 2026-02-28T10:32:26.861473
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Graduated Client Engagement Before Withdrawal — Engineer A Client B Tidal Crossing Escalation Sequence
type: GraduatedClientEngagementBeforeWithdrawalConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Client B has refused to authorize the specialized hydrologic and hydraulic analysis. Engineer A must engage Client B in a graduated sequence before withdrawal becomes ethically mandatory. The BER explicitly identifies the two intermediate steps: client discussion and regulatory report proposal.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.97
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Graduated Client Engagement Before Withdrawal Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A must pursue a graduated sequence of engagement steps with Client B — first discussing the need for detailed evaluation and disclosure of potential impacts and alternatives, then proposing inclusion of the concern in an engineering report for regulatory and public consideration — before withdrawing from the tidal crossing project, and is prohibited from both premature withdrawal that bypasses these intermediate steps and indefinite continuation after Client B refuses all intermediate steps.
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T14:24:36.668979+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T14:24:36.668979+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case 18-9
sourcetext: Engineer A should engage Client B in discussions about the need for the detailed evaluation and disclosure of the potential impacts on the public and alternatives for the project to mitigate those impacts, and the potential risk to Client B of not evaluating the potential impacts.
temporalscope: From Client B's initial refusal of the specialized analysis through project resolution
textreferences: Engineer A should engage Client B in discussions about the need for the detailed evaluation and disclosure of the potential impacts on the public and alternatives for the project to mitigate those impacts, and the potential risk to Client B of not evaluating the potential impacts.
textreferences: Failing agreement by Client B to either of these courses of action the BER believes that Engineer A should withdraw from the project.
textreferences: If Client B remains unconvinced, Engineer A should propose to Client B that engineer a provides the potential concern that may necessitate more detailed evaluation in an engineering report for consideration by regulatory agencies and the public.
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T10:32:26.867489
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Gray Area Public Safety Judgment Disclosure Qualification — Engineer A Tidal Crossing Preliminary Finding
type: GrayAreaPublicSafetyJudgmentDisclosureQualificationConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A has formed a preliminary professional judgment — based on transportation agency conference guidance — that the proposed upgrade may accelerate tidal flooding of twenty upstream homes. This judgment is not yet confirmed by specialized hydrologic and hydraulic analysis. The constraint requires disclosure with epistemic qualification.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.9
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Gray Area Public Safety Judgment Disclosure Qualification Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A must disclose the preliminary professional judgment that the tidal crossing upgrade may accelerate tidal flooding of upstream homes while qualifying that disclosure as based on preliminary professional judgment requiring more detailed specialized evaluation to confirm, prohibiting both silence about the gray area risk and overstatement of its certainty as an established finding.
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T14:24:36.668979+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T14:24:36.668979+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case 07.6; BER Case 18-9
sourcetext: The outcome of this case might have been different had Engineer A been comfortable with predicting that significant public health, safety, and welfare impacts were unlikely, in which case Engineer A might have ethically been able to proceed while noting both in writing and in public statements that more detailed analysis would be required to confirm that judgment.
temporalscope: From the point of forming the preliminary professional judgment through client engagement and regulatory disclosure
textreferences: The outcome of this case might have been different had Engineer A been comfortable with predicting that significant public health, safety, and welfare impacts were unlikely, in which case Engineer A might have ethically been able to proceed while noting both in writing and in public statements that more detailed analysis would be required to confirm that judgment.
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T10:32:26.866521
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Hydraulic Capacity Increase Upstream Third-Party Harm Disclosure Constraint - Engineer A Twenty Homes
type: HydraulicCapacityIncreaseUpstreamThird-PartyHarmDisclosureConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A's preliminary professional judgment establishes that the tidal crossing upgrade will foreseeably accelerate upstream home uninhabitability, creating a disclosure obligation that persists despite Client B's directive to forgo the specialized analysis.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.9
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Hydraulic Capacity Increase Upstream Third-Party Harm Disclosure Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A is constrained to disclose to Client B, the applicable regulatory authority, and potentially the upstream homeowners that the proposed tidal crossing upgrade — by increasing hydraulic capacity — foreseeably accelerates the uninhabitability of approximately twenty upstream homes under projected climate conditions, and is prohibited from proceeding with design and permitting without such disclosure even though Client B has directed Engineer A to forgo the specialized analysis.
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T00:17:17.632152+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T00:17:17.632152+00:00
importance: critical
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section I.1, II.3; BER Case 07-6; BER Case 18-9; public safety paramount provisions
sourcetext: It is Engineer A's judgment, based on hydraulic evaluation procedures presented at a recent transportation agency conference, that the proposed project may result in some upstream homes becoming uninhabitable a decade or more earlier than would otherwise be the case.
temporalscope: Throughout the design and permitting phase, triggered by Engineer A's preliminary professional judgment about upstream flood risk
textreferences: Engineer A proposes a complex and costly hydrologic and hydraulic analysis by a specialized subconsultant to predict the extent to which sea level rise and the increased hydraulic capacity of the tidal crossing will result in flood damage to a neighborhood of twenty upstream homes during future high tides and storm surges
textreferences: It is Engineer A's judgment, based on hydraulic evaluation procedures presented at a recent transportation agency conference, that the proposed project may result in some upstream homes becoming uninhabitable a decade or more earlier than would otherwise be the case.
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:31:11.069201
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Hydraulic Capacity Increase Upstream Third-Party Harm Disclosure — Engineer A Twenty Homes
type: HydraulicCapacityIncreaseUpstreamThird-PartyHarmDisclosureConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The proposed upgrade from culvert to bridge will materially increase hydraulic capacity of the tidal crossing. Engineer A's professional judgment is that this increase may accelerate tidal flooding of twenty upstream homes, potentially rendering them uninhabitable. Client B has directed Engineer A to proceed without the specialized analysis that would quantify this risk.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.93
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Hydraulic Capacity Increase Upstream Third-Party Harm Disclosure Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A is required to disclose to Client B, applicable regulatory authorities, and potentially the twenty upstream homeowners the foreseeable risk that the culvert-to-bridge upgrade — which materially increases hydraulic capacity — may accelerate tidal flooding and render upstream homes uninhabitable, and is prohibited from proceeding with design and permitting without such disclosure even if Client B directs Engineer A to forgo specialized analysis.
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T14:24:36.668979+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T14:24:36.668979+00:00
importance: high
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case 18-9
sourcetext: Engineer A should engage Client B in discussions about the need for the detailed evaluation and disclosure of the potential impacts on the public and alternatives for the project to mitigate those impacts, and the potential risk to Client B of not evaluating the potential impacts.
temporalscope: Prior to and during design and permitting of the tidal crossing upgrade
textreferences: Engineer A should engage Client B in discussions about the need for the detailed evaluation and disclosure of the potential impacts on the public and alternatives for the project to mitigate those impacts, and the potential risk to Client B of not evaluating the potential impacts.
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T10:32:26.866968
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Hydraulic Evaluation Completed
type: Event
type: NamedIndividual
activates constraint: Competent_Engineering_Practice
activates constraint: Technical_Accuracy_Obligation
causes state change: Technical knowledge state changes from unknown to known; Engineer A now possesses data sufficient to identify potential upstream flood risk; obligation to act on findings is triggered
concept category: Event
creates obligation: Assess_Downstream_Effects
creates obligation: Document_Technical_Conclusions
creates obligation: Report_Findings_To_Client
emergency status: medium
event type: outcome
temporal marker: Early project phase, following engagement and initial design work
temporal sequence: 2
urgency level: medium
comment: Engineer A completes a hydraulic evaluation of the proposed culvert-to-bridge replacement project, producing technical findings about water flow and capacity changes in the tidal saltmarsh system.
generated at time: 2026-02-28T10:32:26.861717
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

I.1.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:52:37.589949
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

I.4.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:52:37.589997
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

II.1.a.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:52:37.590033
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

II.2.a.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:52:37.590066
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

II.3.a.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:52:37.590099
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

II.3.b.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:52:37.590130
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

III.1.b.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:52:37.590161
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

III.2.d.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:52:37.590192
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Interdisciplinary Threshold Competence Referral — Engineer A Hydraulic Coastal Modeling
type: InterdisciplinaryThresholdCompetenceReferralConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A is not a specialist in hydrodynamic modeling or coastal hydraulics, but has sufficient cross-disciplinary understanding — evidenced by attendance at a transportation agency conference — to recognize that the culvert-to-bridge upgrade raises questions requiring specialized analysis. The constraint prohibits Engineer A from treating the absence of specialist credentials as a basis for declining to form or act on this threshold judgment.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.95
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Interdisciplinary Threshold Competence Referral Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A, while not required to be a modeling expert, must possess sufficient understanding of hydrology, hydraulics, and coastal modeling to form a reasonable professional judgment that the tidal crossing upgrade creates sufficient potential for upstream flooding to merit a detailed, complex specialized evaluation — and this threshold competence triggers the obligation to recommend specialized subconsultant engagement.
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T14:24:36.668979+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T14:24:36.668979+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; Professional Competence Standard — Climate Engineering
sourcetext: Engineer A need not necessarily be a modelling expert. However, Engineer A needs to have sufficient understanding of hydrology, hydraulics, and coastal modeling to form a reasonable judgment that there is sufficient potential for flooding of other properties to merit a detailed, complex evaluation of future conditions.
temporalscope: Project inception and design phase
textreferences: Based on the facts in this case, it is clear that Engineer A has such an understanding of the broad project issues.
textreferences: Engineer A need not necessarily be a modelling expert. However, Engineer A needs to have sufficient understanding of hydrology, hydraulics, and coastal modeling to form a reasonable judgment that there is sufficient potential for flooding of other properties to merit a detailed, complex evaluation of future conditions.
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T10:32:26.866378
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

LocalDevelopmentRegulation_25YearStorm
type: LocalDevelopmentRegulation
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.95
createdby: Local municipal/regulatory authority
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: Local Development Regulations — Hydraulic Design Criteria (25-Year Storm Standard)
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T06:38:20.493872+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T06:38:20.493872+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Local Development Regulation
sourcetext: Local development regulations require designing for a 25-year fresh-water storm, and assume that future weather conditions will be consistent with updated historical data.
textreferences: Local development regulations require designing for a 25-year fresh-water storm, and assume that future weather conditions will be consistent with updated historical data.
textreferences: The local development regulations and national design codes and standards have not yet been updated to reflect changing conditions and weather patterns
usedby: Engineer A in scoping design and permitting obligations for Client B's healthcare facility access road
usedincontext: Specifies the minimum design standard for the access road and tidal crossing upgrade: a 25-year fresh-water storm event, assuming weather conditions consistent with updated historical data. Engineer A must satisfy this standard for local permitting, but it has not yet been updated to reflect climate change effects.
version: Current (pre-climate-update)
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T10:32:26.873813
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Local Development Regulations - 25-Year Storm Design Standard
type: LocalDevelopmentRegulation
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.92
createdby: Local regulatory authority
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: Local Development Regulations (Hydraulic Design Requirements)
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T00:08:43.605098+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T00:08:43.605098+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Local Development Regulation
sourcetext: Local development regulations require designing for a 25-year fresh-water storm, and assume that future weather conditions will be consistent with updated historical data
textreferences: Local development regulations require designing for a 25-year fresh-water storm, and assume that future weather conditions will be consistent with updated historical data
textreferences: The local development regulations and national design codes and standards have not yet been updated to reflect changing conditions and weather patterns
usedby: Engineer A in scoping design and permitting obligations
usedincontext: Establishes the minimum regulatory design criterion (25-year fresh-water storm, historical data baseline) that Engineer A must satisfy for local permitting of the roadway and tidal crossing upgrade, while simultaneously representing the gap between regulatory minimums and climate-adjusted professional duty
version: Current (pre-climate-update)
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:31:11.055824
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Local Permitting Regulatory Authority
type: ParticipantRole
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'regulatory_basis': 'Local development regulations requiring 25-year fresh-water storm design', 'limitation': 'Regulations not yet updated to reflect climate change, sea level rise, or updated precipitation recurrence intervals', 'role_in_case': 'Potential trigger for client-authorized specialized analysis; public hearing authority'}
caseinvolvement: The applicable regulatory authority responsible for local development permitting, whose potential future request for specialized hydrologic and hydraulic analysis is the condition Client B sets for authorizing that analysis; also the body before which public hearings on the project will be held.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.82
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T00:08:44.407742+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T00:08:44.407742+00:00
importance: medium
relationships: {'type': 'receives_submissions_from', 'target': 'Engineer A Tidal Crossing Infrastructure Design Engineer'}
relationships: {'type': 'regulates', 'target': 'Client B Cost-Directing Developer'}
rolecategory: public_responsibility
roleclass: Participant Role
sourcetext: Local development regulations require designing for a 25-year fresh-water storm
textreferences: Local development regulations require designing for a 25-year fresh-water storm
textreferences: anticipating this to be a difficult question to answer in the project's public hearings
textreferences: unless and until such an analysis is requested by the applicable regulatory authorities
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:31:11.055541
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Moving Target Climate Baseline — Engineer A Coastal Project
type: MovingTargetClimateBaselineState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: Ongoing at time of Engineer A's engagement; persists throughout project planning and design
affectedparties: Adjacent property owners
affectedparties: Client B
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Future residents
affectedparties: Regulatory agencies
concept category: State
confidence: 0.98
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T06:42:52.571341+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T06:42:52.571341+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: engineers have assumed that future climate and weather conditions will be consistent with historical climate and weather data
stateclass: Moving Target Climate Baseline State
subject: The climate and weather data underpinning Engineer A's coastal/hydraulic project design
terminatedby: Not terminated within the case; would require stabilization of climate parameters or adoption of updated dynamic design standards
textreferences: climate and weather patterns be addressed not as fixed by historical patterns but rather recognized as a 'moving target'
textreferences: engineers have assumed that future climate and weather conditions will be consistent with historical climate and weather data
textreferences: the historical dataset changes as climate and weather patterns continue to change
triggeringevent: Recognition that historical climate and weather datasets are themselves changing due to shifting climate patterns, making static historical baselines unreliable for future-condition design
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T10:32:26.876645
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

NSPE_CodeOfEthics_PublicSafety
type: ProfessionalCode
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.95
createdby: National Society of Professional Engineers (NSPE)
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T06:38:20.493872+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T06:38:20.493872+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Professional Code
sourcetext: Client B directs Engineer A to proceed without the costly analysis unless and until such an analysis is requested by the applicable regulatory authorities.
textreferences: Client B directs Engineer A to proceed without the costly analysis unless and until such an analysis is requested by the applicable regulatory authorities.
usedby: Engineer A in navigating the conflict between Client B's directive and professional duty to protect upstream homeowners
usedincontext: The primary normative framework governing Engineer A's obligations. Particularly relevant are the paramount duty to hold public safety above client directives, and the obligation to act when professional judgment identifies a risk to public welfare — even when the client instructs otherwise.
version: Current
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T10:32:26.874443
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

NSPE Code of Ethics - Public Health Safety Welfare Paramount Obligation
type: ProfessionalCode
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.98
createdby: National Society of Professional Engineers
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T00:09:39.155089+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T00:09:39.155089+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Professional Code
sourcetext: Professional engineers have a primary ethical obligation to hold paramount the protection of public health, safety, and welfare. That obligation is not bounded by what is required by law, or by regulations, but rather is stated broadly.
textreferences: Professional engineers have a primary ethical obligation to hold paramount the protection of public health, safety, and welfare. That obligation is not bounded by what is required by law, or by regulations, but rather is stated broadly.
usedby: Engineer A in evaluating obligations regarding climate change impacts on proposed development
usedincontext: Establishes the primary ethical obligation of engineers to hold paramount the protection of public health, safety, and welfare, stated broadly and not bounded by legal or regulatory requirements
version: Current
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:31:11.058688
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

NSPE_Code_of_Ethics_Public_Safety_Paramount
type: ProfessionalCode
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.97
createdby: National Society of Professional Engineers
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T06:40:41.457669+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T06:40:41.457669+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Professional Code
sourcetext: Professional engineers have a primary ethical obligation to hold paramount the protection of public health, safety, and welfare.
textreferences: Professional engineers have a primary ethical obligation to hold paramount the protection of public health, safety, and welfare.
textreferences: That obligation is not bounded by what is required by law, or by regulations, but rather is stated broadly.
usedby: Engineer A in evaluating obligations regarding climate-related flooding impacts
usedincontext: Establishes the primary ethical obligation of engineers to hold paramount the protection of public health, safety, and welfare, explicitly stated as broader than legal requirements
version: Current
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T10:32:26.876216
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers
type: ProfessionalCode
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.97
createdby: National Society of Professional Engineers
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T00:08:43.605098+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T00:08:43.605098+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Professional Code
sourcetext: Engineer A's judgment, based on hydraulic evaluation procedures presented at a recent transportation agency conference, that the proposed project may result in some upstream homes becoming uninhabitable a decade or more earlier than would otherwise be the case
textreferences: Client B directs Engineer A to proceed without the costly analysis unless and until such an analysis is requested by the applicable regulatory authorities
textreferences: Engineer A's judgment, based on hydraulic evaluation procedures presented at a recent transportation agency conference, that the proposed project may result in some upstream homes becoming uninhabitable a decade or more earlier than would otherwise be the case
usedby: Engineer A in evaluating obligations to client and public
usedincontext: Primary normative authority governing Engineer A's obligations to hold public safety paramount, to act as a faithful agent to Client B, and to navigate the tension between client direction and professional duty to protect third parties (upstream homeowners) from foreseeable harm
version: Current
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:31:11.055681
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

NationalDesignCodesAndStandards_HydraulicInfrastructure
type: Climate-AdjustedHydraulicDesignStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.88
createdby: National standards bodies / transportation agencies
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: National Design Codes and Standards for Hydraulic Infrastructure (Tidal Crossings / Bridges)
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T06:38:20.493872+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T06:38:20.493872+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Climate-Adjusted Hydraulic Design Standard
sourcetext: The local development regulations and national design codes and standards have not yet been updated to reflect changing conditions and weather patterns, including effects of sea level rise and changes in precipitation intensities and recurrence intervals effected by on-going climate change.
textreferences: The local development regulations and national design codes and standards have not yet been updated to reflect changing conditions and weather patterns, including effects of sea level rise and changes in precipitation intensities and recurrence intervals effected by on-going climate change.
usedby: Engineer A as the governing technical framework for bridge/culvert design
usedincontext: National-level technical codes governing hydraulic design of tidal crossings and bridges. Cited as not yet updated to reflect sea level rise, changing precipitation intensities, or shifting storm recurrence intervals — creating a gap between regulatory compliance and professional responsibility for public safety.
version: Current (pre-climate-update)
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T10:32:26.873953
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

National Design Codes and Standards for Hydraulic Infrastructure
type: TechnicalStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.88
createdby: National standards bodies
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: National Design Codes and Standards (Hydraulic/Bridge/Culvert Design)
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T00:08:43.605098+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T00:08:43.605098+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Technical Standard
sourcetext: The local development regulations and national design codes and standards have not yet been updated to reflect changing conditions and weather patterns, including effects of sea level rise and changes in precipitation intensities and recurrence intervals effected by on-going climate change
textreferences: The local development regulations and national design codes and standards have not yet been updated to reflect changing conditions and weather patterns, including effects of sea level rise and changes in precipitation intensities and recurrence intervals effected by on-going climate change
usedby: Engineer A in designing tidal crossing upgrade
usedincontext: Establishes national-level technical design requirements for hydraulic infrastructure including tidal crossings, but has not yet been updated to reflect climate change effects on precipitation and sea level, creating a professional duty gap that Engineer A must navigate
version: Current (pre-climate-update)
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:31:11.055986
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Non-Acquiescence Client Economic Override Constraint - Engineer A Client B Analysis Suppression
type: Non-AcquiescencetoClientEconomicOverrideConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Client B has directed Engineer A to forgo the specialized analysis on cost grounds, creating a situation where passive compliance would constitute abandonment of the public safety obligation to upstream homeowners.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.91
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Non-Acquiescence to Client Economic Override Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A is constrained from simply acquiescing to Client B's directive to forgo the specialized hydraulic analysis without formally objecting, documenting the override, and evaluating whether the unmitigated upstream flood risk requires proactive disclosure to regulatory authorities — prohibiting passive compliance with Client B's cost-driven directive when that directive would cause Engineer A to abandon the primary ethical duty to public safety.
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T00:17:17.632152+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T00:17:17.632152+00:00
importance: critical
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case 84-5; BER Case 18-9
sourcetext: Client B directs Engineer A to proceed without the costly analysis unless and until such an analysis is requested by the applicable regulatory authorities.
temporalscope: From Client B's directive forward through the design and permitting phase
textreferences: Client B directs Engineer A to proceed without the costly analysis unless and until such an analysis is requested by the applicable regulatory authorities.
textreferences: Engineer A proposes a complex and costly hydrologic and hydraulic analysis by a specialized subconsultant to predict the extent to which sea level rise and the increased hydraulic capacity of the tidal crossing will result in flood damage to a neighborhood of twenty upstream homes
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:31:11.069060
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Non-Acquiescence to Client Economic Override — Engineer A Client B Cost-Directive Refusal
type: Non-AcquiescencetoClientEconomicOverrideConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Client B has directed Engineer A to proceed without the specialized analysis due to cost concerns. Engineer A's professional judgment is that the analysis is necessary to protect public health, safety, and welfare. The constraint prohibits Engineer A from acquiescing to this economic override.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.88
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Non-Acquiescence to Client Economic Override Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A is prohibited from subordinating the professionally recommended specialized hydrologic and hydraulic analysis to Client B's cost-reduction directive, and cannot continue work on the tidal crossing project in a manner that abandons the primary ethical duty to public safety in deference to Client B's economic concerns.
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T14:24:36.668979+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T14:24:36.668979+00:00
importance: high
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case 84-5 (referenced in Non-Acquiescence class)
sourcetext: Engineer A does have an ethical obligation to address the impacts of the project on public health, safety, and welfare regardless of whether or not that is required by applicable law.
temporalscope: Throughout the project, from Client B's cost-reduction directive through project resolution
textreferences: Engineer A does have an ethical obligation to address the impacts of the project on public health, safety, and welfare regardless of whether or not that is required by applicable law.
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T10:32:26.867329
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Pre-Standardization Technical Literature Currency — Engineer A Transportation Agency Conference Guidance
type: Pre-StandardizationTechnicalLiteratureCurrencyConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A has access to expert-level technical guidance from a transportation agency conference that informs the professional judgment that the proposed upgrade may accelerate tidal flooding. This guidance has not yet been codified into formal mandatory standards. The constraint requires Engineer A to incorporate this guidance into professional judgment.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.85
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Pre-Standardization Technical Literature Currency Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A is required to monitor and incorporate expert-level technical guidance — including guidance presented at a transportation agency conference regarding climate-adjusted hydraulic design — even when that guidance has not yet been codified into formal mandatory standards, and is prohibited from treating the absence of formal standardization as a complete justification for non-adoption when the guidance is reasonably accessible and relevant to the project.
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T14:24:36.668979+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T14:24:36.668979+00:00
importance: medium
severity: medium
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; Transportation Agency Conference Hydraulic Procedures
sourcetext: Engineer A attended a transportation agency conference at which an expert presented information suggesting that the proposed upgrade may accelerate tidal flooding of the upstream homes.
temporalscope: Design phase of the tidal crossing upgrade
textreferences: Engineer A attended a transportation agency conference at which an expert presented information suggesting that the proposed upgrade may accelerate tidal flooding of the upstream homes.
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T10:32:26.868589
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Preliminary Professional Judgment Disclosure Qualification Constraint - Engineer A Upstream Flood Risk
type: PreliminaryProfessionalJudgmentDisclosureConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A's assessment of upstream flood risk is based on preliminary professional judgment from conference procedures, not completed specialized analysis, requiring qualified disclosure.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.86
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Preliminary Professional Judgment Disclosure Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A is constrained to disclose the preliminary professional judgment about upstream flood risk in a manner that clearly qualifies the assessment as preliminary and unconfirmed — based on conference procedures rather than completed specialized analysis — prohibiting both silence about the identified risk and overstatement of its certainty in communications with Client B, regulatory authorities, and affected parties.
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T00:17:17.632152+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T00:17:17.632152+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; Fact-Grounded Opinion Constraint; professional norms on preliminary risk disclosure
sourcetext: It is Engineer A's judgment, based on hydraulic evaluation procedures presented at a recent transportation agency conference, that the proposed project may result in some upstream homes becoming uninhabitable a decade or more earlier than would otherwise be the case.
temporalscope: Throughout all communications about the upstream flood risk during the design and permitting phase
textreferences: It is Engineer A's judgment, based on hydraulic evaluation procedures presented at a recent transportation agency conference, that the proposed project may result in some upstream homes becoming uninhabitable a decade or more earlier than would otherwise be the case.
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:31:11.068590
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Professional Competence Standard - Hydrology and Coastal Modeling Threshold
type: ProfessionalCompetenceStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.9
createdby: Professional engineering community and NSPE Board of Ethical Review
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: Professional Norms Governing Engineer Competence Thresholds for Recognizing Need for Specialized Analysis
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T00:09:39.155089+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T00:09:39.155089+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Professional Competence Standard
sourcetext: Engineer A need not necessarily be a modelling expert. However, Engineer A needs to have sufficient understanding of hydrology, hydraulics, and coastal modeling to form a reasonable judgment that there is sufficient potential for flooding of other properties to merit a detailed, complex evaluation of future conditions.
textreferences: Engineer A need not necessarily be a modelling expert. However, Engineer A needs to have sufficient understanding of hydrology, hydraulics, and coastal modeling to form a reasonable judgment that there is sufficient potential for flooding of other properties to merit a detailed, complex evaluation of future conditions.
textreferences: Such judgments increasingly necessitate engineers to have sufficient understanding of related areas of engineering practice and science to determine when more specialized evaluation is needed to assure protection of public health, safety, and welfare.
usedby: BER in evaluating whether Engineer A had sufficient competence to recognize the need for detailed climate impact analysis
usedincontext: Establishes that engineers need not be modeling experts themselves but must have sufficient understanding of hydrology, hydraulics, and coastal modeling to recognize when detailed specialized evaluation is warranted to protect public health, safety, and welfare from climate-related flood risks
version: Current
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:31:11.059662
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Professional_Competence_Standard_Climate_Engineering
type: ProfessionalCompetenceStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.9
createdby: NSPE / Engineering profession
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: Professional Competence Standard for Climate-Related Engineering Judgment
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T06:40:41.457669+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T06:40:41.457669+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Professional Competence Standard
sourcetext: Such judgments increasingly necessitate engineers to have sufficient understanding of related areas of engineering practice and science to determine when more specialized evaluation is needed to assure protection of public health, safety, and welfare.
textreferences: Engineer A need not necessarily be a modelling expert. However, Engineer A needs to have sufficient understanding of hydrology, hydraulics, and coastal modeling to form a reasonable judgment.
textreferences: Such judgments increasingly necessitate engineers to have sufficient understanding of related areas of engineering practice and science to determine when more specialized evaluation is needed to assure protection of public health, safety, and welfare.
usedby: Engineer A in assessing whether their competence is sufficient to judge the need for detailed climate impact analysis
usedincontext: Establishes that engineers must possess sufficient cross-disciplinary understanding — including hydrology, hydraulics, and coastal modeling — to recognize when specialized evaluation is needed, even if they are not themselves specialists
version: Current professional norm
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T10:32:26.873638
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Professional Report Integrity Standard - Climate Impact Disclosure
type: ProfessionalReportIntegrityStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.88
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review through accumulated case decisions
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: Professional Norms Governing Engineering Report Completeness and Public Disclosure
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T00:09:39.155089+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T00:09:39.155089+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Professional Report Integrity Standard
sourcetext: Engineer A should propose to Client B that engineer a provides the potential concern that may necessitate more detailed evaluation in an engineering report for consideration by regulatory agencies and the public.
textreferences: Engineer A should propose to Client B that engineer a provides the potential concern that may necessitate more detailed evaluation in an engineering report for consideration by regulatory agencies and the public.
usedby: Engineer A in determining appropriate course of action when Client B resists disclosure of potential flooding impacts
usedincontext: Establishes the obligation of Engineer A to propose providing potential climate-related flooding concerns in an engineering report for consideration by regulatory agencies and the public when Client B refuses to authorize detailed evaluation, ensuring material information reaches decision-makers
version: Current
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:31:11.059397
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Professional_Report_Integrity_Standard_Current_Case
type: ProfessionalReportIntegrityStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.92
createdby: NSPE / Engineering profession
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: Professional Report Integrity and Disclosure Standard
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T06:40:41.457669+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T06:40:41.457669+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Professional Report Integrity Standard
sourcetext: engineers have an obligation to be objective and truthful in professional reports, statements, or testimony and include all relevant and pertinent information in such reports
textreferences: Engineer A should propose to Client B that engineer A provides the potential concern that may necessitate more detailed evaluation in an engineering report for consideration by regulatory agencies and the public.
textreferences: engineers have an obligation to be objective and truthful in professional reports, statements, or testimony and include all relevant and pertinent information in such reports
usedby: Engineer A in determining obligations regarding written disclosure of flooding concerns to Client B and regulatory agencies
usedincontext: Establishes the obligation to be objective and truthful in professional reports and to include all relevant and pertinent information, including potential climate-related flooding impacts, in reports submitted to regulatory agencies and the public
version: Current professional norm
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T10:32:26.873323
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Project Continuation Risk Realized
type: Event
type: NamedIndividual
activates constraint: Duty_To_Inform_Successor_Engineer
activates constraint: Prohibition_Against_Abandonment_Without_Notice
causes state change: Withdrawal alone does not resolve the ethical problem if risk findings are not disclosed; the obligation to protect the public extends beyond the moment of withdrawal and requires affirmative disclosure before or concurrent with withdrawal
concept category: Event
creates obligation: Disclose_Risk_Findings_To_Regulators_Before_Withdrawal
creates obligation: Document_Reasons_For_Withdrawal
creates obligation: Ensure_Successor_Engineer_Awareness
emergency status: high
event type: outcome
temporal marker: Hypothetical outcome following potential withdrawal decision
temporal sequence: 13
urgency level: medium
comment: If Engineer A withdraws from the project, the risk arises that another engineer without knowledge of the flood risk findings may continue the project without the same ethical awareness, potentially resulting in the harm proceeding unaddressed.
generated at time: 2026-02-28T10:32:26.861910
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Propose Regulatory Disclosure Report
type: Action
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
event role context: Consulting Engineer
foreseen unintended effects: Client B may view this as a breach of loyal agency
foreseen unintended effects: Disclosure without full analysis may be incomplete but is better than no disclosure
foreseen unintended effects: Project may face heightened scrutiny or denial at public hearings
foreseen unintended effects: Regulatory agencies may require the full analysis as a result
fulfills obligation text: Duty to disclose potential public safety risks to regulatory authorities
fulfills obligation text: Duty to serve the public interest in regulatory proceedings
fulfills obligation text: Obligation to be objective and truthful in professional reports and include all relevant and pertinent information
fulfills obligation text: Obligation to protect public health, safety, and welfare through transparent disclosure
guided by principle text: Objectivity and completeness in professional reporting
guided by principle text: Precedent from BER Case 07.6 on disclosure of relevant information in regulatory submissions
guided by principle text: Primacy of public health, safety, and welfare
guided by principle text: Transparency with regulatory authorities and the public
has agent: Engineer A
has mental state: deliberate and ethically compelled
intended outcome: Ensure that regulatory agencies and the public have access to material information about potential flood risks to upstream homeowners, fulfilling disclosure obligations even if Client B does not authorize the full specialized analysis
requires capability text: Ability to characterize risk qualitatively when quantitative analysis is not yet available
requires capability text: Knowledge of regulatory disclosure standards
requires capability text: Regulatory submission preparation
requires capability text: Technical report writing
temporal marker: Potential future action, if Client B remains unconvinced after initial engagement
temporal sequence: 11
violates obligation text: Potentially the duty of faithful agency to Client B if client explicitly objects to disclosure
within competence: true
comment: If Client B remains unconvinced after initial engagement, Engineer A should propose providing the potential flood concern in a formal engineering report submitted to regulatory agencies and made available to the public for consideration during the permitting process.
generated at time: 2026-02-28T10:32:26.861651
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Propose Specialized Flood Analysis
type: Action
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
event role context: Consulting Engineer
foreseen unintended effects: Analysis results could jeopardize project approval or require costly design modifications
foreseen unintended effects: Client B may resist or refuse the proposal
foreseen unintended effects: Potential project delay
foreseen unintended effects: Significant additional cost to Client B
fulfills obligation text: Duty to disclose potential public safety risks to regulatory agencies and the public
fulfills obligation text: Duty to hold paramount public health, safety, and welfare of upstream homeowners
fulfills obligation text: Obligation to be objective and truthful and include all relevant and pertinent information in professional reports
fulfills obligation text: Obligation to recommend specialized expertise when a problem exceeds generalist analysis
guided by principle text: Duty to advise client of actions necessary to protect public safety
guided by principle text: Objectivity and completeness in professional reporting
guided by principle text: Primacy of public health, safety, and welfare
guided by principle text: Transparency with regulatory authorities
has agent: Engineer A
has mental state: deliberate and proactive
intended outcome: Obtain rigorous technical data to accurately characterize flood risk to upstream homeowners, support informed regulatory review, and prepare for anticipated scrutiny at public hearings
requires capability text: Ability to scope and procure specialized subconsultant services
requires capability text: Communication of technical risk to non-technical client
requires capability text: Judgment to recognize limits of generalist hydraulic analysis
requires capability text: Understanding of coastal and tidal flood modeling requirements
temporal marker: During design phase, after forming climate risk judgment and in anticipation of public hearings
temporal sequence: 5
within competence: true
comment: Engineer A proactively proposes commissioning a complex and costly hydrologic and hydraulic analysis by a specialized subconsultant to quantify the extent to which sea level rise and the increased hydraulic capacity of the tidal crossing will result in flood damage to approximately twenty upstream homes during future high tides and storm surges.
generated at time: 2026-02-28T10:32:26.861532
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Propose Specialized Hydraulic Analysis
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:31:11.075902
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Proposed Specialized Hydrologic Hydraulic Subconsultant
type: SpecializedHydrologicHydraulicSubconsultant
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'specialty': 'Hydrologic and hydraulic analysis, sea level rise and storm surge flood modeling', 'engagement_status': 'Proposed but not authorized by client', 'analysis_scope': 'Predict flood damage to twenty upstream homes from sea level rise and increased hydraulic capacity during future high tides and storm surges'}
caseinvolvement: Specialized subconsultant proposed by Engineer A to conduct complex hydrologic and hydraulic analysis predicting flood damage to upstream homes from sea level rise and increased tidal crossing capacity; engagement was rejected by Client B's direction to proceed without the analysis.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.8
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T06:38:26.427475+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T06:38:26.427475+00:00
importance: medium
relationships: {'type': 'engagement_blocked_by', 'target': 'Client B Cost-Directing Developer Client'}
relationships: {'type': 'proposed_by', 'target': 'Engineer A Tidal Crossing Infrastructure Design Engineer'}
rolecategory: provider_client
roleclass: Specialized Hydrologic Hydraulic Subconsultant
sourcetext: Engineer A proposes a complex and costly hydrologic and hydraulic analysis by a specialized subconsultant to predict the extent to which sea level rise and the increased hydraulic capacity of the tidal crossing will result in flood damage to a neighborhood of twenty upstream homes during future high tides and storm surges
textreferences: Engineer A proposes a complex and costly hydrologic and hydraulic analysis by a specialized subconsultant to predict the extent to which sea level rise and the increased hydraulic capacity of the tidal crossing will result in flood damage to a neighborhood of twenty upstream homes during future high tides and storm surges
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T10:32:26.875552
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Public Hearing Testimony Completeness Constraint - Engineer A Upstream Flood Risk
type: WrittenReportCompletenessConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A anticipates that the upstream flood risk will be a difficult question at public hearings, and is constrained to address that risk completely in testimony rather than omitting it at Client B's direction.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.88
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Written Report Completeness Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A is constrained, when providing engineering input at the public regulatory hearing for the tidal crossing upgrade, to address completely the foreseeable upstream flood risk — including the preliminary professional judgment about upstream home uninhabitability — prohibiting selective omission of the upstream flood risk from public hearing testimony even if Client B has directed Engineer A to forgo the specialized analysis.
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T00:17:17.632152+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T00:17:17.632152+00:00
importance: critical
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case 07-6; public hearing testimony completeness standards
sourcetext: anticipating this to be a difficult question to answer in the project's public hearings
temporalscope: At and in preparation for the public regulatory hearing for the tidal crossing upgrade
textreferences: It is Engineer A's judgment, based on hydraulic evaluation procedures presented at a recent transportation agency conference, that the proposed project may result in some upstream homes becoming uninhabitable a decade or more earlier than would otherwise be the case.
textreferences: anticipating this to be a difficult question to answer in the project's public hearings
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:31:11.069808
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Public Safety Obligation Triggered
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Event
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:31:11.076267
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Public Safety Obligation Triggered (Event 6) → Submit Concerns to Regulators (Action 6) and/or Withdraw from Project (Action 7)
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:31:11.076465
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Public Safety Paramount Non-Limitation by Law — Engineer A Tidal Crossing
type: PublicSafetyParamountConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Local development regulations specify a 25-year storm standard based on historical weather data. Engineer A has professional knowledge that this standard is climatically inadequate under future conditions. The constraint prohibits Engineer A from treating regulatory compliance as sufficient.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.95
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Public Safety Paramount Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A's ethical obligation to address public health, safety, and welfare impacts of the tidal crossing project is not bounded by what is required by applicable local development regulations or national design codes, prohibiting Engineer A from treating compliance with the 25-year storm standard as a complete discharge of professional obligations.
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T14:24:36.668979+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T14:24:36.668979+00:00
importance: high
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case analysis — current case
sourcetext: Engineer A does have an ethical obligation to address the impacts of the project on public health, safety, and welfare regardless of whether or not that is required by applicable law.
temporalscope: Throughout the tidal crossing project design and permitting process
textreferences: Engineer A does have an ethical obligation to address the impacts of the project on public health, safety, and welfare regardless of whether or not that is required by applicable law.
textreferences: Professional engineers have a primary ethical obligation to hold paramount the protection of public health, safety, and welfare. That obligation is not bounded by what is required by law, or by regulations, but rather is stated broadly.
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T10:32:26.865876
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Qualitative Risk Assessment of Upstream Flood Harm
type: QualitativeRiskAssessment
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.88
createdby: Engineer A
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: Engineer A's Professional Judgment: Upstream Flood Risk from Tidal Crossing Upgrade
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T00:08:43.605098+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T00:08:43.605098+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Qualitative Risk Assessment
sourcetext: It is Engineer A's judgment, based on hydraulic evaluation procedures presented at a recent transportation agency conference, that the proposed project may result in some upstream homes becoming uninhabitable a decade or more earlier than would otherwise be the case
textreferences: It is Engineer A's judgment, based on hydraulic evaluation procedures presented at a recent transportation agency conference, that the proposed project may result in some upstream homes becoming uninhabitable a decade or more earlier than would otherwise be the case
usedby: Engineer A as basis for recommending the specialized analysis
usedincontext: Engineer A's structured professional judgment — grounded in transportation agency conference procedures — that the project may render upstream homes uninhabitable a decade or more earlier than otherwise, constituting a qualitative risk assessment that triggers professional obligations to the public even absent a formal quantitative study
version: Current (Engineer A's assessment)
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:31:11.056543
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_1
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:52:37.594402
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_10
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:52:37.594677
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_11
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:52:37.594706
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_12
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:52:37.594737
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_13
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:52:37.594766
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_14
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:52:37.594795
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_15
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:52:37.594825
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_16
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:52:37.594853
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_17
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:52:37.594883
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_18
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:52:37.594914
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_2
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:52:37.594435
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_3
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:52:37.594466
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_4
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:52:37.594496
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_5
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:52:37.594527
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_6
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:52:37.594557
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_7
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:52:37.594586
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_8
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:52:37.594616
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_9
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:52:37.594647
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Question_1
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 1
question text: Does Engineer A have an ethical obligation to address or evaluate the impacts of a project on public health, safety, and welfare with respect to climate change induced conditions that have not yet occurred?
question type: board_explicit
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:52:37.590651
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Question_101
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 101
question text: At what threshold of professional certainty does Engineer A's preliminary judgment about upstream flood harm become sufficiently reliable to trigger a mandatory disclosure obligation, even in the absence of the specialized subconsultant analysis that Client B has refused to fund?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:52:37.590766
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Question_102
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 102
question text: Does Engineer A bear an independent ethical obligation to notify the twenty upstream homeowners directly about the foreseeable flood risk, or is disclosure to regulatory agencies and the public through official engineering reports sufficient to satisfy the third-party harm notification duty?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:52:37.590822
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Question_103
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 103
question text: Does Engineer A's ethical obligation to consider climate-change-induced conditions extend to proactively advocating for updates to the applicable local development regulations and national design codes that currently fail to account for sea level rise and shifting precipitation patterns, beyond the scope of the immediate project?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:52:37.590878
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Question_104
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 104
question text: How should Engineer A weigh the public benefit of the proposed healthcare facility against the foreseeable flood harm to the upstream residential community, and does the competing public goods dimension of this case alter the ethical calculus for disclosure or withdrawal?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:52:37.590956
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Question_2
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 2
question text: In this set of circumstances, what are Engineer A’s reasonable courses of action with respect to engineering ethics?
question type: board_explicit
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:52:37.590709
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Question_201
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 201
question text: Does the principle of Faithful Agent Notification to Client B conflict with the principle of Proactive Risk Disclosure to upstream homeowners and regulatory authorities, and if so, which obligation takes precedence when Client B has explicitly directed Engineer A to suppress the climate risk analysis?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:52:37.591015
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Question_202
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 202
question text: Does the principle of Professional Competence in Risk Assessment conflict with the principle of Fact-Based Disclosure Obligation when Engineer A's hydraulic judgment is based on conference procedures rather than a completed specialized analysis, and does the competence boundary constraint limit or eliminate the disclosure duty?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:52:37.591072
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Question_203
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 203
question text: Does the principle of Graduated Escalation Before Withdrawal conflict with the principle of Non-Acquiescence to Unsafe Client Directives when Client B has already issued an explicit refusal, and at what point does continued engagement with the project itself constitute acquiescence to the suppression of safety-relevant information?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:52:37.591127
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Question_204
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 204
question text: Does the principle of Regulatory Gap Awareness conflict with the principle of Regulatory Compliance when Engineer A is required by local development regulations to design only to the 25-year fresh-water storm standard, yet professional judgment indicates that compliance with that standard will foreseeably cause harm to third parties under climate-adjusted conditions?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:52:37.591183
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Question_301
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 301
question text: From a deontological perspective, does Engineer A's duty to hold public safety paramount create an absolute obligation to disclose foreseeable upstream flood risks to regulatory authorities, independent of whether Client B authorizes that disclosure or whether applicable regulations require it?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:52:37.591239
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Question_302
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 302
question text: From a consequentialist perspective, does the magnitude and irreversibility of harm to twenty upstream households — rendered uninhabitable potentially a decade earlier than otherwise — justify Engineer A incurring the professional and financial costs of unilateral disclosure to regulators, even when the causal chain runs through uncertain future climate conditions and an as-yet unquantified hydraulic interaction?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:52:37.591295
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Question_303
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 303
question text: From a virtue ethics perspective, does a professionally virtuous engineer — one possessing practical wisdom, courage, and integrity — proceed with the tidal crossing design under a regulatory standard they personally judge to be climatically obsolete, or does professional virtue require openly contesting that standard even at the cost of the client relationship?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:52:37.591350
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Question_304
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 304
question text: From a deontological perspective, does Engineer A's duty as a faithful agent to Client B — which requires acting in the client's best interest — itself generate an independent obligation to warn Client B in writing of the legal, reputational, and financial liabilities that could follow if upstream flood harm materializes and the omitted hydraulic analysis is later discovered, thereby framing disclosure not as a betrayal of client loyalty but as its highest expression?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:52:37.591405
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Question_401
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 401
question text: If Engineer A had declined the engagement at the outset upon recognizing that the applicable 25-year storm design standard was climatically inadequate for a tidal saltmarsh crossing, would that refusal have better protected the upstream community, or would it merely have transferred the risk to a less climate-aware engineer who would have proceeded without any concern for upstream flood harm?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:52:37.591460
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Question_402
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 402
question text: If Client B had authorized the specialized hydrologic and hydraulic subconsultant analysis and that analysis confirmed Engineer A's preliminary judgment that the tidal crossing upgrade would accelerate upstream uninhabitability, what additional ethical obligations would have been triggered for Engineer A with respect to regulatory disclosure, project redesign, and potential withdrawal — and would the Board's conclusion have been more or less demanding in that scenario?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:52:37.591532
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Question_403
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 403
question text: If Engineer A had included the upstream flood risk concern in the engineering report submitted to regulatory agencies without first exhausting graduated engagement with Client B — such as written notification of risk consequences and a formal proposal to include the concern in the regulatory report — would that unilateral disclosure have constituted a breach of the faithful agent obligation, and how should the ethical weight of procedural sequence be assessed against the urgency of public safety?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:52:37.591591
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Question_404
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 404
question text: If local development regulations and national design codes had already been updated to incorporate sea level rise projections and climate-adjusted precipitation recurrence intervals at the time of Engineer A's engagement, would Client B's directive to omit the specialized hydraulic analysis have constituted a clearer and more unambiguous ethical violation — and does the absence of updated standards meaningfully reduce Engineer A's ethical obligation, or does professional judgment independent of regulatory minimums remain fully operative?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:52:37.591646
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Regulatory Authority Proactive Disclosure Constraint - Engineer A Upstream Flood Risk Without Client Authorization
type: RegulatoryAuthorityProactiveDisclosureConstraintEngineerAUpstreamFloodRiskWithoutClientAuthorization
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Client B's directive to forgo the specialized analysis and proceed with permitting creates a situation where Engineer A must evaluate whether proactive regulatory disclosure is warranted without client authorization to protect the public safety of upstream homeowners.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.9
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Regulatory Authority Proactive Risk Disclosure Without Client Authorization Obligation
constraintstatement: Engineer A is constrained to evaluate whether the preliminary professional judgment that the tidal crossing upgrade may accelerate upstream home uninhabitability warrants proactive disclosure to the applicable regulatory authority without Client B's authorization — and if the gravity of the foreseeable harm to public health, safety, and welfare warrants such disclosure, Engineer A is constrained to make that disclosure regardless of Client B's directive to proceed without the specialized analysis.
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T00:17:17.632152+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T00:17:17.632152+00:00
importance: critical
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section I.1; BER Case 76-4; BER Case 18-9; public safety paramount provisions
sourcetext: It is Engineer A's judgment, based on hydraulic evaluation procedures presented at a recent transportation agency conference, that the proposed project may result in some upstream homes becoming uninhabitable a decade or more earlier than would otherwise be the case.
temporalscope: Throughout the design and permitting phase, following Client B's directive to forgo the specialized analysis
textreferences: Client B directs Engineer A to proceed without the costly analysis unless and until such an analysis is requested by the applicable regulatory authorities.
textreferences: It is Engineer A's judgment, based on hydraulic evaluation procedures presented at a recent transportation agency conference, that the proposed project may result in some upstream homes becoming uninhabitable a decade or more earlier than would otherwise be the case.
textreferences: anticipating this to be a difficult question to answer in the project's public hearings
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:31:11.069650
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Regulatory Compliance - 25-Year Storm Design Standard
type: RegulatoryComplianceState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: Throughout the design and permitting phase of the project
affectedparties: Client B
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Regulatory authorities
concept category: State
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T00:09:07.016855+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T00:09:07.016855+00:00
importance: medium
sourcetext: Local development regulations require designing for a 25-year fresh-water storm, and assume that future weather conditions will be consistent with updated historical data.
stateclass: Regulatory Compliance State
subject: Engineer A's obligation to design the tidal crossing upgrade to meet local development regulations requiring a 25-year fresh-water storm design standard
terminatedby: Project completion, regulatory update, or project abandonment
textreferences: Local development regulations require designing for a 25-year fresh-water storm, and assume that future weather conditions will be consistent with updated historical data.
triggeringevent: Local development regulations requiring design for a 25-year fresh-water storm using historical data
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:31:11.058189
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Regulatory Compliance Constraint - Engineer A 25-Year Storm Standard
type: RegulatoryConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Local development regulations establish the minimum design criterion that Engineer A must satisfy to obtain local permitting approval for the tidal crossing upgrade.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.92
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Regulatory Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A is legally and regulatorily constrained to design the tidal crossing upgrade to meet the locally required 25-year fresh-water storm design standard as a minimum threshold for local permitting approval, regardless of whether that standard adequately accounts for climate change effects.
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T00:17:17.632152+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T00:17:17.632152+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: Local development regulations governing the tidal crossing upgrade project
sourcetext: Local development regulations require designing for a 25-year fresh-water storm, and assume that future weather conditions will be consistent with updated historical data.
temporalscope: Throughout the design and local permitting phase
textreferences: Local development regulations require designing for a 25-year fresh-water storm, and assume that future weather conditions will be consistent with updated historical data.
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:31:11.067622
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Regulatory Report Inclusion Proposal as Intermediate Escalation — Engineer A Client B Tidal Crossing
type: RegulatoryReportInclusionProposalasIntermediateEscalationConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Client B has refused the specialized analysis. The BER identifies the regulatory report inclusion proposal as a specific mandatory intermediate step that Engineer A must offer before withdrawal becomes ethically permissible.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.97
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Regulatory Report Inclusion Proposal as Intermediate Escalation Constraint
constraintstatement: After Client B's refusal to authorize the specialized hydrologic and hydraulic analysis, Engineer A must — before withdrawing — propose to Client B that Engineer A document the identified potential concern in an engineering report for consideration by regulatory agencies and the public, establishing this report inclusion proposal as a mandatory intermediate escalation step between client discussion and project withdrawal.
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T14:24:36.668979+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T14:24:36.668979+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case 18-9
sourcetext: If Client B remains unconvinced, Engineer A should propose to Client B that engineer a provides the potential concern that may necessitate more detailed evaluation in an engineering report for consideration by regulatory agencies and the public.
temporalscope: After Client B's initial refusal of the specialized analysis and before project withdrawal
textreferences: If Client B remains unconvinced, Engineer A should propose to Client B that engineer a provides the potential concern that may necessitate more detailed evaluation in an engineering report for consideration by regulatory agencies and the public.
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T10:32:26.867634
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Render Independent Flood Risk Judgment
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:31:11.075866
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Render Independent Flood Risk Judgment (Action 2) → Upstream Habitability Risk Established (Event 3)
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:31:11.076342
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_1
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:52:37.594945
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_10
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:52:37.595228
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_11
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:52:37.595284
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_12
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:52:37.595318
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_13
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:52:37.595349
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_14
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:52:37.595381
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_15
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:52:37.595413
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_16
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:52:37.595443
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_17
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:52:37.595474
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_18
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:52:37.595504
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_19
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:52:37.595535
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_2
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:52:37.594990
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_20
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:52:37.595566
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_21
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:52:37.595596
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_22
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:52:37.595631
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_23
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:52:37.595664
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_24
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:52:37.595696
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_25
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:52:37.595725
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_26
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:52:37.595755
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_27
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:52:37.595786
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_28
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:52:37.595815
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_3
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:52:37.595022
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_4
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:52:37.595051
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_5
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:52:37.595080
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_6
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:52:37.595109
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_7
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:52:37.595140
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_8
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:52:37.595170
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_9
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:52:37.595200
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

SpecializedHydrologicHydraulicAnalysis_SeaLevelRise
type: SpecializedHydrologicandHydraulicAnalysisMethodology
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.95
createdby: Specialized subconsultant (proposed)
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: Specialized Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analysis — Sea Level Rise and Tidal Crossing Flood Impact Study
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T06:38:20.493872+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T06:38:20.493872+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Specialized Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analysis Methodology
sourcetext: Engineer A proposes a complex and costly hydrologic and hydraulic analysis by a specialized subconsultant to predict the extent to which sea level rise and the increased hydraulic capacity of the tidal crossing will result in flood damage to a neighborhood of twenty upstream homes during future high tides and storm surges
textreferences: Client B directs Engineer A to proceed without the costly analysis unless and until such an analysis is requested by the applicable regulatory authorities.
textreferences: Engineer A proposes a complex and costly hydrologic and hydraulic analysis by a specialized subconsultant to predict the extent to which sea level rise and the increased hydraulic capacity of the tidal crossing will result in flood damage to a neighborhood of twenty upstream homes during future high tides and storm surges
usedby: Engineer A (proposed); specialized subconsultant (intended executor); regulatory authorities (anticipated audience at public hearings)
usedincontext: A complex, costly analysis proposed by Engineer A to be conducted by a specialized subconsultant. Its purpose is to predict the extent to which sea level rise combined with the increased hydraulic capacity of the tidal crossing will cause flood damage to twenty upstream homes during future high tides and storm surges. Client B directed Engineer A to forgo this analysis unless required by regulatory authorities.
version: Proposed (not yet commissioned)
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T10:32:26.874302
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Specialized_Hydrologic_Hydraulic_Coastal_Modeling_Methodology
type: SpecializedHydrologicandHydraulicAnalysisMethodology
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.9
createdby: Specialized engineering subdiscipline (hydrology, hydraulics, coastal engineering)
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: Hydrodynamic and Coastal Flood Risk Modeling Methodology
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T06:40:41.457669+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T06:40:41.457669+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Specialized Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analysis Methodology
sourcetext: Engineer A needs to have sufficient understanding of hydrology, hydraulics, and coastal modeling to form a reasonable judgment that there is sufficient potential for flooding of other properties to merit a detailed, complex evaluation of future conditions.
textreferences: Engineer A need not necessarily be a modelling expert.
textreferences: Engineer A needs to have sufficient understanding of hydrology, hydraulics, and coastal modeling to form a reasonable judgment that there is sufficient potential for flooding of other properties to merit a detailed, complex evaluation of future conditions.
usedby: Engineer A in determining the need for detailed, complex evaluation of future conditions
usedincontext: Identified as the specialized technical methodology required to evaluate future flooding impacts on adjacent properties, which Engineer A must recognize as necessary even if not personally expert in it
version: Current practice
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T10:32:26.873141
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Specialized Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analysis Methodology - Coastal Flood Modeling
type: SpecializedHydrologicandHydraulicAnalysisMethodology
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.88
createdby: Specialized engineering subconsultants with coastal modeling expertise
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: Specialized Coastal Hydrodynamic and Flood Impact Modeling Methodology
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T00:09:39.155089+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T00:09:39.155089+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Specialized Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analysis Methodology
sourcetext: Engineer A needs to have sufficient understanding of hydrology, hydraulics, and coastal modeling to form a reasonable judgment that there is sufficient potential for flooding of other properties to merit a detailed, complex evaluation of future conditions.
textreferences: Engineer A needs to have sufficient understanding of hydrology, hydraulics, and coastal modeling to form a reasonable judgment that there is sufficient potential for flooding of other properties to merit a detailed, complex evaluation of future conditions.
textreferences: Engineer A should engage Client B in discussions about the need for the detailed evaluation and disclosure of the potential impacts on the public and alternatives for the project to mitigate those impacts
usedby: Engineer A in determining the scope of analysis needed to evaluate climate-related flood risks to neighboring properties
usedincontext: Identified as the type of detailed, complex technical evaluation required to assess future flooding conditions and potential impacts on adjacent properties from proposed development, necessitating specialized subconsultant expertise in hydrology, hydraulics, and coastal modeling
version: Current
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:31:11.059265
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Specialized Hydrologic and Hydraulic Subconsultant Analysis
type: SpecializedHydrologicandHydraulicAnalysisMethodology
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.87
createdby: Specialized hydraulic engineering subconsultant (proposed)
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: Proposed Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analysis: Sea Level Rise and Tidal Crossing Flood Impact Assessment
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T00:08:43.605098+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T00:08:43.605098+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Specialized Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analysis Methodology
sourcetext: Engineer A proposes a complex and costly hydrologic and hydraulic analysis by a specialized subconsultant to predict the extent to which sea level rise and the increased hydraulic capacity of the tidal crossing will result in flood damage to a neighborhood of twenty upstream homes during future high tides and storm surges, anticipating this to be a difficult question to answer in the project's public hearings
textreferences: Client B directs Engineer A to proceed without the costly analysis unless and until such an analysis is requested by the applicable regulatory authorities
textreferences: Engineer A proposes a complex and costly hydrologic and hydraulic analysis by a specialized subconsultant to predict the extent to which sea level rise and the increased hydraulic capacity of the tidal crossing will result in flood damage to a neighborhood of twenty upstream homes during future high tides and storm surges, anticipating this to be a difficult question to answer in the project's public hearings
usedby: Engineer A (proposed); Client B (directed to withhold)
usedincontext: The specific technical study proposed by Engineer A to quantify the flood risk to twenty upstream homes from the combined effects of sea level rise and increased hydraulic capacity of the tidal crossing, which Client B has directed Engineer A to forgo absent regulatory request — creating the central ethical tension of the case
version: Proposed (not yet commissioned)
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:31:11.056261
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Submit Concerns to Regulators
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:31:11.076012
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Third Party Risk Unmitigated
type: Event
type: NamedIndividual
activates constraint: Duty_To_Protect_Uninvolved_Third_Parties
activates constraint: Prohibition_Against_Deceptive_Omission
activates constraint: PublicSafety_Paramount_Constraint
causes state change: A class of uninvolved third parties (upstream homeowners) are exposed to an unmitigated, undisclosed, and unquantified risk as a direct consequence of project decisions; the moral and legal exposure of all parties increases with each day the situation continues unaddressed
concept category: Event
creates obligation: Escalate_Disclosure_Efforts
creates obligation: Evaluate_Project_Withdrawal
creates obligation: Notify_Regulatory_Agencies_Independently_If_Necessary
emergency status: high
event type: outcome
temporal marker: Ongoing state following analysis deferral, persisting until disclosure or project termination
temporal sequence: 8
urgency level: high
comment: As a consequence of the deferred analysis and the absence of disclosure, approximately twenty upstream homeowners remain unaware of the accelerated flood risk to their properties, with no mitigation measures, warnings, or regulatory review in place.
generated at time: 2026-02-28T10:32:26.861832
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Tidal Saltmarsh Crossing Identified
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Event
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:31:11.076085
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Tidal Saltmarsh Ecological Sensitivity Design — Engineer A Culvert-to-Bridge Upgrade
type: TidalSaltmarshEcologicalSensitivityDesignConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The tidal crossing upgrade involves a culvert-to-bridge conversion in a tidal saltmarsh environment. The saltmarsh is subject to sea level rise, storm surge, and tidal dynamics. The constraint requires assessment and disclosure of hydraulic and ecological impacts beyond the regulatory minimum.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.88
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Tidal Saltmarsh Ecological Sensitivity Design Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A is required to assess and disclose the hydraulic and ecological impacts of the culvert-to-bridge upgrade on the tidal saltmarsh environment, and is prohibited from treating compliance with local development regulations as a complete discharge of environmental impact assessment obligations given the saltmarsh's ecological sensitivity and climate vulnerability.
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T14:24:36.668979+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T14:24:36.668979+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; Environmental Regulatory Compliance Standards
sourcetext: The tidal crossing is located in a tidal saltmarsh environment that is sensitive to changes in tidal hydraulics and sea level rise.
temporalscope: Design and environmental assessment phase of the tidal crossing upgrade
textreferences: The tidal crossing is located in a tidal saltmarsh environment that is sensitive to changes in tidal hydraulics and sea level rise.
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T10:32:26.868294
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

TransportationAgencyConferenceHydraulicProcedures
type: ExpertInterpretation
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.87
createdby: Transportation agency / conference presenters
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: Hydraulic Evaluation Procedures Presented at Recent Transportation Agency Conference
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T06:38:20.493872+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T06:38:20.493872+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Expert Interpretation
sourcetext: It is Engineer A's judgment, based on hydraulic evaluation procedures presented at a recent transportation agency conference, that the proposed project may result in some upstream homes becoming uninhabitable a decade or more earlier than would otherwise be the case.
textreferences: It is Engineer A's judgment, based on hydraulic evaluation procedures presented at a recent transportation agency conference, that the proposed project may result in some upstream homes becoming uninhabitable a decade or more earlier than would otherwise be the case.
usedby: Engineer A as the basis for professional judgment about upstream flood risk from the tidal crossing upgrade
usedincontext: Expert-level technical guidance presented at a transportation agency conference that informs Engineer A's professional judgment that the proposed project may render upstream homes uninhabitable a decade or more earlier than otherwise. This constitutes authoritative professional interpretation bridging emerging climate science to infrastructure design practice.
version: Recent (unspecified date)
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T10:32:26.874126
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Transportation Agency Conference Hydraulic Evaluation Procedures
type: ExpertInterpretation
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.85
createdby: Transportation agency technical staff / conference presenters
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: Hydraulic Evaluation Procedures for Climate-Adjusted Infrastructure Design (Transportation Agency Conference Presentation)
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T00:08:43.605098+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T00:08:43.605098+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Expert Interpretation
sourcetext: It is Engineer A's judgment, based on hydraulic evaluation procedures presented at a recent transportation agency conference, that the proposed project may result in some upstream homes becoming uninhabitable a decade or more earlier than would otherwise be the case
textreferences: It is Engineer A's judgment, based on hydraulic evaluation procedures presented at a recent transportation agency conference, that the proposed project may result in some upstream homes becoming uninhabitable a decade or more earlier than would otherwise be the case
usedby: Engineer A as basis for professional judgment about upstream flood risk
usedincontext: Provides the technical basis for Engineer A's professional judgment that the proposed tidal crossing upgrade may accelerate the uninhabitability of upstream homes, grounding the ethical concern in emerging expert consensus rather than mere speculation
version: Recent (conference proceedings)
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:31:11.056120
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Upstream Habitability Risk Established
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Event
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:31:11.076161
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Upstream Homeowners Flood Risk Community
type: UpstreamResidentialFloodRiskCommunity
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'number_of_homes': 'Twenty upstream homes', 'risk_type': 'Accelerated flood damage and uninhabitability from tidal surge and sea level rise', 'timeline': 'A decade or more earlier than would otherwise be the case', 'awareness': 'Not yet informed; analysis not yet conducted'}
caseinvolvement: Twenty upstream homes whose residents face accelerated uninhabitability—potentially a decade or more earlier than otherwise—due to the increased hydraulic capacity of the proposed tidal crossing combined with sea level rise and storm surge effects; their welfare grounds Engineer A's paramount public safety obligations.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.96
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T06:38:26.427475+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T06:38:26.427475+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'at_risk_from', 'target': 'Engineer A Tidal Crossing Infrastructure Design Engineer project'}
relationships: {'type': 'public_safety_obligation_of', 'target': 'Engineer A Tidal Crossing Infrastructure Design Engineer'}
rolecategory: public_responsibility
roleclass: Upstream Residential Flood Risk Community
sourcetext: the proposed project may result in some upstream homes becoming uninhabitable a decade or more earlier than would otherwise be the case
textreferences: predict the extent to which sea level rise and the increased hydraulic capacity of the tidal crossing will result in flood damage to a neighborhood of twenty upstream homes during future high tides and storm surges
textreferences: the proposed project may result in some upstream homes becoming uninhabitable a decade or more earlier than would otherwise be the case
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T10:32:26.875393
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Upstream Neighborhood Twenty Homes Community
type: UpstreamResidentialFloodRiskCommunity
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'number_of_homes': 'approximately twenty', 'risk_type': 'Accelerated uninhabitability from flood damage during high tides and storm surges', 'risk_timeline': 'A decade or more earlier than would otherwise be the case', 'location': 'Upstream of proposed tidal crossing'}
caseinvolvement: Approximately twenty upstream homeowners whose properties face accelerated flood risk and potential uninhabitability due to the increased hydraulic capacity of the proposed tidal crossing combined with sea level rise and intensified storm surges, establishing Engineer A's paramount public safety obligations.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T00:08:44.407742+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T00:08:44.407742+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'at_risk_from_design_of', 'target': 'Engineer A Tidal Crossing Infrastructure Design Engineer'}
relationships: {'type': 'subject_to_decisions_of', 'target': 'Client B Cost-Directing Developer'}
rolecategory: public_responsibility
roleclass: Upstream Residential Flood Risk Community
sourcetext: the proposed project may result in some upstream homes becoming uninhabitable a decade or more earlier than would otherwise be the case
textreferences: a neighborhood of twenty upstream homes during future high tides and storm surges
textreferences: the proposed project may result in some upstream homes becoming uninhabitable a decade or more earlier than would otherwise be the case
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:31:11.055397
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Withdraw from Project
type: Action
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
event role context: Consulting Engineer
foreseen unintended effects: Engineer A may have a residual obligation to notify regulatory authorities even after withdrawal
foreseen unintended effects: Loss of consulting revenue and potential reputational harm with Client B
foreseen unintended effects: Project may proceed with a different engineer who does not raise these concerns
foreseen unintended effects: Withdrawal does not itself protect upstream homeowners if another engineer proceeds without disclosure
fulfills obligation text: Duty to refuse to participate in projects that violate ethical obligations
fulfills obligation text: Obligation not to be complicit in withholding material public safety information from regulatory agencies
fulfills obligation text: Paramount duty to hold public health, safety, and welfare above client and employer interests
guided by principle text: Integrity and refusal to participate in ethically compromised projects
guided by principle text: Precedent from BER Case 18-9 that withdrawal is appropriate when owner refuses necessary public safety measures
guided by principle text: Primacy of public health, safety, and welfare as the paramount obligation
has agent: Engineer A
has mental state: deliberate and ethically compelled
intended outcome: Avoid professional complicity in a project that poses unquantified and undisclosed flood risks to twenty upstream homeowners; uphold the paramount ethical obligation to public health, safety, and welfare even at the cost of the client relationship and project revenue
requires capability text: Documentation of the basis for withdrawal decision
requires capability text: Knowledge of contractual withdrawal procedures
requires capability text: Professional judgment on ethical limits of client compliance
requires capability text: Understanding of residual obligations upon withdrawal
temporal marker: Final decision point, if Client B refuses both prior courses of action
temporal sequence: 12
violates obligation text: Contractual obligation to complete the engagement (mitigated by ethical justification for withdrawal)
violates obligation text: Duty of faithful agency to Client B (superseded by public safety obligation)
within competence: true
comment: If Client B refuses both further substantive engagement on the flood risk and agreement to disclose the potential concern in regulatory submissions, Engineer A should withdraw from the project rather than proceed in a manner that violates the paramount ethical obligation to protect public health, safety, and welfare.
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:31:11.076049
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Withdraw from Project (Action 7) → Project Continuation Risk Realized (Event 6)
type: CausalChain
type: NamedIndividual
causal language: If Engineer A withdraws from the project, the risk arises that another engineer without knowledge of the flood risk will continue the project, potentially perpetuating or worsening the unmitigated third-party harm
cause: Withdraw from Project (Action 7)
counterfactual: If Engineer A had disclosed the flood risk findings to regulators before withdrawing, or if Client B had abandoned the project, the continuation risk would be substantially reduced or eliminated
effect: Project Continuation Risk Realized (Event 6)
necessary factors: Absence of any disclosure mechanism ensuring the successor engineer is informed of the flood risk
necessary factors: Client B's intent to continue the project with a successor engineer
necessary factors: Engineer A's withdrawal from the project
necessary factors: Successor engineer's lack of independent knowledge of the identified risk
responsibility type: indirect
responsible agent: Client B (primary, for continuing project without disclosure); Engineer A (partial, for not securing disclosure before withdrawal)
sufficient factors: Withdrawal + project continuation intent + no risk disclosure to successor = continuation risk realized
within agent control: true
generated at time: 2026-02-28T10:32:26.875626
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Written Report Completeness — Engineer A BER 07.6 Bird Species Threat Inclusion
type: WrittenReportCompletenessConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A's firm's biologist identified a threat to a threatened bird species in the adjacent protected wetlands. The BER determined it was unethical for Engineer A to omit this information from the written report submitted to the public authority. This precedent informs the current case's reporting obligations.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.95
constrainedentity: Engineer A (BER Case 07.6)
constraintclass: Written Report Completeness Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A in BER Case 07.6 was required to include all relevant and pertinent information — including the threat to the bird species identified by the firm's biologist — in the written report submitted to the public authority considering the developer's proposal, and was prohibited from selectively omitting this information even if it was communicated verbally to the client.
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T14:24:36.668979+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T14:24:36.668979+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case 07.6
sourcetext: The BER determined that it was unethical for Engineer A to not include the information about the threat to the bird species in a written report that would be submitted to a public authority that was considering the developer's proposal.
temporalscope: At the time of preparing and submitting the written report to the public authority
textreferences: The BER determined that it was unethical for Engineer A to not include the information about the threat to the bird species in a written report that would be submitted to a public authority that was considering the developer's proposal.
textreferences: The BER noted that engineers have an obligation to be objective and truthful in professional reports, statements, or testimony and include all relevant and pertinent information in such reports.
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T10:32:26.867975
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Written Safety Notification Constraint - Engineer A Client B Upstream Flood Risk
type: PotentialSafetyRiskWrittenNotificationWithoutInvestigationConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A has formed a preliminary professional judgment that the project may render upstream homes uninhabitable earlier than otherwise, triggering a written notification obligation to Client B regardless of whether specialized analysis has been completed.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.89
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Potential Safety Risk Written Notification Without Investigation Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A is constrained to advise Client B in writing of the identified potential risk that the tidal crossing upgrade may accelerate upstream home uninhabitability — even though the risk has not been confirmed by specialized analysis — and this written notification obligation does not extend to a duty to independently investigate the risk further or to recommend specific mitigation alternatives beyond the specialized subconsultant analysis already proposed.
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T00:17:17.632152+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T00:17:17.632152+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Sections I.4 and III.1.b; BER case precedent on written safety notification
sourcetext: It is Engineer A's judgment, based on hydraulic evaluation procedures presented at a recent transportation agency conference, that the proposed project may result in some upstream homes becoming uninhabitable a decade or more earlier than would otherwise be the case.
temporalscope: Immediately upon Engineer A's formation of the preliminary professional judgment about upstream flood risk
textreferences: Client B directs Engineer A to proceed without the costly analysis unless and until such an analysis is requested by the applicable regulatory authorities.
textreferences: It is Engineer A's judgment, based on hydraulic evaluation procedures presented at a recent transportation agency conference, that the proposed project may result in some upstream homes becoming uninhabitable a decade or more earlier than would otherwise be the case.
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:31:11.069365
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

climate change effects (ongoing) overlaps current engineering planning and design decisions
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:31:11.076833
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.75
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:38:09.853289+00:00
value: Objectivity and completeness obligation overrides client preference for omission; Engineer A must include all relevant and pertinent information in professional reports submitted to public authorities.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.78
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:38:09.853794+00:00
value: Objectivity and completeness obligation overrides client preference for omission; Engineer A must include all relevant and pertinent information in professional reports submitted to public authorities.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.92
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:38:09.852367+00:00
value: Client loyalty yields to public welfare when the client's cost management directives would result in suppression of safety-relevant analysis affecting identifiable third parties

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.91
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:38:09.856513+00:00
value: The client's authority to direct scope and cost does not extend to directing the omission of safety-relevant analysis when the engineer's professional judgment identifies material risk to third-party welfare

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.91
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:38:09.856441+00:00
value: Non-acquiescence principle overrides client direction; Engineer A must advocate for analysis and disclosure even against client resistance, escalating to regulatory submission or withdrawal if client refuses.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.88
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:38:09.857614+00:00
value: Client loyalty is overridden by public welfare paramount when the client's directive would result in the suppression of safety-relevant analysis affecting identifiable third parties; Engineer A must advise Client B of this limit and refuse to acquiesce in the directive

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.85
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:38:09.854646+00:00
value: Client loyalty is overridden when the client's directive would suppress safety-critical analysis and leave twenty upstream homes uninformed of material flood risk.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.83
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:38:09.857410+00:00
value: The faithful agent obligation encompasses advising clients of risks to project success, including regulatory and public hearing risks arising from inadequate safety analysis; this obligation aligns with rather than conflicts with the public welfare obligation in this case

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.86
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:38:09.853215+00:00
value: Regulatory compliance based on outdated historical climate data is insufficient to discharge the public welfare obligation when current climate science indicates materially different future conditions

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.82
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:38:09.853985+00:00
value: The regulatory gap principle requires Engineer A to act on professional judgment about the inadequacy of the regulatory standard rather than treating regulatory compliance as equivalent to adequate public protection

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.88
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:38:09.854976+00:00
value: The moving target nature of climate data means regulatory compliance based on historical data is insufficient to discharge the public welfare obligation; current scientific understanding must inform the assessment

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.87
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:38:09.856174+00:00
value: The climate-informed design standard requires Engineer A to recommend analysis beyond the regulatory minimum when professional judgment indicates that the regulatory standard is inadequate to capture foreseeable future risks

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.88
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:38:09.856066+00:00
value: The principle establishes that regulatory compliance is insufficient when the engineer's professional judgment identifies material climate-driven risk beyond the regulatory standard.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.87
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:38:09.855034+00:00
value: The moving target principle supplements the standard of care by requiring engineers to go beyond historical baselines even when regulatory standards have not yet been updated to require it.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.88
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:38:09.856247+00:00
value: Regulatory compliance based on outdated historical climate data is insufficient to discharge the public welfare obligation when current climate science indicates materially different future conditions

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.86
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:38:09.856375+00:00
value: The competing public goods balancing principle requires Engineer A to present both goods transparently to decision-makers rather than allowing Client B's cost management preference to unilaterally resolve the trade-off in favor of the healthcare facility at the expense of upstream homeowners

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.88
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:38:09.853451+00:00
value: The conditional permission to proceed is bounded by the engineer's honest professional assessment; where the engineer cannot form a judgment that significant harm is unlikely, the permission does not apply and the full escalation obligation is triggered

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.92
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:38:09.854703+00:00
value: The conditional proceeding permission is unavailable in this case because Engineer A's professional judgment indicates that significant flooding impacts are reasonably likely; the principle therefore resolves in favor of requiring full analysis or withdrawal.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.88
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:38:09.854897+00:00
value: The principle may permit conditional proceeding only if Engineer A's confidence that the risk is not material is reasonable — but the case facts suggest Engineer A believes the risk is real, limiting the applicability of this pathway.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.91
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:38:09.854754+00:00
value: The conditional permission to proceed is bounded by the engineer's honest professional assessment; where the engineer cannot form a judgment that significant harm is unlikely, the permission does not apply and the full escalation obligation is triggered

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.87
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:38:09.853053+00:00
value: Faithful agent obligation yields to public welfare paramount when Client B refuses both analysis and regulatory disclosure; Engineer A must withdraw rather than continue serving a client whose direction conflicts with public protection obligations.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.85
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:38:09.857995+00:00
value: Withdrawal is ethically required but only after graduated escalation steps have been exhausted; the graduated sequence maximizes the probability that public safety concerns are addressed before the engineer's last resort is exercised

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.88
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:38:09.855265+00:00
value: Withdrawal is ethically required but only after graduated escalation steps have been exhausted; the graduated sequence maximizes the probability that public safety concerns are addressed before the engineer's last resort is exercised

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.87
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:38:09.855327+00:00
value: Withdrawal is ethically required but only after graduated escalation steps have been exhausted; the graduated sequence maximizes the probability that public safety concerns are addressed before the engineer's last resort is exercised

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.9
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:38:09.855463+00:00
value: Faithful agent obligation yields to public welfare paramount when Client B refuses both analysis and regulatory disclosure; Engineer A must withdraw rather than continue serving a client whose direction conflicts with public protection obligations.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.88
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:38:09.855394+00:00
value: Withdrawal is ethically required but only after graduated escalation steps have been exhausted; the graduated sequence maximizes the probability that public safety concerns are addressed before the engineer's last resort is exercised

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.86
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:38:09.856967+00:00
value: The proactive disclosure obligation is triggered by the identification of reasonably likely and significant impacts on third-party welfare, regardless of whether the client has requested such disclosure

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.92
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:38:09.857462+00:00
value: Client loyalty yields to public welfare when the client's cost management directives would result in suppression of safety-relevant analysis affecting identifiable third parties

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.86
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:38:09.857857+00:00
value: Regulatory compliance based on outdated historical climate data is insufficient to discharge the public welfare obligation when current climate science indicates materially different future conditions

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.87
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:38:09.857805+00:00
value: Faithful agent obligation yields to public welfare paramount when Client B refuses both analysis and regulatory disclosure; Engineer A must withdraw rather than continue serving a client whose direction conflicts with public protection obligations.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.91
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:38:09.857514+00:00
value: The ethical limits of faithful agency are reached when the client's directive would suppress analysis the engineer has determined is necessary to characterize material public risk.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.93
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:38:09.857564+00:00
value: Faithful agent obligation yields to public welfare paramount when Client B refuses both analysis and regulatory disclosure; Engineer A must withdraw rather than continue serving a client whose direction conflicts with public protection obligations.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.9
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:38:09.857687+00:00
value: Post-refusal escalation obligation overrides client preference for silence; Engineer A must escalate to regulatory disclosure or withdraw, rather than treating client refusal as a complete discharge of professional obligation.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.89
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:38:09.857753+00:00
value: The obligation to notify identifiable third parties of material safety risks overrides client preferences for confidentiality or cost management when those third parties face risk of uninhabitability

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.92
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:38:09.854312+00:00
value: The client's authority to direct the scope of the engineering engagement does not extend to directing the suppression of safety-relevant analysis that the engineer's professional judgment identifies as necessary

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.93
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:38:09.854202+00:00
value: Client loyalty is overridden when the client's directive would suppress safety-critical analysis and leave twenty upstream homes uninformed of material flood risk.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.93
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:38:09.854261+00:00
value: Client loyalty is overridden by public welfare paramount when the client's directive would result in the suppression of safety-relevant analysis affecting identifiable third parties; Engineer A must advise Client B of this limit and refuse to acquiesce in the directive

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.9
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:38:09.854580+00:00
value: Faithful agent obligation yields to public welfare paramount when Client B refuses both analysis and regulatory disclosure; Engineer A must withdraw rather than continue serving a client whose direction conflicts with public protection obligations.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.91
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:38:09.854512+00:00
value: The proactive disclosure obligation is triggered by the identification of reasonably likely and significant impacts on third-party welfare, regardless of whether the client has requested such disclosure

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.94
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:38:09.854362+00:00
value: Public welfare paramount overrides client cost management preferences when the engineer's professional judgment identifies material risk of uninhabitability to an identifiable third-party community; the client's authority to direct scope does not extend to suppressing safety-relevant analysis

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.93
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:38:09.854452+00:00
value: Public welfare paramount overrides client cost preferences when the engineer has identified material risk to an identifiable community of twenty homes facing accelerated uninhabitability.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.84
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:38:09.857106+00:00
value: The faithful agent obligation encompasses advising clients of risks to project success, including regulatory and public hearing risks arising from inadequate safety analysis; this obligation aligns with rather than conflicts with the public welfare obligation in this case

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.85
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:38:09.853362+00:00
value: Withdrawal is ethically required but only after graduated escalation steps have been exhausted; the graduated sequence maximizes the probability that public safety concerns are addressed before the engineer's last resort is exercised

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.9
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:38:09.853916+00:00
value: Withdrawal is ethically required but only after graduated escalation steps have been exhausted; the graduated sequence maximizes the probability that public safety concerns are addressed before the engineer's last resort is exercised

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.85
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:38:09.856885+00:00
value: Where preliminary professional assessment indicates reasonably likely and significant harm, the competence obligation requires action rather than deferral pending perfect information

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.84
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:38:09.857258+00:00
value: The competence threshold principle resolves in favor of recognizing the need for specialized analysis; Engineer A's cross-disciplinary literacy is sufficient to trigger the referral obligation even without personal modelling expertise.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.84
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:38:09.857354+00:00
value: Engineer A's cross-disciplinary literacy is sufficient to trigger the obligation to recommend specialized analysis, even though Engineer A is not a specialist in hydrodynamic modeling

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.91
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:38:09.852515+00:00
value: The ethical limits of faithful agency are reached when the client's directive would suppress analysis the engineer has determined is necessary to characterize material public risk.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.93
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:38:09.853686+00:00
value: The client's authority to direct the scope of the engineering engagement does not extend to directing the suppression of safety-relevant analysis that the engineer's professional judgment identifies as necessary

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.75
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:38:09.857924+00:00
value: Objectivity and completeness obligation overrides client preference for omission; Engineer A must include all relevant and pertinent information in professional reports submitted to public authorities.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.83
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:38:09.853534+00:00
value: Fact-based disclosure obligation and proactive risk disclosure are reconciled by disclosing the preliminary judgment with appropriate qualification and recommending specialized analysis to confirm or refute it

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.85
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:38:09.856800+00:00
value: Fact-based disclosure obligation and proactive risk disclosure are reconciled by disclosing the preliminary judgment with appropriate qualification and recommending specialized analysis to confirm or refute it

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.85
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:38:09.856748+00:00
value: Fact-based disclosure obligation and proactive risk disclosure are reconciled by disclosing the preliminary judgment with appropriate qualification and recommending specialized analysis to confirm or refute it

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.86
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:38:09.856304+00:00
value: Post-refusal escalation obligation overrides client preference for silence; Engineer A must escalate to regulatory disclosure or withdraw, rather than treating client refusal as a complete discharge of professional obligation.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.85
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:38:09.857177+00:00
value: Post-refusal escalation obligation overrides client preference for silence; Engineer A must escalate to regulatory disclosure or withdraw, rather than treating client refusal as a complete discharge of professional obligation.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.88
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:38:09.852741+00:00
value: Client loyalty is overridden by public welfare paramount when the client's directive would result in the suppression of safety-relevant analysis affecting identifiable third parties; Engineer A must advise Client B of this limit and refuse to acquiesce in the directive

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.88
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:38:09.858049+00:00
value: The conditional permission to proceed is bounded by the engineer's honest professional assessment; where the engineer cannot form a judgment that significant harm is unlikely, the permission does not apply and the full escalation obligation is triggered

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.93
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:38:09.852642+00:00
value: Faithful agent obligation yields to public welfare paramount when Client B refuses both analysis and regulatory disclosure; Engineer A must withdraw rather than continue serving a client whose direction conflicts with public protection obligations.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.92
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:38:09.853866+00:00
value: The conditional proceeding permission is unavailable in this case because Engineer A's professional judgment indicates that significant flooding impacts are reasonably likely; the principle therefore resolves in favor of requiring full analysis or withdrawal.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.94
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:38:09.853603+00:00
value: Public welfare paramount overrides client cost management preferences when the engineer's professional judgment identifies material risk of uninhabitability to an identifiable third-party community; the client's authority to direct scope does not extend to suppressing safety-relevant analysis

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.89
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:38:09.855196+00:00
value: The regulatory gap principle requires Engineer A to act on professional judgment about the inadequacy of the regulatory standard rather than treating regulatory compliance as equivalent to adequate public protection

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.89
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:38:09.855136+00:00
value: Regulatory compliance is the ethical floor, not the ceiling; where regulatory standards have not kept pace with current climate science, the engineer's public welfare obligation requires going beyond regulatory minimums

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.9
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:38:09.852867+00:00
value: Post-refusal escalation obligation overrides client preference for silence; Engineer A must escalate to regulatory disclosure or withdraw, rather than treating client refusal as a complete discharge of professional obligation.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.83
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:38:09.858099+00:00
value: Fact-based disclosure obligation and proactive risk disclosure are reconciled by disclosing the preliminary judgment with appropriate qualification and recommending specialized analysis to confirm or refute it

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.9
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:38:09.854037+00:00
value: Post-refusal escalation obligation overrides client preference for silence; Engineer A must escalate to regulatory disclosure or withdraw, rather than treating client refusal as a complete discharge of professional obligation.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.89
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:38:09.855938+00:00
value: Regulatory gap awareness principle requires proactive disclosure beyond regulatory compliance; Engineer A must not treat regulatory compliance as a complete discharge of public protection obligation.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.88
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:38:09.855996+00:00
value: Client loyalty is overridden by public welfare paramount when the client's directive would result in the suppression of safety-relevant analysis affecting identifiable third parties; Engineer A must advise Client B of this limit and refuse to acquiesce in the directive

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.87
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:38:09.855543+00:00
value: Post-refusal escalation obligation overrides client preference for silence; Engineer A must escalate to regulatory disclosure or withdraw, rather than treating client refusal as a complete discharge of professional obligation.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.87
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:38:09.855614+00:00
value: Post-refusal escalation obligation overrides client preference for silence; Engineer A must escalate to regulatory disclosure or withdraw, rather than treating client refusal as a complete discharge of professional obligation.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.88
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:38:09.855710+00:00
value: The principle establishes that cost-based client directives cannot override the engineer's obligation to conduct safety-critical analysis when professional judgment identifies material public risk.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.88
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:38:09.855767+00:00
value: The principle establishes that cost-based client directives cannot override the engineer's obligation to conduct safety-critical analysis when professional judgment identifies material public risk.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.89
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:38:09.852961+00:00
value: The obligation to notify identifiable third parties of material safety risks overrides client preferences for confidentiality or cost management when those third parties face risk of uninhabitability

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.9
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:38:09.855873+00:00
value: The third-party notification obligation overrides client preferences about information disclosure when identifiable community members face material flood risk from the proposed project

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.91
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:38:09.853743+00:00
value: The third-party notification obligation overrides client preferences about information disclosure when identifiable community members face material flood risk from the proposed project

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.9
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:38:09.855821+00:00
value: The principle establishes that third-party notification obligations are not contingent on client authorization when the engineer has identified material risk to an identifiable community.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.86
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:38:09.857021+00:00
value: Proactive risk disclosure requires communication of preliminary professional judgments about material risks, qualified appropriately as to their certainty, without waiting for regulatory requests that may never come if the risk is not disclosed

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.82
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:38:09.856596+00:00
value: Environmental stewardship obligations reinforce rather than conflict with the public welfare obligation in this case, as both require assessment of the hydraulic impacts of the tidal crossing upgrade

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.82
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:38:09.856674+00:00
value: Environmental stewardship reinforces the obligation to conduct the specialized hydrologic/hydraulic analysis by situating the upstream flood risk within the broader context of coastal ecosystem management.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.85
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:38:09.854116+00:00
value: Climate-informed design standard overrides owner preference for lower design standard; Engineer A must advocate for updated standard and withdraw if owner refuses.

existing historical climate and weather data assumption before recognition of climate change as a moving target in recent decades
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:31:11.076652
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

existing local development regulations and national codes before updated regulations reflecting climate change
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: The local development regulations and national design codes and standards have not yet been updated to reflect changing conditions and weather patterns, including effects of sea level rise
from entity text: existing local development regulations and national codes
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: updated regulations reflecting climate change
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: updated regulations reflecting climate change
generated at time: 2026-02-28T10:32:26.875753
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

historical climate and weather data usage before recognition of climate as a moving target in recent decades
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: For more than a century, engineers have assumed that future climate and weather conditions will be consistent with historical climate and weather data. In recent decades, as climate and weather data are updated, the historical dataset changes
from entity text: historical climate and weather data usage
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: recognition of climate as a moving target in recent decades
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: recognition of climate as a moving target in recen
generated at time: 2026-02-28T10:32:26.875917
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

hydraulic evaluation by Engineer A before Engineer A's proposal for specialized subconsultant analysis
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: It is Engineer A's judgment, based on hydraulic evaluation procedures...that the proposed project may result in some upstream homes becoming uninhabitable...Engineer A proposes a complex and costly hydrologic and hydraulic analysis by a specialized subconsultant
from entity text: hydraulic evaluation by Engineer A
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: Engineer A's proposal for specialized subconsultant analysis
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: Engineer A s proposal for specialized subconsultan
generated at time: 2026-02-28T10:32:26.875660
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

hydrologic and hydraulic analysis by specialized subconsultant before public hearings on the project
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:31:11.076771
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

local development regulations and national design codes before updated standards reflecting climate change
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:31:11.076682
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

project construction / culvert-to-bridge upgrade before upstream homes becoming uninhabitable earlier than baseline
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: the proposed project may result in some upstream homes becoming uninhabitable a decade or more earlier than would otherwise be the case
from entity text: project construction / culvert-to-bridge upgrade
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: upstream homes becoming uninhabitable earlier than baseline
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: upstream homes becoming uninhabitable earlier than
generated at time: 2026-02-28T10:32:26.875821
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

project design and permitting (Engineer A's scope) before future flooding of upstream homes during high tides and storm surges
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:31:11.076801
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

proposed culvert-to-bridge upgrade (project construction) before upstream homes becoming uninhabitable a decade or more earlier
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:31:11.076528
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

regulatory authority request for analysis before costly specialized analysis (per Client B's directive)
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: Client B directs Engineer A to proceed without the costly analysis unless and until such an analysis is requested by the applicable regulatory authorities
from entity text: regulatory authority request for analysis
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: costly specialized analysis (per Client B's directive)
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: costly specialized analysis per Client B s direct
generated at time: 2026-02-28T10:32:26.876007
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A must treat future climate and weather conditions as a moving target rather than a fixed historical baseline when assessing flood risks to upstream properties from the proposed tidal crossing infrastructure upgrade

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A applied hydraulic evaluation procedures from a recent transportation agency conference to assess the climate-adjusted flood risk of the proposed tidal crossing upgrade, concluding that the project may accelerate upstream uninhabi

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A must incorporate current scientific understanding of climate change — including updated precipitation data and sea level rise projections — into the tidal crossing bridge replacement design assessment, even where applicable regul

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A's primary ethical obligation to protect public health, safety, and welfare extends beyond legal and regulatory requirements to encompass climate-driven flooding risks to upstream homeowners, requiring action even in the absence o

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A identified that the proposed tidal crossing upgrade may cause approximately twenty upstream homes to become uninhabitable a decade or more earlier than would otherwise be the case, triggering a paramount obligation to protect tho

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A applied hydraulic evaluation procedures from a recent transportation agency conference to assess the upstream flood risk of the proposed tidal crossing upgrade, demonstrating the professional obligation to apply current technical

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A must apply specialized technical competence in hydrology, hydraulics, and coastal engineering to identify and assess the flood risks created by the tidal crossing project, and must act on that assessment even though the full quan

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A must recognize that applicable regulatory standards for the tidal crossing design have not been updated to reflect current climate science, and must proactively disclose the resulting risk gap to Client B, regulators, and the ups

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A recognized that local development regulations and national design codes had not been updated to reflect climate change effects — including sea level rise and updated precipitation recurrence intervals — and that designing to the

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A proactively identified and proposed to analyze the upstream flood risk from the tidal crossing upgrade before the regulatory authority requested such analysis, demonstrating the professional obligation to communicate identified r

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A must proactively communicate the identified climate-driven flood risks to Client B, regulatory authorities, and the affected upstream community without waiting for formal requests or for harm to materialize

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Client B directed Engineer A to proceed without the specialized hydraulic analysis unless and until requested by regulatory authorities; Engineer A's professional obligation requires refusal to acquiesce to this directive when professional

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A must not acquiesce to Client B's direction to forgo the recommended specialized hydrologic and hydraulic analysis when Engineer A's professional judgment indicates that such analysis is necessary to identify and characterize mate

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A, while not required to be a hydrodynamic modeling expert, must possess sufficient understanding of hydrology, hydraulics, and coastal modeling to recognize that the tidal crossing project creates sufficient potential for flooding

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A identified a genuine conflict between two legitimate public goods — the public benefit of a new healthcare facility requiring the tidal crossing upgrade, and the public welfare of twenty upstream homeowners facing accelerated uni

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A must serve Client B's interests faithfully — including respecting cost management concerns and contractual scope — but only within the bounds of the public welfare obligation, which requires that Engineer A not subordinate the up

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A's faithful agent obligation to Client B requires advising Client B in writing that proceeding without the specialized hydraulic analysis creates regulatory, legal, and reputational risks for the developer — including the risk tha

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A must pursue a graduated sequence — first engaging Client B in discussion about the need for specialized evaluation and disclosure, then proposing a formal written engineering report to regulatory agencies, and only then withdrawi

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A must ensure that the upstream residential community of approximately twenty homes is informed of the identified flood risk through either direct notification or through formal written reports submitted to regulatory agencies for

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A identified approximately twenty upstream homeowners as an identifiable third-party community facing material risk of accelerated uninhabitability due to the proposed tidal crossing upgrade, creating an obligation to ensure that t

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A's design work involves upgrading a tidal crossing through a tidal saltmarsh, requiring consideration of the hydraulic and ecological impacts of increasing the crossing's hydraulic capacity on the saltmarsh system and upstream hyd

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A's risk assessment is characterized as a professional 'judgment' based on conference-presented procedures rather than a confirmed finding from completed specialized analysis, requiring Engineer A to disclose the identified risk wi

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Had Engineer A been professionally comfortable predicting that significant public health, safety, and welfare impacts were unlikely, Engineer A could have ethically proceeded with the project while documenting that judgment in writing and n

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A recognizes that the local regulatory standard (25-year storm based on historical data) does not capture the dynamic trajectory of sea level rise and updated precipitation recurrence intervals, and that designing to that static st

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The BER holds that engineers can no longer treat historical climate and weather data as a fixed baseline for design purposes; climate and weather patterns must be treated as a 'moving target,' requiring Engineer A to incorporate projected f

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The BER explicitly holds that Engineer A's ethical obligation to address climate change impacts on public health, safety, and welfare exists 'regardless of whether or not that is required by applicable law' — affirming that the professional

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: After Client B refuses Engineer A's proposed specialized hydrologic/hydraulic analysis, Engineer A must assess whether the nature, probability, and severity of the identified flood risk to twenty upstream homes triggers an obligation to esc

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The BER holds that if Client B remains unconvinced after Engineer A's advocacy, Engineer A must propose submission of an engineering report to regulatory agencies for public consideration — and if Client B refuses even that intermediate esc

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The BER affirms that Engineer A's primary ethical obligation — to hold paramount the protection of public health, safety, and welfare — is not bounded by legal or regulatory requirements but applies broadly to all reasonably likely and sign

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A identifies that the local 25-year storm standard and the assumption of historically consistent future weather are regulatory standards that have not been updated to reflect sea level rise and updated precipitation recurrence inte

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The BER holds that Engineer A's obligation to address climate change impacts exists regardless of whether applicable law or regulations require it — establishing that when regulatory standards have not been updated to reflect current climat

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The 25-year storm regulatory standard represents the legal floor for the tidal crossing design; Engineer A's professional judgment that this standard is inadequate given climate change establishes an obligation to exceed it — treating regul

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The BER's holding that Engineer A must go 'beyond' existing requirements to address climate change impacts — and that the obligation exists regardless of regulatory requirement — operationalizes the principle that the standard of care is th

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A proposes specialized hydrologic and hydraulic subconsultant analysis to predict the extent to which sea level rise and increased hydraulic capacity of the tidal crossing will result in flood damage to upstream homes — going beyon

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The BER holds that Engineer A must not acquiesce to Client B's direction to forgo specialized hydrologic and hydraulic analysis; Engineer A must engage Client B in discussions about the need for detailed evaluation, propose regulatory repor

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Client B directs Engineer A to forgo the specialized hydrologic/hydraulic analysis unless regulators request it; the principle prohibits Engineer A from acquiescing to this directive because Engineer A's professional judgment has identified

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A has identified through professional assessment that the tidal crossing upgrade will materially accelerate uninhabitability of twenty upstream homes; the principle requires Engineer A to ensure those homeowners or regulatory autho

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The BER holds that Engineer A need not be a modelling expert but must have sufficient understanding of hydrology, hydraulics, and coastal modeling to recognize that there is sufficient potential for flooding to merit a detailed, complex eva

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A's identification of material flood risk to twenty upstream homes — and Client B's directive to forgo analysis that would characterize that risk — creates a direct conflict between public welfare and client cost preferences, requi

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A has a loyalty obligation to Client B as the developer commissioning the roadway design, requiring diligent execution of the design and permitting scope and respect for Client B's legitimate business decisions — but this loyalty i

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: An alternative ethical pathway would permit Engineer A to proceed with the project without the specialized analysis if Engineer A documents in writing the professional judgment that the risk, while present, is insufficiently certain to requ

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The BER notes that the outcome might have been different had Engineer A been comfortable predicting that significant public health, safety, and welfare impacts were unlikely — in which case Engineer A might have ethically proceeded while do

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The BER's structured escalation pathway — engage Client B, propose regulatory report, withdraw — operationalizes the faithful agent principle: Engineer A must serve Client B's legitimate interests diligently while retaining the authority an

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The tidal crossing upgrade from culvert to bridge in a tidal saltmarsh implicates environmental stewardship obligations, including consideration of hydrological impacts on the saltmarsh ecosystem and upstream watershed from increased hydrau

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: In BER Case 07.6, the BER determined that Engineer A was ethically obligated to include information about the threatened bird species in the written report submitted to the public authority — holding that engineers must be objective and tru

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: In BER Case 18-9, Engineer A performed hydrodynamic modeling and coastal risk assessment and advocated for design to the then-projected 100-year storm surge elevation based on updated historic weather data — establishing the precedent that

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A is Client B's faithful agent for the roadway design engagement, obligated to execute Client B's project diligently; however, Client B's directive to forgo safety analysis tests the ethical limits of that agency, requiring Enginee

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Client B directed Engineer A to proceed without the costly specialized hydraulic analysis unless and until requested by regulatory authorities, invoking the client's legitimate authority to direct project scope and cost management within th

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A must treat future climate and weather conditions as a moving target rather than a fixed historical baseline when assessing flood risks to upstream properties from the proposed tidal crossing infrastructure upgrade

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A recognizes that the local regulatory standard (25-year storm based on historical data) does not capture the dynamic trajectory of sea level rise and updated precipitation recurrence intervals, and that designing to that static st

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A must treat future climate and weather conditions as a moving target rather than a fixed historical baseline when assessing flood risks to upstream properties from the proposed tidal crossing infrastructure upgrade

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The BER holds that engineers can no longer treat historical climate and weather data as a fixed baseline for design purposes; climate and weather patterns must be treated as a 'moving target,' requiring Engineer A to incorporate projected f

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A must pursue a graduated sequence — first engaging Client B in discussion about the need for specialized evaluation and disclosure, then proposing a formal written engineering report to regulatory agencies, and only then withdrawi

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A must pursue a graduated sequence — first engaging Client B in discussion about the need for specialized evaluation and disclosure, then proposing a formal written engineering report to regulatory agencies, and only then withdrawi

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: In BER Case 18-9, Engineer A performed hydrodynamic modeling and coastal risk assessment and advocated for design to the then-projected 100-year storm surge elevation based on updated historic weather data — establishing the precedent that

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: After Client B refuses Engineer A's proposed specialized hydrologic/hydraulic analysis, Engineer A must assess whether the nature, probability, and severity of the identified flood risk to twenty upstream homes triggers an obligation to esc

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The BER holds that if Client B remains unconvinced after Engineer A's advocacy, Engineer A must propose submission of an engineering report to regulatory agencies for public consideration — and if Client B refuses even that intermediate esc

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The BER holds that if Client B remains unconvinced after Engineer A's advocacy, Engineer A must propose submission of an engineering report to regulatory agencies for public consideration — and if Client B refuses even that intermediate esc

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A must recognize that applicable regulatory standards for the tidal crossing design have not been updated to reflect current climate science, and must proactively disclose the resulting risk gap to Client B, regulators, and the ups

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The BER holds that Engineer A's obligation to address climate change impacts exists regardless of whether applicable law or regulations require it — establishing that when regulatory standards have not been updated to reflect current climat

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A applied hydraulic evaluation procedures from a recent transportation agency conference to assess the climate-adjusted flood risk of the proposed tidal crossing upgrade, concluding that the project may accelerate upstream uninhabi

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A must incorporate current scientific understanding of climate change — including updated precipitation data and sea level rise projections — into the tidal crossing bridge replacement design assessment, even where applicable regul

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A identified a genuine conflict between two legitimate public goods — the public benefit of a new healthcare facility requiring the tidal crossing upgrade, and the public welfare of twenty upstream homeowners facing accelerated uni

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The BER holds that if Client B remains unconvinced after Engineer A's advocacy, Engineer A must propose submission of an engineering report to regulatory agencies for public consideration — and if Client B refuses even that intermediate esc

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The BER holds that if Client B remains unconvinced after Engineer A's advocacy, Engineer A must propose submission of an engineering report to regulatory agencies for public consideration — and if Client B refuses even that intermediate esc

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The BER holds that if Client B remains unconvinced after Engineer A's advocacy, Engineer A must propose submission of an engineering report to regulatory agencies for public consideration — and if Client B refuses even that intermediate esc

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: In BER Case 18-9, Engineer A performed hydrodynamic modeling and coastal risk assessment and advocated for design to the then-projected 100-year storm surge elevation based on updated historic weather data — establishing the precedent that

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A identified that the proposed tidal crossing upgrade may cause approximately twenty upstream homes to become uninhabitable a decade or more earlier than would otherwise be the case, triggering a paramount obligation to protect tho

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A's faithful agent obligation to Client B requires advising Client B in writing that proceeding without the specialized hydraulic analysis creates regulatory, legal, and reputational risks for the developer — including the risk tha

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A's faithful agent obligation to Client B requires advising Client B in writing that proceeding without the specialized hydraulic analysis creates regulatory, legal, and reputational risks for the developer — including the risk tha

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A's primary ethical obligation to protect public health, safety, and welfare extends beyond legal and regulatory requirements to encompass climate-driven flooding risks to upstream homeowners, requiring action even in the absence o

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A, while not required to be a hydrodynamic modeling expert, must possess sufficient understanding of hydrology, hydraulics, and coastal modeling to recognize that the tidal crossing project creates sufficient potential for flooding

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The BER holds that Engineer A need not be a modelling expert but must have sufficient understanding of hydrology, hydraulics, and coastal modeling to recognize that there is sufficient potential for flooding to merit a detailed, complex eva

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Client B directed Engineer A to proceed without the specialized hydraulic analysis unless and until requested by regulatory authorities; Engineer A's professional obligation requires refusal to acquiesce to this directive when professional

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The BER holds that Engineer A must not acquiesce to Client B's direction to forgo specialized hydrologic and hydraulic analysis; Engineer A must engage Client B in discussions about the need for detailed evaluation, propose regulatory repor

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Client B directs Engineer A to forgo the specialized hydrologic/hydraulic analysis unless regulators request it; the principle prohibits Engineer A from acquiescing to this directive because Engineer A's professional judgment has identified

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A's risk assessment is characterized as a professional 'judgment' based on conference-presented procedures rather than a confirmed finding from completed specialized analysis, requiring Engineer A to disclose the identified risk wi

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A's risk assessment is characterized as a professional 'judgment' based on conference-presented procedures rather than a confirmed finding from completed specialized analysis, requiring Engineer A to disclose the identified risk wi

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A identified that the proposed tidal crossing upgrade may cause approximately twenty upstream homes to become uninhabitable a decade or more earlier than would otherwise be the case, triggering a paramount obligation to protect tho

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The BER affirms that Engineer A's primary ethical obligation — to hold paramount the protection of public health, safety, and welfare — is not bounded by legal or regulatory requirements but applies broadly to all reasonably likely and sign

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A's identification of material flood risk to twenty upstream homes — and Client B's directive to forgo analysis that would characterize that risk — creates a direct conflict between public welfare and client cost preferences, requi

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A proactively identified and proposed to analyze the upstream flood risk from the tidal crossing upgrade before the regulatory authority requested such analysis, demonstrating the professional obligation to communicate identified r

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A must proactively communicate the identified climate-driven flood risks to Client B, regulatory authorities, and the affected upstream community without waiting for formal requests or for harm to materialize

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A proactively identified and proposed to analyze the upstream flood risk from the tidal crossing upgrade before the regulatory authority requested such analysis, demonstrating the professional obligation to communicate identified r

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A must proactively communicate the identified climate-driven flood risks to Client B, regulatory authorities, and the affected upstream community without waiting for formal requests or for harm to materialize

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The 25-year storm regulatory standard represents the legal floor for the tidal crossing design; Engineer A's professional judgment that this standard is inadequate given climate change establishes an obligation to exceed it — treating regul

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The BER's holding that Engineer A must go 'beyond' existing requirements to address climate change impacts — and that the obligation exists regardless of regulatory requirement — operationalizes the principle that the standard of care is th

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A applied hydraulic evaluation procedures from a recent transportation agency conference to assess the upstream flood risk of the proposed tidal crossing upgrade, demonstrating the professional obligation to apply current technical

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A must apply specialized technical competence in hydrology, hydraulics, and coastal engineering to identify and assess the flood risks created by the tidal crossing project, and must act on that assessment even though the full quan

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A has identified through professional assessment that the tidal crossing upgrade will materially accelerate uninhabitability of twenty upstream homes; the principle requires Engineer A to ensure those homeowners or regulatory autho

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A must ensure that the upstream residential community of approximately twenty homes is informed of the identified flood risk through either direct notification or through formal written reports submitted to regulatory agencies for

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A identified approximately twenty upstream homeowners as an identifiable third-party community facing material risk of accelerated uninhabitability due to the proposed tidal crossing upgrade, creating an obligation to ensure that t

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A's design work involves upgrading a tidal crossing through a tidal saltmarsh, requiring consideration of the hydraulic and ecological impacts of increasing the crossing's hydraulic capacity on the saltmarsh system and upstream hyd

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The tidal crossing upgrade from culvert to bridge in a tidal saltmarsh implicates environmental stewardship obligations, including consideration of hydrological impacts on the saltmarsh ecosystem and upstream watershed from increased hydrau

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A must not acquiesce to Client B's direction to forgo the recommended specialized hydrologic and hydraulic analysis when Engineer A's professional judgment indicates that such analysis is necessary to identify and characterize mate

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: An alternative ethical pathway would permit Engineer A to proceed with the project without the specialized analysis if Engineer A documents in writing the professional judgment that the risk, while present, is insufficiently certain to requ

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The BER notes that the outcome might have been different had Engineer A been comfortable predicting that significant public health, safety, and welfare impacts were unlikely — in which case Engineer A might have ethically proceeded while do

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: In BER Case 07.6, the BER determined that Engineer A was ethically obligated to include information about the threatened bird species in the written report submitted to the public authority — holding that engineers must be objective and tru

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: In BER Case 07.6, the BER determined that Engineer A was ethically obligated to include information about the threatened bird species in the written report submitted to the public authority — holding that engineers must be objective and tru

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A's faithful agent obligation to Client B requires advising Client B in writing that proceeding without the specialized hydraulic analysis creates regulatory, legal, and reputational risks for the developer — including the risk tha

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The BER's structured escalation pathway — engage Client B, propose regulatory report, withdraw — operationalizes the faithful agent principle: Engineer A must serve Client B's legitimate interests diligently while retaining the authority an

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A is obligated to treat future climate and weather conditions as a dynamic moving target in the tidal crossing design, incorporating current scientific understanding of sea level rise and changed precipitation patterns rather than

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to treat future climate and weather conditions as a dynamic moving target rather than fixed historical baselines when assessing the flood risk impacts of the proposed tidal crossing upgrade on upstream properties.

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to withdraw from the tidal crossing project if Client B refused both the opportunity to conduct the recommended specialized hydraulic analysis and the opportunity to document the identified flood risk concern in an

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to withdraw from the tidal crossing project if Client B refused both the opportunity to conduct the recommended specialized analysis and the opportunity to submit an engineering report documenting the concern to reg

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A is obligated to withdraw from the tidal crossing project if Client B refuses both the specialized hydrologic and hydraulic analysis and the proposal to document the flood risk in a written engineering report for regulatory consid

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to disclose to Client B and the applicable regulatory authority that the proposed tidal crossing upgrade would disproportionately impose accelerated flood risk and potential uninhabitability on the approximately twe

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A is obligated to formally advise Client B in writing that, in Engineer A's professional judgment, proceeding without the specialized hydrologic and hydraulic analysis will result in a project that fails to protect the public from

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to document their professional judgment that the tidal crossing upgrade created sufficient potential for upstream flooding to merit detailed specialized evaluation — including the basis for that judgment — both in w

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to maintain sufficient understanding of hydrology, hydraulics, and coastal modeling to recognize that the tidal crossing upgrade raised technical questions about upstream flood impacts that merited detailed speciali

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to apply sufficient cross-disciplinary understanding of hydrology, hydraulics, and coastal modeling to form a reasonable professional judgment that the proposed tidal crossing upgrade created sufficient potential fo

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A is obligated to disclose to Client B and relevant parties the preliminary professional judgment that the tidal crossing upgrade may accelerate upstream home uninhabitability by a decade or more, while clearly qualifying that this

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to disclose to Client B and relevant parties the preliminary professional judgment that the proposed project may accelerate upstream home uninhabitability, while clearly qualifying that this judgment is based on hyd

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to treat future climate and weather conditions as a dynamic moving target rather than fixed historical baselines when assessing the hydraulic and flood impacts of the tidal crossing upgrade.

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A is obligated to ensure that the public regulatory hearing process for the tidal crossing upgrade is not conducted with a foreseeable and preventable climate risk information gap regarding flood impacts on upstream homeowners, eit

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated, when providing engineering input at the public regulatory hearing for the tidal crossing upgrade, to address completely the upstream flood risk to the twenty homes — including the preliminary professional judgment

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated, if Client B remained unconvinced after initial engagement, to propose to Client B that Engineer A document the identified public health, safety, and welfare concern in an engineering report for submission to and co

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated, as an intermediate escalation step after Client B refused to authorize the recommended specialized hydraulic analysis, to propose to Client B that Engineer A document the identified upstream flood risk concern in a

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A is obligated, as a graduated escalation step after Client B's refusal to authorize the specialized analysis, to propose to Client B that Engineer A document the identified upstream flood risk in a written engineering report for s

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A is obligated to formally recommend in writing to Client B the engagement of a specialized hydrologic and hydraulic subconsultant to conduct the complex analysis needed to predict flood damage to upstream homes, and to document th

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to formally recommend to Client B the engagement of a specialized subconsultant to perform the complex hydrologic and hydraulic analysis needed to quantify the upstream flood risk from sea level rise and increased t

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to notify the approximately twenty upstream homeowners — and/or the applicable regulatory authority — that the proposed tidal crossing upgrade may result in their homes becoming uninhabitable a decade or more earlie

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A is obligated to notify the twenty upstream homeowners in writing of the identified risk that the tidal crossing upgrade may accelerate their homes' uninhabitability by a decade or more, based on Engineer A's preliminary professio

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A is obligated to assess and disclose the potential upstream flood impacts of the culvert-to-bridge upgrade — which materially increases the tidal crossing's hydraulic capacity — on the twenty upstream homes, including the risk of

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to pursue a graduated escalation sequence with Client B: first engaging Client B in discussions about the need for detailed evaluation and disclosure of potential impacts and alternatives; then proposing submission

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A is obligated to assess and disclose the hydraulic and ecological impacts of the culvert-to-bridge upgrade on the tidal saltmarsh environment, including the effects of increased hydraulic capacity on tidal flow patterns, saltwater

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to refuse to simply acquiesce to Client B's directive to forgo the specialized hydraulic analysis without formally objecting in writing, documenting the professional recommendation, and evaluating whether the public

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A is obligated to refuse to subordinate the professionally recommended specialized hydrologic and hydraulic analysis to Client B's cost-reduction directive, and to document in writing both Client B's directive and Engineer A's prof

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to document in writing Client B's directive to forgo the recommended specialized hydraulic analysis, including Engineer A's professional recommendation, Client B's override decision, and the conditions under which C

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A is obligated to evaluate whether the preliminary finding of material flood risk to twenty upstream homes is sufficiently serious to require proactive disclosure to the applicable regulatory authority independent of Client B's aut

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to evaluate whether the preliminary professional judgment that the tidal crossing upgrade may accelerate upstream home uninhabitability is sufficiently serious to require proactive disclosure to the applicable regul

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A is obligated to disclose to Client B and to applicable regulatory authorities that compliance with the 25-year storm standard based on historical data is insufficient to protect public health, safety, and welfare given current cl

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to hold paramount the protection of public health, safety, and welfare — including the welfare of the approximately twenty upstream homeowners facing accelerated flood risk — regardless of whether applicable law or

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to advise Client B in writing that proceeding without the specialized hydraulic analysis creates a foreseeable risk that the project will not be successful — specifically that the tidal crossing upgrade may accelera

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to apply climate-informed hydraulic evaluation procedures — including those presented at the recent transportation agency conference — to assess the climate-adjusted flood risk of the proposed tidal crossing upgrade

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to pursue a graduated sequence of escalation steps with Client B — first engaging in substantive discussion about the need for specialized hydraulic analysis and public disclosure, then proposing to document the con

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Had Engineer A been reasonably confident that significant public health, safety, and welfare impacts were unlikely, Engineer A would have been obligated to document that judgment in writing and note in public statements that more detailed a

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A is obligated to treat future climate and weather conditions as a dynamic moving target in the tidal crossing design, incorporating current scientific understanding of sea level rise and changed precipitation patterns rather than

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to pursue a graduated escalation sequence with Client B: first engaging Client B in discussions about the need for detailed evaluation and disclosure of potential impacts and alternatives; then proposing submission

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated, if Client B remained unconvinced after initial engagement, to propose to Client B that Engineer A document the identified public health, safety, and welfare concern in an engineering report for submission to and co

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: The BER holds that Engineer A must not acquiesce to Client B's direction to forgo specialized hydrologic and hydraulic analysis; Engineer A must engage Client B in discussions about the need for detailed evaluation, propose regulatory repor

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to hold paramount the protection of public health, safety, and welfare — including the welfare of the approximately twenty upstream homeowners facing accelerated flood risk — regardless of whether applicable law or

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A has identified through professional assessment that the tidal crossing upgrade will materially accelerate uninhabitability of twenty upstream homes; the principle requires Engineer A to ensure those homeowners or regulatory autho

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: The BER holds that if Client B remains unconvinced after Engineer A's advocacy, Engineer A must propose submission of an engineering report to regulatory agencies for public consideration — and if Client B refuses even that intermediate esc

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A in BER Case 07.6 was obligated to include information about the threat to the bird species in the written report submitted to the public authority, and to advise the client of its inclusion, notwithstanding that the information w

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to include information about the threat to the bird species in the written report submitted to the public authority considering the developer's proposal, and to advise the client of its inclusion, notwithstanding th

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A is obligated to communicate to Client B not only the public welfare rationale for the specialized hydrologic and hydraulic analysis but also the specific professional, legal, and reputational risks to Client B of declining to aut

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to withdraw from the residential development project after the owner refused to agree to design the project for the then-projected 100-year storm surge elevation, following Engineer A's continued attempts to convinc

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A in BER Case 18-9 was obligated to continue attempting to convince the owner of the potential for damage from storm surge, and, failing agreement on the proposed design standard, to withdraw from the project.

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to communicate to Client B not only the public welfare rationale for the recommended specialized hydraulic analysis but also the specific professional, legal, and reputational risks to Client B of declining to autho

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to disclose to Client B that the locally required 25-year fresh-water storm design standard does not account for climate change effects — including sea level rise and changed precipitation intensities — and that reg

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A is obligated to disclose to Client B and to applicable regulatory authorities that the local 25-year storm standard and the assumption of historically consistent future weather conditions are outdated relative to current climate

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A identified a genuine conflict between two legitimate public goods — the public benefit of a new healthcare facility requiring the tidal crossing upgrade, and the public welfare of twenty upstream homeowners facing accelerated uni

sea level rise and increased hydraulic capacity effects during future high tides and storm surges
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: during
evidence: predict the extent to which sea level rise and the increased hydraulic capacity of the tidal crossing will result in flood damage to a neighborhood of twenty upstream homes during future high tides and storm surges
from entity text: sea level rise and increased hydraulic capacity effects
owl time property: time:intervalDuring
to entity text: future high tides and storm surges
comment: Entity1 occurs entirely within the duration of Entity2
interval during: future high tides and storm surges
generated at time: 2026-02-28T10:32:26.876043
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

transportation agency conference presentation before Engineer A's hydraulic evaluation judgment on the project
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: based on hydraulic evaluation procedures presented at a recent transportation agency conference, that the proposed project may result in some upstream homes becoming uninhabitable
from entity text: transportation agency conference presentation
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: Engineer A's hydraulic evaluation judgment on the project
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: Engineer A s hydraulic evaluation judgment on the
generated at time: 2026-02-28T10:32:26.875788
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

transportation agency conference presentation of hydraulic evaluation procedures before Engineer A's judgment about upstream flooding risk
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:31:11.076497
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

BER Case 18-9
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:52:37.590571
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Client B Cost-Directing Developer
type: DeveloperClient
type: NamedIndividual
adheres to principle: Client Loyalty Invoked By Client B Cost Management Directive
attributes: {'project_type': 'Healthcare facility development', 'decision': 'Directed engineer to proceed without costly specialized analysis', 'condition_for_analysis': 'Only if requested by applicable regulatory authorities'}
caseinvolvement: Private developer proposing a healthcare facility requiring tidal crossing infrastructure upgrade; directed Engineer A to forgo recommended specialized hydrologic and hydraulic analysis on cost grounds unless required by regulatory authorities.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T00:08:44.407742+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T00:08:44.407742+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'affected_by_obligations_of', 'target': 'Upstream Residential Flood Risk Community'}
relationships: {'type': 'retains', 'target': 'Engineer A Tidal Crossing Infrastructure Design Engineer'}
rolecategory: provider_client
roleclass: Developer Client
sourcetext: Client B, a developer who is proposing to develop a health care facility that requires a significant upgrade to the property's access road that crosses a tidal saltmarsh
textreferences: Client B directs Engineer A to proceed without the costly analysis unless and until such an analysis is requested by the applicable regulatory authorities
textreferences: Client B, a developer who is proposing to develop a health care facility that requires a significant upgrade to the property's access road that crosses a tidal saltmarsh
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:31:11.055252
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Client B Development Project Client Refusing Safety Evaluation
type: DevelopmentProjectClientRefusingSafetyEvaluation
type: NamedIndividual
adheres to principle: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits Tested by Client B's Directive
attributes: {'entity_type': 'Private development client', 'decision_authority': 'Project scope and evaluation authorization', 'ethical_position': 'Refuses to authorize detailed safety evaluation or disclosure'}
caseinvolvement: Client B is the development client who commissioned Engineer A's services and who, upon being advised of potential flooding impacts requiring detailed climate-change-informed evaluation, remains unconvinced of the need for such evaluation or disclosure, triggering Engineer A's escalating obligations including potential withdrawal.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T06:42:51.640746+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T06:42:51.640746+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'refuses_recommendation_of', 'target': 'Engineer A Climate Change Impact Evaluating Infrastructure Engineer'}
relationships: {'type': 'retains', 'target': 'Engineer A Climate Change Impact Evaluating Infrastructure Engineer'}
rolecategory: provider_client
roleclass: Development Project Client Refusing Safety Evaluation
sourcetext: Engineer A should engage Client B in discussions about the need for the detailed evaluation and disclosure of the potential impacts on the public
textreferences: Engineer A should engage Client B in discussions about the need for the detailed evaluation and disclosure of the potential impacts on the public
textreferences: Failing agreement by Client B to either of these courses of action the BER believes that Engineer A should withdraw
textreferences: If Client B remains unconvinced, Engineer A should propose to Client B that engineer A provides the potential concern in an engineering report
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T10:32:26.877758
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Client B Refusal of Climate Evaluation and Disclosure
type: Client-DirectedDeferralofThird-PartyRiskAnalysisState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Client B's refusal of Engineer A's proposed evaluation and disclosure, through either Client B's reversal or Engineer A's withdrawal
affectedparties: Client B
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Regulatory agencies
affectedparties: Third-party residential property owners
concept category: State
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T00:10:17.210310+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T00:10:17.210310+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer A should engage Client B in discussions about the need for the detailed evaluation and disclosure of the potential impacts on the public and alternatives for the project to mitigate those impacts, and the potential risk to Client B of not evaluating the potential impacts
stateclass: Client-Directed Deferral of Third-Party Risk Analysis State
subject: Client B's refusal to authorize detailed climate impact evaluation or disclosure of potential flooding impacts to regulatory agencies and the public
terminatedby: Either Client B's agreement to evaluation or disclosure, or Engineer A's withdrawal from the project
textreferences: Engineer A should engage Client B in discussions about the need for the detailed evaluation and disclosure of the potential impacts on the public and alternatives for the project to mitigate those impacts, and the potential risk to Client B of not evaluating the potential impacts
textreferences: Failing agreement by Client B to either of these courses of action the BER believes that Engineer A should withdraw from the project
textreferences: If Client B remains unconvinced, Engineer A should propose to Client B that engineer a provides the potential concern that may necessitate more detailed evaluation in an engineering report for consideration by regulatory agencies and the public
triggeringevent: Client B's explicit refusal to agree to detailed evaluation of future climate conditions or disclosure of potential flooding impacts
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:31:11.060919
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Client Refusal of Safety Evaluation — Client B Coastal Project
type: ClientAuthorityOverrideofSafetyRecommendationState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: Activated when Client B refuses Engineer A's recommendation for detailed evaluation; persists unless Client B agrees or Engineer A withdraws
affectedparties: Adjacent property owners
affectedparties: Client B
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Future residents
affectedparties: Public
affectedparties: Regulatory agencies
concept category: State
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T06:42:52.571341+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T06:42:52.571341+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: If Client B remains unconvinced, Engineer A should propose to Client B that engineer A provides the potential concern that may necessitate more detailed evaluation in an engineering report for consideration by regulatory agencies and the public
stateclass: Client Authority Override of Safety Recommendation State
subject: Client B's refusal to authorize or agree to the detailed climate and hydraulic evaluation recommended by Engineer A
terminatedby: Client B agreeing to evaluation and disclosure, or Engineer A withdrawing from the project
textreferences: Failing agreement by Client B to either of these courses of action the BER believes that Engineer A should withdraw from the project
textreferences: If Client B remains unconvinced, Engineer A should propose to Client B that engineer A provides the potential concern that may necessitate more detailed evaluation in an engineering report for consideration by regulatory agencies and the public
textreferences: In BER Case 18-9, the Owner refused to agree that such protection was required or appropriate
triggeringevent: Client B's refusal to accept that detailed climate evaluation and disclosure of potential impacts is required or appropriate
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T10:32:26.872552
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Climate-Informed Design Obligation Activation — Engineer A Coastal Project
type: Climate-InformedDesignObligationActivationState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: Activated once Engineer A forms the judgment that significant flooding risk to other properties is reasonably likely; persists until client agrees to evaluation/disclosure or Engineer A withdraws
affectedparties: Adjacent property owners
affectedparties: Client B
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Future residents
affectedparties: Public
affectedparties: Regulatory agencies
concept category: State
confidence: 0.97
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T06:42:52.571341+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T06:42:52.571341+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer A has an obligation to consider climate and weather changes in the future with respect to potential impacts on public health, safety, and welfare, where such impacts are reasonably likely and significant
stateclass: Climate-Informed Design Obligation Activation State
subject: Engineer A's professional judgment regarding the need for detailed future-condition climate and hydraulic evaluation
terminatedby: Client B agreeing to detailed evaluation and disclosure, or Engineer A's withdrawal from the project
textreferences: Engineer A has an obligation to consider climate and weather changes in the future with respect to potential impacts on public health, safety, and welfare, where such impacts are reasonably likely and significant
textreferences: Engineer A needs to have sufficient understanding of hydrology, hydraulics, and coastal modeling to form a reasonable judgment that there is sufficient potential for flooding of other properties to merit a detailed, complex evaluation of future conditions
textreferences: Engineer A should engage Client B in discussions about the need for the detailed evaluation and disclosure of the potential impacts on the public
triggeringevent: Engineer A's professional assessment that the project poses sufficient potential for flooding of other properties to merit detailed, complex evaluation of future conditions
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T10:32:26.877023
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Climate-Informed Design Obligation Activation — Tidal Crossing Upgrade
type: Climate-InformedDesignObligationActivationState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Engineer A's formation of professional judgment through resolution (analysis conducted, client informed, or Engineer A withdraws)
affectedparties: Client B
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Regulatory authorities
affectedparties: Upstream homeowners
concept category: State
confidence: 0.96
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T06:39:47.280651+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T06:39:47.280651+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: It is Engineer A's judgment, based on hydraulic evaluation procedures presented at a recent transportation agency conference, that the proposed project may result in some upstream homes becoming uninhabitable a decade or more earlier than would otherwise be the case.
stateclass: Climate-Informed Design Obligation Activation State
subject: Engineer A's professional judgment regarding the inadequacy of regulatory requirements for the tidal crossing project
terminatedby: Client B authorizing the specialized analysis, Engineer A disclosing risks to regulatory authorities, or Engineer A withdrawing from the project
textreferences: Engineer A proposes a complex and costly hydrologic and hydraulic analysis by a specialized subconsultant to predict the extent to which sea level rise and the increased hydraulic capacity of the tidal crossing will result in flood damage to a neighborhood of twenty upstream homes during future high tides and storm surges, anticipating this to be a difficult question to answer in the project's public hearings.
textreferences: It is Engineer A's judgment, based on hydraulic evaluation procedures presented at a recent transportation agency conference, that the proposed project may result in some upstream homes becoming uninhabitable a decade or more earlier than would otherwise be the case.
triggeringevent: Engineer A's determination, based on conference-presented hydraulic evaluation procedures, that regulatory compliance alone is insufficient to protect upstream homeowners under projected climate conditions
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T10:32:26.860692
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Competing Duties - Faithful Agent vs. Public Safety
type: CompetingDutiesState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Client B's direction to proceed without analysis through resolution of the conflict
affectedparties: Client B
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Twenty upstream homeowners
concept category: State
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T00:09:07.016855+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T00:09:07.016855+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Client B directs Engineer A to proceed without the costly analysis unless and until such an analysis is requested by the applicable regulatory authorities.
stateclass: Competing Duties State
subject: Engineer A's simultaneous obligations as faithful agent to Client B and as licensed professional to protect public safety of upstream homeowners
terminatedby: Client B authorizing the analysis, Engineer A disassociating, regulatory authority requiring the analysis, or project abandonment
textreferences: Client B directs Engineer A to proceed without the costly analysis unless and until such an analysis is requested by the applicable regulatory authorities.
textreferences: It is Engineer A's judgment, based on hydraulic evaluation procedures presented at a recent transportation agency conference, that the proposed project may result in some upstream homes becoming uninhabitable a decade or more earlier than would otherwise be the case.
triggeringevent: Client B's explicit direction to proceed without the recommended third-party risk analysis, placing Engineer A's faithful agent duty in direct tension with public safety obligations
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:31:11.058026
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Engineer A Climate Impact Judgment Activation
type: Climate-InformedDesignObligationActivationState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From the point at which Engineer A formed a professional judgment that significant flooding impacts on third-party properties were reasonably likely, through the client engagement and disclosure discussions
affectedparties: Client B
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: General public
affectedparties: Regulatory agencies
affectedparties: Third-party residential property owners
concept category: State
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T00:10:17.210310+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T00:10:17.210310+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer A does have an ethical obligation to address the impacts of the project on public health, safety, and welfare regardless of whether or not that is required by applicable law
stateclass: Climate-Informed Design Obligation Activation State
subject: Engineer A's professional engagement on the coastal/tidal crossing project with Client B
terminatedby: Either Client B's agreement to commission detailed evaluation and disclosure, or Engineer A's withdrawal from the project
textreferences: Engineer A does have an ethical obligation to address the impacts of the project on public health, safety, and welfare regardless of whether or not that is required by applicable law
textreferences: Engineer A has an obligation to consider climate and weather changes in the future with respect to potential impacts on public health, safety, and welfare, where such impacts are reasonably likely and significant
textreferences: Engineer A needs to have sufficient understanding of hydrology, hydraulics, and coastal modeling to form a reasonable judgment that there is sufficient potential for flooding of other properties to merit a detailed, complex evaluation of future conditions
textreferences: Engineer A should engage Client B in discussions about the need for the detailed evaluation and disclosure of the potential impacts on the public and alternatives for the project to mitigate those impacts
triggeringevent: Engineer A's professional assessment that the project's hydraulic capacity increase creates sufficient potential for flooding of other properties to merit detailed, complex evaluation of future climate conditions
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:31:11.060448
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Engineer A Regulatory Standard Climate Gap
type: RegulatoryStandardClimateGapState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: Throughout Engineer A's engagement on the project
affectedparties: Client B
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Regulatory agencies
affectedparties: Third-party property owners
concept category: State
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T00:10:17.210310+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T00:10:17.210310+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer A does have an ethical obligation to address the impacts of the project on public health, safety, and welfare regardless of whether or not that is required by applicable law
stateclass: Regulatory Standard Climate Gap State
subject: Engineer A's project context in which applicable local regulations have not been updated to reflect current climate science regarding sea level rise, altered precipitation, and storm recurrence
terminatedby: Not terminated within the case — persists as the regulatory context constraining Engineer A's options
textreferences: Considering the effects of climate change in engineering planning and design adds substantial complexity to engineering decision-making as engineers consider 'going beyond' existing requirements to provide long-term protection of public health, safety, and welfare
textreferences: Engineer A does have an ethical obligation to address the impacts of the project on public health, safety, and welfare regardless of whether or not that is required by applicable law
textreferences: That obligation is not bounded by what is required by law, or by regulations, but rather is stated broadly
triggeringevent: Engineer A's recognition that applicable law does not require the climate-forward analysis that professional judgment indicates is necessary to protect public health, safety, and welfare
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:31:11.060764
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Engineer A Tidal Saltmarsh Environmental Impact Assessment Obligation
type: TidalSaltmarshEnvironmentalImpactAssessmentObligation
type: NamedIndividual
defeasible under: Environmental Hazard - Tidal Saltmarsh Crossing
casecontext: Engineer A's scope includes design and local permitting of a roadway upgrade including a tidal crossing through a tidal saltmarsh, requiring consideration of hydraulic and ecological impacts.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.78
derived from principle: Environmental Stewardship Invoked By Engineer A Tidal Saltmarsh
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T00:15:23.499283+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T00:15:23.499283+00:00
importance: medium
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Tidal Saltmarsh Environmental Impact Assessment Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to assess and disclose the hydraulic and ecological impacts of the proposed tidal crossing upgrade — including the replacement of a small culvert with a small bridge increasing hydraulic capacity — on the tidal saltmarsh ecosystem, including effects on tidal flow patterns, saltwater intrusion, and marsh integrity.
sourcetext: Engineer A is a consulting engineer representing Client B, a developer who is proposing to develop a health care facility that requires a significant upgrade to the property's access road that crosses a tidal saltmarsh.
temporalscope: During design and permitting phases of the tidal crossing upgrade
textreferences: Engineer A is a consulting engineer representing Client B, a developer who is proposing to develop a health care facility that requires a significant upgrade to the property's access road that crosses a tidal saltmarsh.
textreferences: Engineer A's scope includes design and local permitting of the roadway, including an upgrade of the tidal crossing from a small culvert to a small bridge, increasing its hydraulic capacity.
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:31:11.064692
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Ethics Code as Higher Standard Than Legal Minimum Invoked by BER Discussion Section
type: EthicsCodeasHigherStandardThanLegalMinimum
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Obligation to address climate change impacts on tidal crossing flooding risk
appliedto: Relationship between legal compliance and ethical obligation
balancingwith: Client Loyalty
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The BER explicitly holds that Engineer A's ethical obligation to address climate change impacts on public health, safety, and welfare exists 'regardless of whether or not that is required by applicable law' — affirming that the professional ethics code imposes obligations that exceed legal and regulatory minimums.
confidence: 0.94
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T14:20:08.457238+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T14:20:08.457238+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: In this context, the higher standard principle establishes that legal compliance with applicable permitting requirements does not exhaust Engineer A's ethical obligations; the ethics code independently requires Engineer A to address reasonably likely and significant public health, safety, and welfare impacts.
invokedby: Engineer A Climate Change Impact Evaluating Infrastructure Engineer
principleclass: Ethics Code as Higher Standard Than Legal Minimum
sourcetext: Engineer A does have an ethical obligation to address the impacts of the project on public health, safety, and welfare regardless of whether or not that is required by applicable law.
tensionresolution: Ethics code higher standard principle overrides client reliance on legal compliance as a defense; Engineer A must meet the ethics code standard even when law does not require the same conduct.
textreferences: Engineer A does have an ethical obligation to address the impacts of the project on public health, safety, and welfare regardless of whether or not that is required by applicable law.
textreferences: That obligation is not bounded by what is required by law, or by regulations, but rather is stated broadly.
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T10:32:26.863708
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Foreseeable Third-Party Flooding Harm from Hydraulic Capacity Increase
type: ForeseeableThird-PartyHarmfromHydraulicCapacityIncreaseState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Engineer A's professional assessment of the flooding risk through resolution of the project
affectedparties: Client B
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Regulatory agencies
affectedparties: Third-party residential property owners
concept category: State
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T00:10:17.210310+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T00:10:17.210310+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer A needs to have sufficient understanding of hydrology, hydraulics, and coastal modeling to form a reasonable judgment that there is sufficient potential for flooding of other properties to merit a detailed, complex evaluation of future conditions
stateclass: Foreseeable Third-Party Harm from Hydraulic Capacity Increase State
subject: The foreseeable risk of flooding damage to upstream or downstream third-party residential properties resulting from the proposed hydraulic capacity increase at the tidal crossing
terminatedby: Completion of detailed climate impact evaluation confirming or refuting the risk, or Engineer A's withdrawal from the project
textreferences: Engineer A needs to have sufficient understanding of hydrology, hydraulics, and coastal modeling to form a reasonable judgment that there is sufficient potential for flooding of other properties to merit a detailed, complex evaluation of future conditions
textreferences: Engineer A should engage Client B in discussions about the need for the detailed evaluation and disclosure of the potential impacts on the public and alternatives for the project to mitigate those impacts
triggeringevent: Engineer A's professional evaluation identifying sufficient potential for flooding of other properties to merit detailed, complex evaluation of future conditions under projected climate change
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:31:11.061248
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Foreseeable Third-Party Flooding Harm — Engineer A Coastal Project
type: ForeseeableThird-PartyHarmfromHydraulicCapacityIncreaseState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: Active from Engineer A's identification of the potential flooding risk; persists until detailed evaluation is conducted or project is redesigned/withdrawn
affectedparties: Adjacent property owners
affectedparties: Client B
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Future residents
affectedparties: Public
concept category: State
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T06:42:52.571341+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T06:42:52.571341+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: sufficient potential for flooding of other properties to merit a detailed, complex evaluation of future conditions
stateclass: Foreseeable Third-Party Harm from Hydraulic Capacity Increase State
subject: The foreseeable flooding risk to neighboring/third-party properties arising from Engineer A's coastal/hydraulic project design
terminatedby: Completion of detailed hydraulic/coastal modeling evaluation confirming or refuting the risk, or project withdrawal
textreferences: Engineer A should engage Client B in discussions about the need for the detailed evaluation and disclosure of the potential impacts on the public and alternatives for the project to mitigate those impacts
textreferences: sufficient potential for flooding of other properties to merit a detailed, complex evaluation of future conditions
triggeringevent: Engineer A's professional judgment that the project design creates sufficient potential for flooding of other properties under future climate conditions
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T10:32:26.877217
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Foreseeable Third-Party Harm from Hydraulic Capacity Increase — Upstream Neighborhood
type: ForeseeableThird-PartyHarmfromHydraulicCapacityIncreaseState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Engineer A's hydraulic evaluation through project completion and beyond; harm projected to materialize a decade or more in the future
affectedparties: Client B
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Regulatory authorities
affectedparties: Twenty upstream homeowners
concept category: State
confidence: 0.98
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T06:39:47.280651+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T06:39:47.280651+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: It is Engineer A's judgment, based on hydraulic evaluation procedures presented at a recent transportation agency conference, that the proposed project may result in some upstream homes becoming uninhabitable a decade or more earlier than would otherwise be the case.
stateclass: Foreseeable Third-Party Harm from Hydraulic Capacity Increase State
subject: Proposed upgrade of tidal crossing from culvert to bridge, increasing hydraulic capacity and its projected effect on twenty upstream homes
terminatedby: Completion of specialized hydrologic/hydraulic analysis, implementation of protective design measures, or project abandonment
textreferences: Engineer A proposes a complex and costly hydrologic and hydraulic analysis by a specialized subconsultant to predict the extent to which sea level rise and the increased hydraulic capacity of the tidal crossing will result in flood damage to a neighborhood of twenty upstream homes during future high tides and storm surges
textreferences: It is Engineer A's judgment, based on hydraulic evaluation procedures presented at a recent transportation agency conference, that the proposed project may result in some upstream homes becoming uninhabitable a decade or more earlier than would otherwise be the case.
triggeringevent: Engineer A's professional judgment that increasing the hydraulic capacity of the tidal crossing will accelerate flood damage to upstream homes under future sea level rise and storm surge conditions
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T10:32:26.874981
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Foreseeable Upstream Flood Harm - Tidal Crossing Upgrade
type: ForeseeableThird-PartyHarmfromHydraulicCapacityIncreaseState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Engineer A's hydraulic evaluation through confirmation or refutation by specialized analysis, design modification, or project abandonment
affectedparties: Client B
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Regulatory authorities
affectedparties: Twenty upstream homeowners
concept category: State
confidence: 0.89
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T00:09:07.016855+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T00:09:07.016855+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: It is Engineer A's judgment, based on hydraulic evaluation procedures presented at a recent transportation agency conference, that the proposed project may result in some upstream homes becoming uninhabitable a decade or more earlier than would otherwise be the case.
stateclass: Foreseeable Third-Party Harm from Hydraulic Capacity Increase State
subject: Engineer A's professional judgment that the tidal crossing upgrade will accelerate uninhabitability of upstream homes
terminatedby: Specialized hydrologic and hydraulic analysis confirming or refuting the risk, design modification eliminating the risk, or project abandonment
textreferences: Engineer A proposes a complex and costly hydrologic and hydraulic analysis by a specialized subconsultant to predict the extent to which sea level rise and the increased hydraulic capacity of the tidal crossing will result in flood damage to a neighborhood of twenty upstream homes during future high tides and storm surges, anticipating this to be a difficult question to answer in the project's public hearings.
textreferences: It is Engineer A's judgment, based on hydraulic evaluation procedures presented at a recent transportation agency conference, that the proposed project may result in some upstream homes becoming uninhabitable a decade or more earlier than would otherwise be the case.
triggeringevent: Engineer A's hydraulic evaluation, based on procedures from a recent transportation agency conference, concluding that the proposed project may result in upstream homes becoming uninhabitable a decade or more earlier than would otherwise be the case
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:31:11.057423
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Moving Target Climate Baseline — Tidal Crossing Hydraulic Design
type: MovingTargetClimateBaselineState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: Ongoing; climate parameters are actively shifting during the project design phase
affectedparties: Client B
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Regulatory authorities
affectedparties: Upstream homeowners
concept category: State
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T06:39:47.280651+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T06:39:47.280651+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: The local development regulations and national design codes and standards have not yet been updated to reflect changing conditions and weather patterns, including effects of sea level rise and changes in precipitation intensities and recurrence intervals effected by on-going climate change.
stateclass: Moving Target Climate Baseline State
subject: Hydrologic and hydraulic design parameters for the tidal crossing upgrade
terminatedby: Stabilization of climate baselines or adoption of updated design standards (not yet occurred)
textreferences: It is Engineer A's judgment, based on hydraulic evaluation procedures presented at a recent transportation agency conference, that the proposed project may result in some upstream homes becoming uninhabitable a decade or more earlier than would otherwise be the case.
textreferences: The local development regulations and national design codes and standards have not yet been updated to reflect changing conditions and weather patterns, including effects of sea level rise and changes in precipitation intensities and recurrence intervals effected by on-going climate change.
triggeringevent: Engineer A's professional judgment, informed by hydraulic evaluation procedures from a recent transportation agency conference, that historical data no longer reliably predicts future conditions
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T10:32:26.874818
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Professional Disassociation Decision — Engineer A Withdrawal Threshold
type: ProfessionalDisassociationDecisionState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: Activated when Client B refuses both proposed courses of action (evaluation and engineering report for regulatory/public consideration); persists until resolution
affectedparties: Client B
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Public
affectedparties: Regulatory agencies
concept category: State
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T06:42:52.571341+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T06:42:52.571341+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Failing agreement by Client B to either of these courses of action the BER believes that Engineer A should withdraw from the project
stateclass: Professional Disassociation Decision State
subject: Engineer A's obligation to consider withdrawal from the project if Client B refuses both detailed evaluation and disclosure
terminatedby: Client B agreeing to one of the proposed courses of action, or Engineer A formally withdrawing from the project
textreferences: Failing agreement by Client B to either of these courses of action the BER believes that Engineer A should withdraw from the project
textreferences: In BER Case 18-9, Engineer A should withdraw from the project
triggeringevent: Client B's failure to agree to either detailed evaluation or submission of an engineering report disclosing potential concerns to regulatory agencies and the public
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T10:32:26.872936
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Public Safety Paramount Obligation Beyond Legal Requirements
type: PublicSafetyatRisk
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: Throughout Engineer A's engagement on the project and beyond, until the risk is evaluated and mitigated or the project is abandoned
affectedparties: Client B
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Future residents of the development
affectedparties: General public
affectedparties: Third-party property owners
concept category: State
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T00:10:17.210310+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T00:10:17.210310+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Professional engineers have a primary ethical obligation to hold paramount the protection of public health, safety, and welfare
stateclass: Public Safety at Risk
subject: The public health, safety, and welfare risk created by the project's potential to cause flooding of third-party properties under future climate conditions, in a context where applicable law does not require the protective analysis Engineer A has identified as necessary
terminatedby: Completion of adequate climate impact evaluation and implementation of appropriate mitigation measures, or project abandonment
textreferences: Engineer A does have an ethical obligation to address the impacts of the project on public health, safety, and welfare regardless of whether or not that is required by applicable law
textreferences: Engineer A has an obligation to consider climate and weather changes in the future with respect to potential impacts on public health, safety, and welfare, where such impacts are reasonably likely and significant
textreferences: Professional engineers have a primary ethical obligation to hold paramount the protection of public health, safety, and welfare
textreferences: That obligation is not bounded by what is required by law, or by regulations, but rather is stated broadly
triggeringevent: Engineer A's professional judgment that the project creates reasonably likely and significant impacts on public health, safety, and welfare under projected future climate conditions
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:31:11.061410
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Public Safety at Risk - Upstream Residential Flood Hazard
type: PublicSafetyatRisk
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Engineer A's identification of the risk through project completion or adequate mitigation
affectedparties: Client B
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Public
affectedparties: Regulatory authorities
affectedparties: Twenty upstream homeowners
concept category: State
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T00:09:07.016855+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T00:09:07.016855+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: It is Engineer A's judgment, based on hydraulic evaluation procedures presented at a recent transportation agency conference, that the proposed project may result in some upstream homes becoming uninhabitable a decade or more earlier than would otherwise be the case.
stateclass: Public Safety at Risk
subject: Foreseeable flood damage to twenty upstream homes resulting from the tidal crossing upgrade under projected climate conditions
terminatedby: Design modification eliminating the risk, specialized analysis confirming no significant risk, regulatory mitigation requirements, or project abandonment
textreferences: Engineer A proposes a complex and costly hydrologic and hydraulic analysis by a specialized subconsultant to predict the extent to which sea level rise and the increased hydraulic capacity of the tidal crossing will result in flood damage to a neighborhood of twenty upstream homes during future high tides and storm surges
textreferences: It is Engineer A's judgment, based on hydraulic evaluation procedures presented at a recent transportation agency conference, that the proposed project may result in some upstream homes becoming uninhabitable a decade or more earlier than would otherwise be the case.
triggeringevent: Engineer A's professional judgment that the hydraulic capacity increase will accelerate uninhabitability of upstream homes under sea level rise and intensified storm conditions
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:31:11.057878
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Public Safety at Risk — Upstream Residential Flood Exposure
type: PublicSafetyatRisk
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Engineer A's identification of the risk through project completion and into the future operational life of the crossing
affectedparties: Client B
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Regulatory authorities
affectedparties: Twenty upstream homeowners
concept category: State
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T06:39:47.280651+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T06:39:47.280651+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: It is Engineer A's judgment, based on hydraulic evaluation procedures presented at a recent transportation agency conference, that the proposed project may result in some upstream homes becoming uninhabitable a decade or more earlier than would otherwise be the case.
stateclass: Public Safety at Risk
subject: Twenty upstream homeowners facing accelerated flood damage and potential uninhabitability due to the proposed tidal crossing upgrade
terminatedby: Protective design measures implemented, analysis confirming no material harm, or project abandoned
textreferences: Engineer A proposes a complex and costly hydrologic and hydraulic analysis by a specialized subconsultant to predict the extent to which sea level rise and the increased hydraulic capacity of the tidal crossing will result in flood damage to a neighborhood of twenty upstream homes during future high tides and storm surges
textreferences: It is Engineer A's judgment, based on hydraulic evaluation procedures presented at a recent transportation agency conference, that the proposed project may result in some upstream homes becoming uninhabitable a decade or more earlier than would otherwise be the case.
triggeringevent: Engineer A's professional judgment that the hydraulic capacity increase will render upstream homes uninhabitable a decade or more earlier than otherwise
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T10:32:26.861037
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Regulatory Gap Awareness and Proactive Risk Disclosure Invoked by Engineer A
type: RegulatoryGapAwarenessandProactiveRiskDisclosure
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Local development regulations (25-year storm standard)
appliedto: Regulatory permitting process
balancingwith: Client cost directives
balancingwith: Standard of Care as Ethical Floor
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A identifies that the local 25-year storm standard and the assumption of historically consistent future weather are regulatory standards that have not been updated to reflect sea level rise and updated precipitation recurrence intervals; the principle requires Engineer A to proactively disclose this gap to Client B and regulators rather than treating regulatory compliance as adequate public protection.
confidence: 0.96
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T14:10:34.833493+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T14:10:34.833493+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: In this context, the principle requires Engineer A to explicitly advise Client B and permitting authorities that the regulatory standard is outdated and that compliance with it does not adequately protect the upstream community from climate-driven flood risk.
invokedby: Engineer A Climate Change Impact Evaluating Infrastructure Engineer
principleclass: Regulatory Gap Awareness and Proactive Risk Disclosure
sourcetext: The local development regulations and national design codes and standards have not yet been updated to reflect changing conditions and weather patterns, including effects of sea level rise and changes in precipitation intensities and recurrence intervals effected by on-going climate change.
tensionresolution: The principle establishes that regulatory compliance is not equivalent to adequate public protection when the engineer possesses superior knowledge of the gap between regulatory standards and current climate science.
textreferences: Local development regulations require designing for a 25-year fresh-water storm, and assume that future weather conditions will be consistent with updated historical data.
textreferences: The local development regulations and national design codes and standards have not yet been updated to reflect changing conditions and weather patterns, including effects of sea level rise and changes in precipitation intensities and recurrence intervals effected by on-going climate change.
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T10:32:26.854211
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Regulatory Standard Climate Gap — Engineer A Project
type: RegulatoryStandardClimateGapState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: Active throughout Engineer A's engagement; existing regulations have not been updated to reflect projected future climate conditions
affectedparties: Client B
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Future residents
affectedparties: Public
affectedparties: Regulatory agencies
concept category: State
confidence: 0.97
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T06:42:52.571341+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T06:42:52.571341+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: That obligation is not bounded by what is required by law, or by regulations, but rather is stated broadly
stateclass: Regulatory Standard Climate Gap State
subject: Applicable regulations and codes governing Engineer A's coastal/hydraulic project
terminatedby: Would require regulatory update to incorporate future-condition climate standards
textreferences: Engineer A does have an ethical obligation to address the impacts of the project on public health, safety, and welfare regardless of whether or not that is required by applicable law
textreferences: That obligation is not bounded by what is required by law, or by regulations, but rather is stated broadly
textreferences: engineers consider 'going beyond' existing requirements to provide long-term protection of public health, safety, and welfare
triggeringevent: Engineer A's recognition that applicable law and regulations do not require the level of climate-informed analysis that public safety warrants
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T10:32:26.876819
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Regulatory Standard Climate Gap — Tidal Crossing Project
type: RegulatoryStandardClimateGapState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: Present throughout the project; persists until codes are updated to reflect climate change
affectedparties: Client B
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Public
affectedparties: Regulatory authorities
affectedparties: Upstream homeowners
concept category: State
confidence: 0.97
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T06:39:47.280651+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T06:39:47.280651+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Local development regulations require designing for a 25-year fresh-water storm, and assume that future weather conditions will be consistent with updated historical data.
stateclass: Regulatory Standard Climate Gap State
subject: Local development regulations and national design codes applicable to Engineer A's tidal crossing project
terminatedby: Future regulatory update incorporating sea level rise and revised precipitation recurrence intervals (not yet occurred)
textreferences: Local development regulations require designing for a 25-year fresh-water storm, and assume that future weather conditions will be consistent with updated historical data.
textreferences: The local development regulations and national design codes and standards have not yet been updated to reflect changing conditions and weather patterns, including effects of sea level rise and changes in precipitation intensities and recurrence intervals effected by on-going climate change.
triggeringevent: Engineer A's recognition that local regulations require only a 25-year fresh-water storm design and assume historical weather data, while climate science has advanced beyond those assumptions
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T10:32:26.874627
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Resource Constraint - Specialized Subconsultant Analysis
type: ResourceConstrained
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Client B's direction to proceed without analysis until authorization is granted or required
affectedparties: Client B
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Specialized subconsultant
concept category: State
confidence: 0.87
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T00:09:07.016855+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T00:09:07.016855+00:00
importance: medium
sourcetext: Client B directs Engineer A to proceed without the costly analysis unless and until such an analysis is requested by the applicable regulatory authorities.
stateclass: Resource Constrained
subject: Client B's unwillingness to fund the specialized hydrologic and hydraulic analysis recommended by Engineer A
terminatedby: Client B authorizing the analysis, regulatory authority requiring it, or project abandonment
textreferences: Client B directs Engineer A to proceed without the costly analysis unless and until such an analysis is requested by the applicable regulatory authorities.
textreferences: Engineer A proposes a complex and costly hydrologic and hydraulic analysis by a specialized subconsultant
triggeringevent: Client B's direction to proceed without the costly hydrologic and hydraulic analysis by a specialized subconsultant
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:31:11.058382
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

BER Case 07.6 Engineer A Environmental Engineering Consultant
type: EnvironmentalEngineeringConsultant
type: NamedIndividual
adheres to principle: Objectivity Invoked by BER Case 07.6 Precedent
has obligation: Engineer A BER 07.6 Objective Complete Reporting Bird Species Threat
has obligation: Engineer A Objective Truthful Reporting Bird Species BER Case 07.6
attributes: {'license': 'Professional Engineer / Firm Principal', 'specialty': 'Environmental engineering and ecological impact analysis', 'case_reference': 'BER Case 07.6'}
caseinvolvement: In the referenced BER Case 07.6, Engineer A was a principal in an environmental engineering firm retained by a developer to analyze a property adjacent to a wetlands area for residential condominium development. Engineer A was found to have an ethical obligation to include information about a threatened bird species in a written report submitted to a public authority, even though the client had not requested such disclosure.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.85
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T06:42:51.640746+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T06:42:51.640746+00:00
importance: medium
relationships: {'type': 'reports_to', 'target': 'Public Authority (BER 07.6)'}
relationships: {'type': 'serves', 'target': 'Developer Client (BER 07.6)'}
rolecategory: provider_client
roleclass: Environmental Engineering Consultant
sourcetext: Engineer A was a principal in an environmental engineering firm and had been requested by a developer client to prepare an analysis of a piece of property adjacent to a wetlands area
textreferences: Engineer A was a principal in an environmental engineering firm and had been requested by a developer client to prepare an analysis of a piece of property adjacent to a wetlands area
textreferences: it was unethical for Engineer A to not include the information about the threat to the bird species in a written report that would be submitted to a public authority
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T10:32:26.877931
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

BER Case 18-9 Engineer A Climate-Aware Coastal Infrastructure Engineer
type: Climate-AwareCoastalInfrastructureEngineer
type: NamedIndividual
adheres to principle: Climate-Informed Infrastructure Design Standard Invoked by BER Case 18-9 Precedent
has obligation: Engineer A BER 18-9 Graduated Escalation Coastal Development Withdrawal
has obligation: Engineer A Withdrawal After Owner Refusal BER Case 18-9
attributes: {'license': 'Professional Engineer', 'specialty': 'Hydrodynamic modeling and coastal risk assessment', 'case_reference': 'BER Case 18-9'}
caseinvolvement: In the referenced BER Case 18-9, Engineer A worked for a developer performing hydrodynamic modeling and coastal risk assessment for a proposed residential development. Based on newly identified historic weather data, Engineer A advocated for design to the then-projected 100-year storm surge elevation. When the owner refused, the BER concluded Engineer A should continue to attempt to convince the owner and, failing that, withdraw from the project.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T06:42:51.640746+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T06:42:51.640746+00:00
importance: medium
relationships: {'type': 'advocates_for', 'target': 'Future Residents and Public'}
relationships: {'type': 'serves', 'target': 'Developer Owner (BER 18-9)'}
rolecategory: public_responsibility
roleclass: Climate-Aware Coastal Infrastructure Engineer
sourcetext: Engineer A worked for a developer to perform hydrodynamic modeling and coastal risk assessment regarding a proposed residential development
textreferences: Engineer A advocated that the project be designed for the then-projected 100-year storm surge elevation due to public safety risks
textreferences: Engineer A should withdraw from the project
textreferences: Engineer A worked for a developer to perform hydrodynamic modeling and coastal risk assessment regarding a proposed residential development
textreferences: The Owner refused to agree that such protection was required or appropriate
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T10:32:26.872368
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Climate-Informed Infrastructure Design Standard Invoked by Engineer A for Tidal Crossing
type: Climate-InformedInfrastructureDesignStandard
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Proposed specialized hydrologic hydraulic subconsultant analysis
appliedto: Tidal crossing bridge design
balancingwith: Client cost directives
balancingwith: Standard of Care as Ethical Floor
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A proposes specialized hydrologic and hydraulic subconsultant analysis to predict the extent to which sea level rise and increased hydraulic capacity of the tidal crossing will result in flood damage to upstream homes — going beyond the 25-year storm regulatory minimum because professional judgment indicates the regulatory standard is inadequate.
confidence: 0.97
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T14:10:34.833493+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T14:10:34.833493+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: In this coastal hydraulic context, the principle requires Engineer A to incorporate sea level rise and updated precipitation recurrence intervals into the project assessment even though the regulatory standard does not yet require it.
invokedby: Engineer A Climate Change Impact Evaluating Infrastructure Engineer
principleclass: Climate-Informed Infrastructure Design Standard
sourcetext: Engineer A proposes a complex and costly hydrologic and hydraulic analysis by a specialized subconsultant to predict the extent to which sea level rise and the increased hydraulic capacity of the tidal crossing will result in flood damage to a neighborhood of twenty upstream homes during future high tides and storm surges.
tensionresolution: The principle establishes that regulatory compliance is insufficient when the engineer's professional judgment identifies material climate-driven risk beyond the regulatory standard.
textreferences: Engineer A proposes a complex and costly hydrologic and hydraulic analysis by a specialized subconsultant to predict the extent to which sea level rise and the increased hydraulic capacity of the tidal crossing will result in flood damage to a neighborhood of twenty upstream homes during future high tides and storm surges.
textreferences: Local development regulations require designing for a 25-year fresh-water storm, and assume that future weather conditions will be consistent with updated historical data.
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T10:32:26.853607
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Engineer A Client B Override Documentation Obligation Tidal Crossing
type: ClientOverrideofSafetyAnalysisWrittenDocumentationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Client B directed Engineer A to proceed without the costly specialized hydraulic analysis unless and until requested by the applicable regulatory authorities, overriding Engineer A's professional recommendation.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.85
derived from principle: Non-Acquiescence to Client Directive Suppressing Safety Analysis Invoked Against Client B Refusal
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T00:15:23.499283+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T00:15:23.499283+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Client Override of Safety Analysis Written Documentation Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to document in writing Client B's directive to forgo the recommended specialized hydraulic analysis, including Engineer A's professional recommendation, Client B's override decision, and the conditions under which Client B agreed to authorize the analysis (only if requested by regulatory authorities), so that the record reflects the engineer's professional judgment and the client's assumption of responsibility.
sourcetext: Client B directs Engineer A to proceed without the costly analysis unless and until such an analysis is requested by the applicable regulatory authorities.
temporalscope: Upon receiving Client B's directive to forgo the specialized analysis
textreferences: Client B directs Engineer A to proceed without the costly analysis unless and until such an analysis is requested by the applicable regulatory authorities.
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:31:11.064120
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Client-Directed Deferral of Third-Party Risk Analysis — Client B Project
type: Client-DirectedDeferralofThird-PartyRiskAnalysisState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: Active from Client B's refusal to authorize detailed evaluation; persists until client reversal or Engineer A's withdrawal
affectedparties: Adjacent property owners
affectedparties: Client B
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Future residents
affectedparties: Regulatory agencies
concept category: State
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T06:42:52.571341+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T06:42:52.571341+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer A should engage Client B in discussions about the need for the detailed evaluation and disclosure of the potential impacts on the public and alternatives for the project to mitigate those impacts, and the potential risk to Client B of not evaluating the potential impacts
stateclass: Client-Directed Deferral of Third-Party Risk Analysis State
subject: Client B's direction to proceed without conducting the detailed climate and hydraulic impact analysis recommended by Engineer A
terminatedby: Client B authorizing the evaluation, or Engineer A withdrawing from the project
textreferences: Engineer A should engage Client B in discussions about the need for the detailed evaluation and disclosure of the potential impacts on the public and alternatives for the project to mitigate those impacts, and the potential risk to Client B of not evaluating the potential impacts
textreferences: If Client B remains unconvinced, Engineer A should propose to Client B that engineer A provides the potential concern that may necessitate more detailed evaluation in an engineering report for consideration by regulatory agencies and the public
triggeringevent: Client B's refusal to authorize the detailed, complex evaluation of future climate conditions and their impact on third-party properties
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T10:32:26.872770
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Client Loyalty Bounded by Public Welfare Invoked Against Client B Cost Directives
type: ClientLoyalty
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Client B Cost-Directing Developer
balancingwith: Non-Acquiescence to Client Directive Suppressing Safety Analysis
balancingwith: Public Welfare Paramount
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A must serve Client B's interests faithfully — including respecting cost management concerns and contractual scope — but only within the bounds of the public welfare obligation, which requires that Engineer A not subordinate the upstream community's flood safety to Client B's financial preferences
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T00:19:27.254437+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T00:19:27.254437+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Client loyalty is a genuine and weighty obligation, but it is bounded by the primacy of public welfare; Engineer A's graduated escalation sequence reflects the attempt to serve both obligations before the conflict becomes irresolvable
invokedby: Engineer A Tidal Crossing Infrastructure Design Engineer
principleclass: Client Loyalty
sourcetext: Engineer A should engage Client B in discussions about the need for the detailed evaluation and disclosure of the potential impacts on the public and alternatives for the project to mitigate those impacts, and the potential risk to Client B of not evaluating the potential impacts.
tensionresolution: Client loyalty yields to public welfare when the client's cost management directives would result in suppression of safety-relevant analysis affecting identifiable third parties
textreferences: Engineer A should engage Client B in discussions about the need for the detailed evaluation and disclosure of the potential impacts on the public and alternatives for the project to mitigate those impacts, and the potential risk to Client B of not evaluating the potential impacts.
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:31:11.071704
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Client Loyalty Obligation of Engineer A to Client B
type: Loyalty
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Client B's cost-management directive
appliedto: Engineer A's consulting engagement with Client B
balancingwith: Non-Acquiescence to Client Directive Suppressing Safety Analysis
balancingwith: Public Welfare Paramount
balancingwith: Third-Party Flood Risk Community Notification Obligation
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A has a loyalty obligation to Client B as the developer commissioning the roadway design, requiring diligent execution of the design and permitting scope and respect for Client B's legitimate business decisions — but this loyalty is bounded by Engineer A's independent professional ethics obligations.
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T14:10:34.833493+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T14:10:34.833493+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: In this context, loyalty to Client B is a genuine competing obligation that must be weighed against public welfare and professional ethics obligations — it is not merely a pretext for suppressing safety analysis.
invokedby: Engineer A Climate Change Impact Evaluating Infrastructure Engineer
principleclass: Loyalty
sourcetext: Engineer A is a consulting engineer representing Client B, a developer who is proposing to develop a health care facility that requires a significant upgrade to the property's access road that crosses a tidal saltmarsh.
tensionresolution: Client loyalty is overridden when the client's directive would suppress safety-critical analysis and leave twenty upstream homes uninformed of material flood risk.
textreferences: Client B directs Engineer A to proceed without the costly analysis unless and until such an analysis is requested by the applicable regulatory authorities.
textreferences: Engineer A is a consulting engineer representing Client B, a developer who is proposing to develop a health care facility.
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T10:32:26.855692
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Climate Change as Moving Target Invoked by Engineer A in Tidal Crossing Design
type: ClimateChangeasMovingTargetinEngineeringDesign
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Tidal crossing culvert-to-bridge upgrade design
appliedto: Upstream flood risk assessment
balancingwith: Client Loyalty
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A recognizes that the local regulatory standard (25-year storm based on historical data) does not capture the dynamic trajectory of sea level rise and updated precipitation recurrence intervals, and that designing to that static standard may cause upstream homes to become uninhabitable a decade or more earlier than otherwise.
confidence: 0.97
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T14:10:34.833493+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T14:10:34.833493+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: In this context, treating climate as a moving target requires Engineer A to look beyond the 25-year storm regulatory standard to current hydraulic evaluation procedures that account for sea level rise and changing precipitation patterns.
invokedby: Engineer A Climate Change Impact Evaluating Infrastructure Engineer
principleclass: Climate Change as Moving Target in Engineering Design
sourcetext: It is Engineer A's judgment, based on hydraulic evaluation procedures presented at a recent transportation agency conference, that the proposed project may result in some upstream homes becoming uninhabitable a decade or more earlier than would otherwise be the case.
tensionresolution: Engineer A's professional judgment that the regulatory standard is inadequate creates an obligation to propose supplemental analysis, even against client cost preferences.
textreferences: It is Engineer A's judgment, based on hydraulic evaluation procedures presented at a recent transportation agency conference, that the proposed project may result in some upstream homes becoming uninhabitable a decade or more earlier than would otherwise be the case.
textreferences: The local development regulations and national design codes and standards have not yet been updated to reflect changing conditions and weather patterns, including effects of sea level rise and changes in precipitation intensities and recurrence intervals effected by on-going climate change.
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T10:32:26.853428
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Engineer A Client Risk Consequence Communication Tidal Crossing
type: ClientRiskConsequenceCommunicationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
defeasible under: Client B Deferral of Third-Party Risk Analysis
casecontext: Client B has directed Engineer A to forgo the specialized analysis on cost grounds; Engineer A must ensure Client B understands the full consequences of that decision, including risks to Client B itself, before accepting the directive.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.88
derived from principle: Faithful Agent Notification Invoked By Engineer A Client B
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T14:13:00.331319+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T14:13:00.331319+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Client Risk Consequence Communication Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A is obligated to communicate to Client B not only the public welfare rationale for the specialized hydrologic and hydraulic analysis but also the specific professional, legal, and reputational risks to Client B of declining to authorize the analysis — including potential liability to upstream homeowners and regulatory exposure — so that Client B can make a fully informed decision about whether to authorize the work.
sourcetext: Client B directs Engineer A to proceed without the costly analysis unless and until such an analysis is requested by the applicable regulatory authorities.
temporalscope: Upon Client B's directive to forgo the specialized analysis and before proceeding without it
textreferences: Client B directs Engineer A to proceed without the costly analysis unless and until such an analysis is requested by the applicable regulatory authorities.
textreferences: Engineer A proposes a complex and costly hydrologic and hydraulic analysis by a specialized subconsultant to predict the extent to which sea level rise and the increased hydraulic capacity of the tidal crossing will result in flood damage to a neighborhood of twenty upstream homes
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T10:32:26.865100
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Engineer A Climate Moving Target Design Consideration Tidal Crossing
type: ClimateChangeMovingTargetDesignConsiderationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
defeasible under: Moving Target Climate Baseline — Tidal Crossing Hydraulic Design
casecontext: Engineer A applied hydraulic evaluation procedures from a recent transportation agency conference to assess climate-adjusted flood risk, recognizing that historical climate data no longer accurately represents future conditions for the tidal crossing design.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.88
derived from principle: Climate Change as Moving Target Invoked for Tidal Crossing Design
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T00:21:20.043237+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T00:21:20.043237+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Climate Change Moving Target Design Consideration Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to treat future climate and weather conditions as a dynamic moving target rather than fixed historical baselines when assessing the flood risk impacts of the proposed tidal crossing upgrade on upstream properties.
sourcetext: This necessitates that climate and weather patterns be addressed not as fixed by historical patterns but rather recognized as a 'moving target.'
temporalscope: Throughout the design and assessment phase of the tidal crossing project
textreferences: The BER believes that Engineer A has an obligation to consider climate and weather changes in the future with respect to potential impacts on public health, safety, and welfare, where such impacts are reasonably likely and significant.
textreferences: This necessitates that climate and weather patterns be addressed not as fixed by historical patterns but rather recognized as a 'moving target.'
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:31:11.071985
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Engineer A Climate Regulatory Gap Disclosure Client B Tidal Crossing
type: Climate-AdjustedRegulatoryGapRiskDisclosureObligation
type: NamedIndividual
defeasible under: Regulatory Standard Climate Gap - Tidal Crossing Project
casecontext: Engineer A identified that local development regulations and national design codes had not been updated to reflect climate change effects, and that the proposed tidal crossing upgrade may accelerate uninhabitability of upstream homes by a decade or more.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.87
derived from principle: Regulatory Gap Awareness Invoked for Climate Change and Existing Standards
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T00:15:23.499283+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T00:15:23.499283+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Climate-Adjusted Regulatory Gap Risk Disclosure Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to disclose to Client B that the locally required 25-year fresh-water storm design standard does not account for climate change effects — including sea level rise and changed precipitation intensities — and that regulatory compliance with the outdated standard does not ensure that the tidal crossing upgrade will be safe for upstream homeowners over the project's design life.
sourcetext: The local development regulations and national design codes and standards have not yet been updated to reflect changing conditions and weather patterns, including effects of sea level rise and changes in precipitation intensities and recurrence intervals effected by on-going climate change.
temporalscope: Upon identifying the regulatory gap and before proceeding with design under the outdated standard
textreferences: Local development regulations require designing for a 25-year fresh-water storm, and assume that future weather conditions will be consistent with updated historical data.
textreferences: The local development regulations and national design codes and standards have not yet been updated to reflect changing conditions and weather patterns, including effects of sea level rise and changes in precipitation intensities and recurrence intervals effected by on-going climate change.
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:31:11.063682
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Engineer A Competing Public Goods Healthcare Upstream Community Balanced Advisory
type: CompetingPublicGoodsBalancedAdvisoryDisclosureObligation
type: NamedIndividual
defeasible under: Competing Duties — Client Authority vs. Third-Party Protection
casecontext: Engineer A identified a conflict between the public benefit of a new healthcare facility and the upstream community flood risk, anticipating this to be a difficult question in public hearings.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.85
derived from principle: Competing Public Goods Balancing Invoked By Engineer A Developer vs Upstream Community
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T00:15:23.499283+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T00:15:23.499283+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Competing Public Goods Balanced Advisory Disclosure Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to explicitly acknowledge and address in any regulatory submission or advisory report the genuine conflict between the public benefit of the proposed healthcare facility — requiring the tidal crossing upgrade — and the welfare of the approximately twenty upstream homeowners facing accelerated flood risk and uninhabitability, presenting the tradeoffs completely and objectively so that the regulatory authority can make an informed decision.
sourcetext: Engineer A proposes a complex and costly hydrologic and hydraulic analysis by a specialized subconsultant to predict the extent to which sea level rise and the increased hydraulic capacity of the tidal crossing will result in flood damage to a neighborhood of twenty upstream homes during future high tides and storm surges, anticipating this to be a difficult question to answer in the project's public hearings.
temporalscope: During preparation of regulatory submissions and public hearing materials
textreferences: Engineer A proposes a complex and costly hydrologic and hydraulic analysis by a specialized subconsultant to predict the extent to which sea level rise and the increased hydraulic capacity of the tidal crossing will result in flood damage to a neighborhood of twenty upstream homes during future high tides and storm surges, anticipating this to be a difficult question to answer in the project's public hearings.
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:31:11.064823
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Engineer A Conditional Project Withdrawal Tidal Crossing Both Avenues Refused
type: ConditionalProjectWithdrawalAfterClientRefusalofSafetyDisclosureObligation
type: NamedIndividual
defeasible under: Engineer A Conditional Withdrawal Obligation
casecontext: Withdrawal is the last resort in the graduated escalation sequence after Client B forecloses all avenues for addressing the identified public safety risks to upstream homeowners.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.94
derived from principle: Post-Client-Refusal Escalation Assessment Obligation Invoked by BER Discussion Section
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T14:21:57.794732+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T14:21:57.794732+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Conditional Project Withdrawal After Client Refusal of Safety Disclosure Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to withdraw from the tidal crossing project if Client B refused both the opportunity to conduct the recommended specialized analysis and the opportunity to submit an engineering report documenting the concern to regulatory agencies.
sourcetext: Failing agreement by Client B to either of these courses of action the BER believes that Engineer A should withdraw from the project.
temporalscope: After Client B refuses both the specialized analysis and the regulatory report proposal
textreferences: Failing agreement by Client B to either of these courses of action the BER believes that Engineer A should withdraw from the project.
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T10:32:26.865395
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Engineer A Environmental Justice Risk Disclosure Upstream Homes
type: EnvironmentalJusticeRiskDisclosureObligation
type: NamedIndividual
defeasible under: Foreseeable Third-Party Harm from Hydraulic Capacity Increase — Upstream Neighborhood
casecontext: The proposed tidal crossing upgrade benefits the healthcare facility developer while imposing accelerated flood risk on an upstream residential community of approximately twenty homes.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.84
derived from principle: Public Welfare Paramount Invoked By Engineer A Tidal Crossing
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T00:15:23.499283+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T00:15:23.499283+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Environmental Justice Risk Disclosure Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to disclose to Client B and the applicable regulatory authority that the proposed tidal crossing upgrade would disproportionately impose accelerated flood risk and potential uninhabitability on the approximately twenty upstream homeowners — a specific identifiable community bearing the negative externalities of a development that benefits a different party — including the probability, magnitude, and distributional inequity of that risk.
sourcetext: It is Engineer A's judgment, based on hydraulic evaluation procedures presented at a recent transportation agency conference, that the proposed project may result in some upstream homes becoming uninhabitable a decade or more earlier than would otherwise be the case.
temporalscope: Upon identifying the disproportionate impact on upstream homeowners, before and during regulatory permitting
textreferences: Engineer A proposes a complex and costly hydrologic and hydraulic analysis by a specialized subconsultant to predict the extent to which sea level rise and the increased hydraulic capacity of the tidal crossing will result in flood damage to a neighborhood of twenty upstream homes during future high tides and storm surges
textreferences: It is Engineer A's judgment, based on hydraulic evaluation procedures presented at a recent transportation agency conference, that the proposed project may result in some upstream homes becoming uninhabitable a decade or more earlier than would otherwise be the case.
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:31:11.065096
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Engineer A Formal Client Project Failure Risk Notification Tidal Crossing
type: FormalClientProjectFailureRiskNotificationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
defeasible under: Client-Directed Deferral of Third-Party Risk Analysis — Upstream Flood Study
casecontext: Client B has directed Engineer A to proceed without the specialized analysis, and Engineer A must formally document in writing that this approach will not achieve the project's public safety objectives with respect to upstream flood risk.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.9
derived from principle: Faithful Agent Notification Invoked By Engineer A Client B
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T14:13:00.331319+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T14:13:00.331319+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Formal Client Project Failure Risk Notification Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A is obligated to formally advise Client B in writing that, in Engineer A's professional judgment, proceeding without the specialized hydrologic and hydraulic analysis will result in a project that fails to protect the public from material flood risk to twenty upstream homes, so that Client B has clear written notice of Engineer A's professional assessment.
sourcetext: Client B directs Engineer A to proceed without the costly analysis unless and until such an analysis is requested by the applicable regulatory authorities.
temporalscope: Upon Client B's directive to forgo the specialized analysis and before proceeding with design and permitting
textreferences: Client B directs Engineer A to proceed without the costly analysis unless and until such an analysis is requested by the applicable regulatory authorities.
textreferences: It is Engineer A's judgment, based on hydraulic evaluation procedures presented at a recent transportation agency conference, that the proposed project may result in some upstream homes becoming uninhabitable a decade or more earlier than would otherwise be the case.
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T10:32:26.856849
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Engineer A Gray Area Public Welfare Judgment Documentation Tidal Crossing
type: GrayAreaPublicWelfareJudgmentDocumentationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
defeasible under: Potential Safety Risk Without Confirmed Imminent Harm — Engineer A Climate Assessment
casecontext: Engineer A's risk assessment was based on professional judgment applying conference-presented hydraulic procedures rather than confirmed quantitative analysis, placing the situation in a gray area requiring documented professional judgment.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.86
derived from principle: Public Welfare Paramount Invoked in Climate Change Gray Areas
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T00:21:20.043237+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T00:21:20.043237+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Gray Area Public Welfare Judgment Documentation Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to document their professional judgment that the tidal crossing upgrade created sufficient potential for upstream flooding to merit detailed specialized evaluation — including the basis for that judgment — both in writing and in public statements, so that the reasoning was transparent to Client B, regulatory authorities, and the public.
sourcetext: That obligation leads to not uncommon 'gray areas' in practice requiring judgment as to what issues potentially impacting public health, safety, and welfare merit more detailed evaluation and what issues do not.
temporalscope: Upon forming the professional judgment that specialized analysis was warranted
textreferences: That obligation leads to not uncommon 'gray areas' in practice requiring judgment as to what issues potentially impacting public health, safety, and welfare merit more detailed evaluation and what issues do not.
textreferences: The outcome of this case might have been different had Engineer A been comfortable with predicting that significant public health, safety, and welfare impacts were unlikely, in which case Engineer A might have ethically been able to proceed while noting both in writing and in public statements that more detailed analysis would be required to confirm that judgment.
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:31:11.072447
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Engineer A Interdisciplinary Competence Threshold Recognition Tidal Crossing
type: InterdisciplinaryCompetenceThresholdRecognitionforSpecializedReferralObligation
type: NamedIndividual
defeasible under: Climate-Informed Design Obligation Activation — Engineer A Coastal Project
casecontext: Engineer A is designing a roadway upgrade including a culvert-to-bridge tidal crossing upgrade in a tidal saltmarsh; the upgrade will materially increase hydraulic capacity with potential upstream flood impacts on twenty homes.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.88
derived from principle: Interdisciplinary Competence Threshold Invoked for Hydraulic Modeling Recognition
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T14:21:57.794732+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T14:21:57.794732+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Interdisciplinary Competence Threshold Recognition for Specialized Referral Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to maintain sufficient understanding of hydrology, hydraulics, and coastal modeling to recognize that the tidal crossing upgrade raised technical questions about upstream flood impacts that merited detailed specialized evaluation, even though Engineer A is not a modeling expert.
sourcetext: Engineer A need not necessarily be a modelling expert. However, Engineer A needs to have sufficient understanding of hydrology, hydraulics, and coastal modeling to form a reasonable judgment that there is sufficient potential for flooding of other properties to merit a detailed, complex evaluation of future conditions.
temporalscope: At the time of project assessment and throughout the design engagement
textreferences: Based on the facts in this case, it is clear that Engineer A has such an understanding of the broad project issues.
textreferences: Engineer A need not necessarily be a modelling expert. However, Engineer A needs to have sufficient understanding of hydrology, hydraulics, and coastal modeling to form a reasonable judgment that there is sufficient potential for flooding of other properties to merit a detailed, complex evaluation of future conditions.
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T10:32:26.864240
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Engineer A Interdisciplinary Threshold Recognition Hydraulic Referral Tidal Crossing
type: InterdisciplinaryThresholdRecognitionforSpecializedHydraulicReferralObligation
type: NamedIndividual
defeasible under: Engineer A Climate Impact Judgment Activation
casecontext: Engineer A, while not a hydrodynamic modeling specialist, possessed sufficient understanding of hydraulics and coastal engineering to judge that the tidal crossing upgrade posed material upstream flood risk requiring specialized analysis.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.88
derived from principle: Interdisciplinary Competence Threshold Invoked by BER Discussion Section
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T00:21:20.043237+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T00:21:20.043237+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Interdisciplinary Threshold Recognition for Specialized Hydraulic Referral Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to apply sufficient cross-disciplinary understanding of hydrology, hydraulics, and coastal modeling to form a reasonable professional judgment that the proposed tidal crossing upgrade created sufficient potential for flooding of upstream properties to merit detailed specialized evaluation — and upon forming that judgment, to recommend engagement of a specialized subconsultant.
sourcetext: Engineer A need not necessarily be a modelling expert.
temporalscope: Upon identifying the potential upstream flood risk from the tidal crossing upgrade
textreferences: Based on the facts in this case, it is clear that Engineer A has such an understanding of the broad project issues.
textreferences: Engineer A need not necessarily be a modelling expert.
textreferences: However, Engineer A needs to have sufficient understanding of hydrology, hydraulics, and coastal modeling to form a reasonable judgment that there is sufficient potential for flooding of other properties to merit a detailed, complex evaluation of future conditions.
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:31:11.072163
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Engineer A Preliminary Judgment Risk Disclosure Qualification Tidal Crossing
type: PreliminaryJudgmentRiskDisclosureQualificationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
defeasible under: Unverified Third-Party Flood Risk - Upstream Homes
casecontext: Engineer A's risk assessment is based on hydraulic evaluation procedures from a recent transportation agency conference rather than a completed specialized hydrologic and hydraulic study, and Engineer A must disclose the risk while accurately characterizing the preliminary nature of the finding.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.91
derived from principle: Fact-Based Disclosure Obligation Invoked By Engineer A Preliminary Judgment
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T14:13:00.331319+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T14:13:00.331319+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Preliminary Judgment Risk Disclosure Qualification Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A is obligated to disclose to Client B and relevant parties the preliminary professional judgment that the tidal crossing upgrade may accelerate upstream home uninhabitability by a decade or more, while clearly qualifying that this judgment is based on hydraulic evaluation procedures from a conference rather than a completed specialized analysis, so that recipients understand both the risk and the basis and limitations of the assessment.
sourcetext: It is Engineer A's judgment, based on hydraulic evaluation procedures presented at a recent transportation agency conference, that the proposed project may result in some upstream homes becoming uninhabitable a decade or more earlier than would otherwise be the case.
temporalscope: Upon formation of the preliminary professional judgment and before proceeding with design and permitting
textreferences: It is Engineer A's judgment, based on hydraulic evaluation procedures presented at a recent transportation agency conference, that the proposed project may result in some upstream homes becoming uninhabitable a decade or more earlier than would otherwise be the case.
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T10:32:26.856709
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Engineer A Public Hearing Climate Risk Information Gap Remediation Tidal Crossing
type: PublicHearingClimateRiskInformationGapRemediationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
defeasible under: Client-Directed Deferral of Third-Party Risk Analysis — Upstream Flood Study
casecontext: Engineer A anticipates that the flood risk to upstream homes will be a difficult question to answer in public hearings, and Client B has directed Engineer A to forgo the analysis needed to answer it — creating a foreseeable information gap in the regulatory process.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.87
derived from principle: Proactive Risk Disclosure Invoked By Engineer A Upstream Flood
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T14:13:00.331319+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T14:13:00.331319+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Public Hearing Climate Risk Information Gap Remediation Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A is obligated to ensure that the public regulatory hearing process for the tidal crossing upgrade is not conducted with a foreseeable and preventable climate risk information gap regarding flood impacts on upstream homeowners, either by obtaining Client B's authorization for the specialized analysis, proposing a written risk disclosure report for regulatory consideration, or escalating to regulatory authorities independently if those avenues are foreclosed.
sourcetext: anticipating this to be a difficult question to answer in the project's public hearings
temporalscope: Before and during the public hearing process for the tidal crossing upgrade permit
textreferences: Client B directs Engineer A to proceed without the costly analysis unless and until such an analysis is requested by the applicable regulatory authorities.
textreferences: anticipating this to be a difficult question to answer in the project's public hearings
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T10:32:26.858136
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Engineer A Public Hearing Testimony Completeness Upstream Flood Risk
type: PublicHearingTestimonyCompletenessObligation
type: NamedIndividual
defeasible under: Client-Directed Deferral of Third-Party Risk Analysis — Upstream Flood Study
casecontext: Engineer A anticipated that the upstream flood risk question would be a difficult question to answer in the project's public hearings, and Client B directed Engineer A to forgo the specialized analysis needed to answer it.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.83
derived from principle: Proactive Risk Disclosure Invoked for Climate-Driven Flood Impacts
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T00:15:23.499283+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T00:15:23.499283+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Public Hearing Testimony Completeness Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated, when providing engineering input at the public regulatory hearing for the tidal crossing upgrade, to address completely the upstream flood risk to the twenty homes — including the preliminary professional judgment about accelerated uninhabitability — and to either explain how the risk has been evaluated and addressed or to offer to conduct the specialized hydraulic analysis, rather than redirecting conversation away from the upstream risk issue.
sourcetext: anticipating this to be a difficult question to answer in the project's public hearings
temporalscope: During public regulatory hearings for the tidal crossing upgrade permitting
textreferences: Client B directs Engineer A to proceed without the costly analysis unless and until such an analysis is requested by the applicable regulatory authorities.
textreferences: anticipating this to be a difficult question to answer in the project's public hearings
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:31:11.065231
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Engineer A Regulatory Report Submission Proposal Client B Tidal Crossing
type: RegulatoryReportSubmissionProposalasEscalationStepObligation
type: NamedIndividual
defeasible under: Client-Directed Deferral of Third-Party Risk Analysis — Upstream Flood Study
casecontext: Client B refused to authorize the recommended specialized hydraulic analysis; Engineer A's graduated escalation required proposing written documentation of the concern for regulatory submission before withdrawing from the project.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.88
derived from principle: Post-Client-Refusal Escalation Assessment Obligation Invoked by BER Discussion Section
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T00:21:20.043237+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T00:21:20.043237+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Regulatory Report Submission Proposal as Escalation Step Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated, as an intermediate escalation step after Client B refused to authorize the recommended specialized hydraulic analysis, to propose to Client B that Engineer A document the identified upstream flood risk concern in a written engineering report for submission to and consideration by regulatory agencies and the public.
sourcetext: If Client B remains unconvinced, Engineer A should propose to Client B that engineer a provides the potential concern that may necessitate more detailed evaluation in an engineering report for consideration by regulatory agencies and the public.
temporalscope: After Client B's refusal of the recommended specialized hydraulic analysis and before project withdrawal
textreferences: If Client B remains unconvinced, Engineer A should propose to Client B that engineer a provides the potential concern that may necessitate more detailed evaluation in an engineering report for consideration by regulatory agencies and the public.
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:31:11.072714
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Engineer A Regulatory Report Submission Proposal Escalation Tidal Crossing
type: RegulatoryReportSubmissionProposalasEscalationStepObligation
type: NamedIndividual
defeasible under: Client B Deferral of Third-Party Risk Analysis
casecontext: Client B has refused to authorize the specialized hydrologic and hydraulic analysis; Engineer A must propose the intermediate escalation step of a written risk report for regulatory submission before considering withdrawal.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.9
derived from principle: Post-Client-Refusal Escalation Assessment Obligation Invoked by BER Discussion Section
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T14:13:00.331319+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T14:13:00.331319+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Regulatory Report Submission Proposal as Escalation Step Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A is obligated, as a graduated escalation step after Client B's refusal to authorize the specialized analysis, to propose to Client B that Engineer A document the identified upstream flood risk in a written engineering report for submission to and consideration by the applicable regulatory authorities and the public during the permitting process.
sourcetext: Client B directs Engineer A to proceed without the costly analysis unless and until such an analysis is requested by the applicable regulatory authorities.
temporalscope: After Client B's refusal to authorize the specialized analysis and before any decision to withdraw from the project
textreferences: Client B directs Engineer A to proceed without the costly analysis unless and until such an analysis is requested by the applicable regulatory authorities.
textreferences: anticipating this to be a difficult question to answer in the project's public hearings
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T10:32:26.857406
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Engineer A Specialized Subconsultant Engagement Recommendation Tidal Crossing
type: SpecializedSubconsultantEngagementRecommendationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
defeasible under: Resource Constraint - Specialized Subconsultant Analysis
casecontext: Engineer A has proposed a specialized subconsultant to conduct complex hydrologic and hydraulic analysis predicting flood damage to twenty upstream homes, but Client B has directed Engineer A to proceed without the analysis unless regulators request it.
compliancestatus: partial
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.93
derived from principle: Professional Competence in Risk Assessment Invoked By Engineer A Hydraulic Evaluation
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T14:13:00.331319+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T14:13:00.331319+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Specialized Subconsultant Engagement Recommendation Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A is obligated to formally recommend in writing to Client B the engagement of a specialized hydrologic and hydraulic subconsultant to conduct the complex analysis needed to predict flood damage to upstream homes, and to document that recommendation so that Client B cannot later claim ignorance of the technical gap.
sourcetext: Engineer A proposes a complex and costly hydrologic and hydraulic analysis by a specialized subconsultant to predict the extent to which sea level rise and the increased hydraulic capacity of the tidal crossing will result in flood damage to a neighborhood of twenty upstream homes during future high tides and storm surges
temporalscope: Before proceeding with design and permitting without the specialized analysis
textreferences: Client B directs Engineer A to proceed without the costly analysis unless and until such an analysis is requested by the applicable regulatory authorities.
textreferences: Engineer A proposes a complex and costly hydrologic and hydraulic analysis by a specialized subconsultant to predict the extent to which sea level rise and the increased hydraulic capacity of the tidal crossing will result in flood damage to a neighborhood of twenty upstream homes during future high tides and storm surges
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T10:32:26.865708
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Engineer A Specialized Subconsultant Hydraulic Analysis Recommendation Client B
type: SpecializedSubconsultantEngagementRecommendationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
defeasible under: Client-Directed Deferral of Third-Party Risk Analysis — Client B Project
casecontext: Engineer A identified that the upstream flood risk question exceeded available analytical tools and proposed a specialized subconsultant engagement, which Client B directed be foregone unless requested by regulatory authorities.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.88
derived from principle: Professional Competence in Risk Assessment Invoked for Engineer A Hydraulic Judgment
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T00:15:23.499283+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T00:15:23.499283+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Specialized Subconsultant Engagement Recommendation Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to formally recommend to Client B the engagement of a specialized subconsultant to perform the complex hydrologic and hydraulic analysis needed to quantify the upstream flood risk from sea level rise and increased tidal crossing hydraulic capacity, and to document that recommendation in writing.
sourcetext: Engineer A proposes a complex and costly hydrologic and hydraulic analysis by a specialized subconsultant to predict the extent to which sea level rise and the increased hydraulic capacity of the tidal crossing will result in flood damage to a neighborhood of twenty upstream homes during future high tides and storm surges, anticipating this to be a difficult question to answer in the project's public hearings.
temporalscope: Upon identifying the need for specialized hydraulic analysis, before proceeding with design
textreferences: Engineer A proposes a complex and costly hydrologic and hydraulic analysis by a specialized subconsultant to predict the extent to which sea level rise and the increased hydraulic capacity of the tidal crossing will result in flood damage to a neighborhood of twenty upstream homes during future high tides and storm surges, anticipating this to be a difficult question to answer in the project's public hearings.
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:31:11.063968
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Engineer A Tidal Hydraulic Capacity Upgrade Third-Party Flood Impact Assessment Tidal Crossing
type: TidalHydraulicCapacityUpgradeThird-PartyFloodImpactAssessmentObligation
type: NamedIndividual
defeasible under: Foreseeable Third-Party Flooding Harm — Engineer A Coastal Project
casecontext: The upgrade from culvert to bridge increases hydraulic capacity, which Engineer A's professional judgment indicates will materially accelerate flood risk and uninhabitability for twenty upstream homes — a third-party impact not addressed by the local 25-year storm standard.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.9
derived from principle: Third-Party Flood Risk Notification Invoked By Engineer A Upstream Homes
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T14:13:00.331319+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T14:13:00.331319+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Tidal Hydraulic Capacity Upgrade Third-Party Flood Impact Assessment Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A is obligated to assess and disclose the potential upstream flood impacts of the culvert-to-bridge upgrade — which materially increases the tidal crossing's hydraulic capacity — on the twenty upstream homes, including the risk of accelerated uninhabitability due to increased tidal and storm surge penetration, even though such assessment is not explicitly required by local development regulations.
sourcetext: Engineer A's scope includes design and local permitting of the roadway, including an upgrade of the tidal crossing from a small culvert to a small bridge, increasing its hydraulic capacity.
temporalscope: During the design phase and before submission of permit applications
textreferences: Engineer A's scope includes design and local permitting of the roadway, including an upgrade of the tidal crossing from a small culvert to a small bridge, increasing its hydraulic capacity.
textreferences: It is Engineer A's judgment, based on hydraulic evaluation procedures presented at a recent transportation agency conference, that the proposed project may result in some upstream homes becoming uninhabitable a decade or more earlier than would otherwise be the case.
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T10:32:26.858338
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Engineer A Tidal Saltmarsh Environmental Impact Assessment Tidal Crossing
type: TidalSaltmarshEnvironmentalImpactAssessmentObligation
type: NamedIndividual
defeasible under: Environmental Hazard - Tidal Saltmarsh Crossing
casecontext: The tidal crossing upgrade from culvert to bridge in a tidal saltmarsh implicates environmental stewardship obligations regarding the ecological integrity of the saltmarsh, in addition to the flood risk obligations regarding upstream homeowners.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.85
derived from principle: Environmental Stewardship Invoked in Tidal Saltmarsh Crossing Design
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T14:13:00.331319+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T14:13:00.331319+00:00
importance: medium
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Tidal Saltmarsh Environmental Impact Assessment Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A is obligated to assess and disclose the hydraulic and ecological impacts of the culvert-to-bridge upgrade on the tidal saltmarsh environment, including the effects of increased hydraulic capacity on tidal flow patterns, saltwater intrusion, and marsh ecosystem integrity, as part of the design and permitting process.
sourcetext: Engineer A is a consulting engineer representing Client B, a developer who is proposing to develop a health care facility that requires a significant upgrade to the property's access road that crosses a tidal saltmarsh.
temporalscope: During the design and local permitting process for the tidal crossing upgrade
textreferences: Engineer A is a consulting engineer representing Client B, a developer who is proposing to develop a health care facility that requires a significant upgrade to the property's access road that crosses a tidal saltmarsh.
textreferences: Engineer A's scope includes design and local permitting of the roadway, including an upgrade of the tidal crossing from a small culvert to a small bridge, increasing its hydraulic capacity.
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T10:32:26.857939
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Engineer A Withdrawal After Owner Refusal BER Case 18-9
type: ConditionalProjectWithdrawalAfterClientRefusalofSafetyDisclosureObligation
type: NamedIndividual
prevails over: Engineer A BER 18-9 Graduated Escalation Coastal Development Withdrawal
casecontext: Engineer A advocated for design to the 100-year storm surge elevation based on newly identified historic weather data and public safety risks; the owner refused to agree that such protection was required or appropriate.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.89
derived from principle: Climate-Informed Infrastructure Design Standard Invoked by BER Case 18-9 Precedent
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T00:21:20.043237+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T00:21:20.043237+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A (BER Case 18-9)
obligationclass: Conditional Project Withdrawal After Client Refusal of Safety Disclosure Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to withdraw from the residential development project after the owner refused to agree to design the project for the then-projected 100-year storm surge elevation, following Engineer A's continued attempts to convince the owner of the potential for damage to future residents and the public.
sourcetext: The BER concluded that Engineer A should continue to attempt to convince the owner of the potential for damage to future residents and the public, and, failing agreement on Engineer A's proposed design standard, Engineer A should withdraw from the project.
temporalscope: After exhausting attempts to convince the owner of the need for the higher design standard
textreferences: The BER concluded that Engineer A should continue to attempt to convince the owner of the potential for damage to future residents and the public, and, failing agreement on Engineer A's proposed design standard, Engineer A should withdraw from the project.
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:31:11.073145
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Environmental Hazard - Tidal Saltmarsh Crossing
type: EnvironmentalHazardPresent
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: Throughout project design, permitting, and operational life
affectedparties: Client B
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Regulatory authorities
affectedparties: Saltmarsh ecosystem
affectedparties: Twenty upstream homeowners
concept category: State
confidence: 0.85
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T00:09:07.016855+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T00:09:07.016855+00:00
importance: medium
sourcetext: a developer who is proposing to develop a health care facility that requires a significant upgrade to the property's access road that crosses a tidal saltmarsh
stateclass: Environmental Hazard Present
subject: The tidal saltmarsh crossed by the access road, subject to sea level rise and storm surge impacts
terminatedby: Project abandonment or adequate environmental and hydraulic mitigation
textreferences: a developer who is proposing to develop a health care facility that requires a significant upgrade to the property's access road that crosses a tidal saltmarsh
textreferences: the extent to which sea level rise and the increased hydraulic capacity of the tidal crossing will result in flood damage to a neighborhood of twenty upstream homes during future high tides and storm surges
triggeringevent: Project siting requiring a tidal crossing upgrade in a saltmarsh environment subject to sea level rise and intensified storm events
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:31:11.058548
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits Tested by Client B's Directive
type: FaithfulAgentObligationWithinEthicalLimits
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Client B's cost-management directive
appliedto: Engineer A's consulting engagement with Client B
balancingwith: Non-Acquiescence to Client Directive Suppressing Safety Analysis
balancingwith: Public Welfare Paramount
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A is Client B's faithful agent for the roadway design engagement, obligated to execute Client B's project diligently; however, Client B's directive to forgo safety analysis tests the ethical limits of that agency, requiring Engineer A to determine whether compliance would cross into ethical violation.
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T14:10:34.833493+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T14:10:34.833493+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: In this context, the principle permits Engineer A to respect Client B's business decisions within ethical limits but prohibits acquiescence to directives that suppress safety-critical analysis.
invokedby: Client B Development Project Client Refusing Safety Evaluation
invokedby: Engineer A Climate Change Impact Evaluating Infrastructure Engineer
principleclass: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
sourcetext: Engineer A is a consulting engineer representing Client B, a developer who is proposing to develop a health care facility that requires a significant upgrade to the property's access road that crosses a tidal saltmarsh.
tensionresolution: The ethical limits of faithful agency are reached when the client's directive would suppress analysis the engineer has determined is necessary to characterize material public risk.
textreferences: Client B directs Engineer A to proceed without the costly analysis unless and until such an analysis is requested by the applicable regulatory authorities.
textreferences: Engineer A is a consulting engineer representing Client B, a developer who is proposing to develop a health care facility.
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T10:32:26.854573
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Post-Client-Refusal Escalation Assessment Obligation Triggered by Client B's Refusal
type: Post-Client-RefusalEscalationAssessmentObligation
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Client B's refusal of specialized subconsultant analysis
appliedto: Regulatory permitting authorities
appliedto: Upstream Homeowners Flood Risk Community
balancingwith: Conditional Proceeding Under Documented Uncertainty
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: After Client B refuses Engineer A's proposed specialized hydrologic/hydraulic analysis, Engineer A must assess whether the nature, probability, and severity of the identified flood risk to twenty upstream homes triggers an obligation to escalate to regulatory authorities or directly notify the affected community.
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T14:10:34.833493+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T14:10:34.833493+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: In this context, the principle requires Engineer A to critically assess whether Client B's refusal — given that the risk involves potential uninhabitability of twenty homes a decade or more earlier — triggers escalation obligations beyond simply documenting the disagreement.
invokedby: Engineer A Climate Change Impact Evaluating Infrastructure Engineer
principleclass: Post-Client-Refusal Escalation Assessment Obligation
sourcetext: Client B directs Engineer A to proceed without the costly analysis unless and until such an analysis is requested by the applicable regulatory authorities.
tensionresolution: The severity and identifiability of the risk (twenty specific homes, decade-earlier uninhabitability) weighs toward escalation rather than conditional proceeding with documented uncertainty.
textreferences: Client B directs Engineer A to proceed without the costly analysis unless and until such an analysis is requested by the applicable regulatory authorities.
textreferences: It is Engineer A's judgment, based on hydraulic evaluation procedures presented at a recent transportation agency conference, that the proposed project may result in some upstream homes becoming uninhabitable a decade or more earlier than would otherwise be the case.
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T10:32:26.854737
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Potential Safety Risk Without Confirmed Imminent Harm — Engineer A Climate Assessment
type: PotentialSafetyRiskWithoutConfirmedImminentHarmState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: Active from Engineer A's initial professional judgment of risk; persists until detailed evaluation is completed
affectedparties: Adjacent property owners
affectedparties: Client B
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Future residents
affectedparties: Public
concept category: State
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T06:42:52.571341+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T06:42:52.571341+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer A need not necessarily be a modelling expert
stateclass: Potential Safety Risk Without Confirmed Imminent Harm State
subject: The unconfirmed but reasonably foreseeable public safety risk from the project under future climate conditions
terminatedby: Completion of detailed climate and hydraulic modeling evaluation
textreferences: Engineer A need not necessarily be a modelling expert
textreferences: Engineer A needs to have sufficient understanding of hydrology, hydraulics, and coastal modeling to form a reasonable judgment that there is sufficient potential for flooding
textreferences: The outcome of this case might have been different had Engineer A been comfortable with predicting that significant public health, safety, and welfare impacts were unlikely
triggeringevent: Engineer A's professional judgment that climate-driven flooding risk is reasonably likely and significant but has not yet been confirmed through detailed modeling
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T10:32:26.877416
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Professional Competence in Risk Assessment Invoked By Engineer A Hydraulic Evaluation
type: ProfessionalCompetenceinRiskAssessment
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Tidal crossing bridge replacement design
appliedto: Upstream flood risk assessment
balancingwith: Fact-Based Disclosure Obligation
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A applied hydraulic evaluation procedures from a recent transportation agency conference to assess the upstream flood risk of the proposed tidal crossing upgrade, demonstrating the professional obligation to apply current technical knowledge to identify and assess risks even when that knowledge is preliminary and the regulatory standard does not require such assessment
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T00:13:22.311648+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T00:13:22.311648+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: In this context, professional competence in risk assessment requires Engineer A to act on the preliminary risk assessment by recommending specialized analysis to quantify the identified risk, rather than deferring action pending the regulatory authority's request for such analysis
invokedby: Engineer A Tidal Crossing Infrastructure Design Engineer
principleclass: Professional Competence in Risk Assessment
sourcetext: it is Engineer A's judgment, based on hydraulic evaluation procedures presented at a recent transportation agency conference, that the proposed project may result in some upstream homes becoming uninhabitable a decade or more earlier than would otherwise be the case
tensionresolution: Professional competence in risk assessment requires acting on preliminary professional judgments about material risks, while fact-based disclosure obligation requires qualifying those judgments appropriately as preliminary; both principles are satisfied by recommending specialized analysis to confirm or refute the preliminary assessment
textreferences: Engineer A proposes a complex and costly hydrologic and hydraulic analysis by a specialized subconsultant to predict the extent to which sea level rise and the increased hydraulic capacity of the tidal crossing will result in flood damage
textreferences: it is Engineer A's judgment, based on hydraulic evaluation procedures presented at a recent transportation agency conference, that the proposed project may result in some upstream homes becoming uninhabitable a decade or more earlier than would otherwise be the case
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:31:11.063235
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Public Welfare Paramount Invoked by BER Discussion Section
type: PublicWelfareParamount
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Flooding risk to upstream homeowners
appliedto: Tidal crossing culvert-to-bridge upgrade
balancingwith: Client Loyalty
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The BER affirms that Engineer A's primary ethical obligation — to hold paramount the protection of public health, safety, and welfare — is not bounded by legal or regulatory requirements but applies broadly to all reasonably likely and significant impacts, including flooding of upstream homes accelerated by the tidal crossing upgrade.
confidence: 0.97
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T14:20:08.457238+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T14:20:08.457238+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: In this context, the public welfare paramount principle requires Engineer A to address climate change impacts on flooding risk regardless of regulatory requirement, to engage Client B in discussions about mitigation, to propose regulatory disclosure, and to withdraw if Client B refuses both.
invokedby: Engineer A Climate Change Impact Evaluating Infrastructure Engineer
principleclass: Public Welfare Paramount
sourcetext: Professional engineers have a primary ethical obligation to hold paramount the protection of public health, safety, and welfare. That obligation is not bounded by what is required by law, or by regulations, but rather is stated broadly.
tensionresolution: Public welfare paramount overrides client direction to forgo specialized analysis; Engineer A must advocate for analysis and disclosure even against client resistance, and must withdraw if client refuses both.
textreferences: Engineer A does have an ethical obligation to address the impacts of the project on public health, safety, and welfare regardless of whether or not that is required by applicable law.
textreferences: Professional engineers have a primary ethical obligation to hold paramount the protection of public health, safety, and welfare.
textreferences: That obligation is not bounded by what is required by law, or by regulations, but rather is stated broadly.
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T10:32:26.862109
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Public Welfare Paramount Invoked in Climate Change Gray Areas
type: PublicWelfareParamount
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Tidal crossing bridge replacement design
appliedto: Upstream flood risk to twenty homes
balancingwith: Client Loyalty
balancingwith: Cost management directives from Client B
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A's primary ethical obligation to protect public health, safety, and welfare extends beyond legal and regulatory requirements to encompass climate-driven flooding risks to upstream homeowners, requiring action even in the absence of regulatory mandates
confidence: 0.97
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T00:19:27.254437+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T00:19:27.254437+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: In this context, the public welfare obligation requires Engineer A to address climate change impacts on flooding even where not legally required, because the obligation is stated broadly and is not bounded by law or regulation
invokedby: Engineer A Tidal Crossing Infrastructure Design Engineer
principleclass: Public Welfare Paramount
sourcetext: Professional engineers have a primary ethical obligation to hold paramount the protection of public health, safety, and welfare. That obligation is not bounded by what is required by law, or by regulations, but rather is stated broadly.
tensionresolution: Public welfare obligation is paramount and overrides client cost management preferences when significant and reasonably likely harm to third parties is identified
textreferences: Engineer A does have an ethical obligation to address the impacts of the project on public health, safety, and welfare regardless of whether or not that is required by applicable law.
textreferences: Professional engineers have a primary ethical obligation to hold paramount the protection of public health, safety, and welfare. That obligation is not bounded by what is required by law, or by regulations, but rather is stated broadly.
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:31:11.069958
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Regulatory Gap Awareness Invoked By Engineer A Climate Change
type: RegulatoryGapAwarenessandProactiveRiskDisclosure
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Local development regulations requiring 25-year fresh-water storm design
appliedto: Sea level rise and climate change projections
balancingwith: Client Loyalty
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A recognized that local development regulations and national design codes had not been updated to reflect climate change effects — including sea level rise and updated precipitation recurrence intervals — and that designing to the regulatory minimum (25-year fresh-water storm based on historical data) would therefore fail to capture material future flood risks to upstream homeowners
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T00:13:22.311648+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T00:13:22.311648+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: In this context, the regulatory gap between current scientific understanding of climate change and the outdated regulatory design standard creates a professional obligation for Engineer A to disclose the gap to Client B and the local permitting regulatory authority, and to recommend supplemental analysis that captures the climate-adjusted risk
invokedby: Engineer A Tidal Crossing Infrastructure Design Engineer
principleclass: Regulatory Gap Awareness and Proactive Risk Disclosure
sourcetext: The local development regulations and national design codes and standards have not yet been updated to reflect changing conditions and weather patterns, including effects of sea level rise and changes in precipitation intensities and recurrence intervals effected by on-going climate change
tensionresolution: The regulatory gap principle requires Engineer A to act on professional judgment about the inadequacy of the regulatory standard rather than treating regulatory compliance as equivalent to adequate public protection
textreferences: Local development regulations require designing for a 25-year fresh-water storm, and assume that future weather conditions will be consistent with updated historical data
textreferences: The local development regulations and national design codes and standards have not yet been updated to reflect changing conditions and weather patterns, including effects of sea level rise and changes in precipitation intensities and recurrence intervals effected by on-going climate change
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:31:11.061713
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Regulatory Standard Climate Gap - Tidal Crossing Project
type: RegulatoryStandardClimateGapState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From project inception through any regulatory update or project completion
affectedparties: Client B
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Public
affectedparties: Regulatory authorities
affectedparties: Twenty upstream homeowners
concept category: State
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T00:09:07.016855+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T00:09:07.016855+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Local development regulations require designing for a 25-year fresh-water storm, and assume that future weather conditions will be consistent with updated historical data.
stateclass: Regulatory Standard Climate Gap State
subject: Applicable local development regulations and national design codes governing the tidal crossing upgrade
terminatedby: Regulatory update to reflect current climate science, or project abandonment
textreferences: Local development regulations require designing for a 25-year fresh-water storm, and assume that future weather conditions will be consistent with updated historical data.
textreferences: The local development regulations and national design codes and standards have not yet been updated to reflect changing conditions and weather patterns, including effects of sea level rise and changes in precipitation intensities and recurrence intervals effected by on-going climate change.
triggeringevent: Engineer A's recognition that local development regulations require designing for a 25-year fresh-water storm using historical data, while current climate science indicates those standards are inadequate for projected sea level rise and altered precipitation patterns
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:31:11.056717
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Standard of Care as Ethical Floor Invoked Against 25-Year Storm Regulatory Minimum
type: StandardofCareasEthicalFloor
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: 25-year storm regulatory design standard
appliedto: Proposed specialized hydrologic/hydraulic analysis
balancingwith: Client cost directives
balancingwith: Regulatory compliance as complete defense
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The 25-year storm regulatory standard represents the legal floor for the tidal crossing design; Engineer A's professional judgment that this standard is inadequate given climate change establishes an obligation to exceed it — treating regulatory compliance as the minimum, not the maximum, of professional responsibility.
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T14:10:34.833493+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T14:10:34.833493+00:00
importance: medium
interpretation: In this context, the principle requires Engineer A to advise Client B and regulators that compliance with the 25-year storm standard does not discharge professional responsibility for the identified climate-driven risk to upstream homes.
invokedby: Engineer A Climate Change Impact Evaluating Infrastructure Engineer
principleclass: Standard of Care as Ethical Floor
sourcetext: Local development regulations require designing for a 25-year fresh-water storm, and assume that future weather conditions will be consistent with updated historical data.
tensionresolution: The principle establishes that the regulatory standard is the floor; Engineer A's professional judgment that the floor is inadequate creates an obligation to recommend and pursue analysis beyond that minimum.
textreferences: Local development regulations require designing for a 25-year fresh-water storm, and assume that future weather conditions will be consistent with updated historical data.
textreferences: The local development regulations and national design codes and standards have not yet been updated to reflect changing conditions and weather patterns.
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T10:32:26.855502
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Standard of Care as Ethical Floor Invoked by BER Discussion Section
type: StandardofCareasEthicalFloor
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Climate change impact assessment obligation
appliedto: Regulatory standards for tidal crossing design
balancingwith: Client Loyalty
balancingwith: Regulatory Gap Awareness and Proactive Risk Disclosure
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The BER's holding that Engineer A must go 'beyond' existing requirements to address climate change impacts — and that the obligation exists regardless of regulatory requirement — operationalizes the principle that the standard of care is the ethical floor, not the ceiling, and that engineers must consider exceeding it when professional judgment identifies material risks not captured by regulatory standards.
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T14:20:08.457238+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T14:20:08.457238+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: In this context, the standard of care floor principle requires Engineer A to recognize that meeting regulatory requirements is the minimum, not the maximum, of ethical obligation — and that the identified flooding risk to upstream homeowners requires Engineer A to go beyond the regulatory minimum.
invokedby: Engineer A Climate Change Impact Evaluating Infrastructure Engineer
principleclass: Standard of Care as Ethical Floor
sourcetext: Considering the effects of climate change in engineering planning and design adds substantial complexity to engineering decision-making as engineers consider 'going beyond' existing requirements to provide long-term protection of public health, safety, and welfare.
tensionresolution: Standard of care floor principle supports going beyond regulatory minimum; Engineer A must not treat regulatory compliance as a complete discharge of ethical obligation.
textreferences: Considering the effects of climate change in engineering planning and design adds substantial complexity to engineering decision-making as engineers consider 'going beyond' existing requirements to provide long-term protection of public health, safety, and welfare.
textreferences: Engineer A does have an ethical obligation to address the impacts of the project on public health, safety, and welfare regardless of whether or not that is required by applicable law.
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T10:32:26.863874
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Unverified Third-Party Flood Risk - Upstream Homes
type: UnverifiedConcernState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Engineer A's initial hydraulic evaluation until specialized analysis is completed or the concern is otherwise resolved
affectedparties: Client B
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Regulatory authorities
affectedparties: Twenty upstream homeowners
concept category: State
confidence: 0.85
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T00:09:07.016855+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T00:09:07.016855+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: It is Engineer A's judgment, based on hydraulic evaluation procedures presented at a recent transportation agency conference, that the proposed project may result in some upstream homes becoming uninhabitable a decade or more earlier than would otherwise be the case.
stateclass: Unverified Concern State
subject: Engineer A's professional judgment about upstream flood risk, not yet confirmed by specialized analysis
terminatedby: Completion of specialized hydrologic and hydraulic analysis, or project abandonment
textreferences: It is Engineer A's judgment, based on hydraulic evaluation procedures presented at a recent transportation agency conference, that the proposed project may result in some upstream homes becoming uninhabitable a decade or more earlier than would otherwise be the case.
triggeringevent: Engineer A's application of hydraulic evaluation procedures from a recent transportation agency conference to the proposed tidal crossing upgrade
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:31:11.057578
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Climate-Informed Infrastructure Design Invoked By Engineer A
type: Climate-InformedInfrastructureDesignStandard
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Sea level rise and precipitation change projections
appliedto: Tidal crossing bridge replacement design
balancingwith: Client Cost Management Preferences
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A applied hydraulic evaluation procedures from a recent transportation agency conference to assess the climate-adjusted flood risk of the proposed tidal crossing upgrade, concluding that the project may accelerate upstream uninhabitability by a decade or more — a conclusion that regulatory compliance alone would not have generated
confidence: 0.85
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T00:13:22.311648+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T00:13:22.311648+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: In this context, the climate-informed design standard requires Engineer A to recommend specialized hydrologic and hydraulic analysis that accounts for sea level rise and updated precipitation data, even though the regulatory minimum does not require such analysis
invokedby: Engineer A Tidal Crossing Infrastructure Design Engineer
principleclass: Climate-Informed Infrastructure Design Standard
sourcetext: it is Engineer A's judgment, based on hydraulic evaluation procedures presented at a recent transportation agency conference, that the proposed project may result in some upstream homes becoming uninhabitable a decade or more earlier than would otherwise be the case
tensionresolution: The climate-informed design standard requires Engineer A to recommend analysis beyond the regulatory minimum when professional judgment indicates that the regulatory standard is inadequate to capture foreseeable future risks
textreferences: Engineer A proposes a complex and costly hydrologic and hydraulic analysis by a specialized subconsultant to predict the extent to which sea level rise and the increased hydraulic capacity of the tidal crossing will result in flood damage
textreferences: it is Engineer A's judgment, based on hydraulic evaluation procedures presented at a recent transportation agency conference, that the proposed project may result in some upstream homes becoming uninhabitable a decade or more earlier than would otherwise be the case
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:31:11.061885
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Climate as Moving Target Invoked by BER Discussion Section
type: ClimateChangeasMovingTargetinEngineeringDesign
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Flooding risk assessment for upstream homeowners
appliedto: Tidal crossing hydraulic assessment
balancingwith: Regulatory Gap Awareness and Proactive Risk Disclosure
balancingwith: Standard of Care as Ethical Floor
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The BER holds that engineers can no longer treat historical climate and weather data as a fixed baseline for design purposes; climate and weather patterns must be treated as a 'moving target,' requiring Engineer A to incorporate projected future climate conditions — not merely historical data — into the assessment of flooding impacts on upstream homes.
confidence: 0.96
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T14:20:08.457238+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T14:20:08.457238+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: In this context, the moving target principle requires Engineer A to consult updated precipitation data and climate projections, and to recognize that historical baselines may systematically understate future flooding risk.
invokedby: Engineer A Climate Change Impact Evaluating Infrastructure Engineer
principleclass: Climate Change as Moving Target in Engineering Design
sourcetext: This necessitates that climate and weather patterns be addressed not as fixed by historical patterns but rather recognized as a 'moving target.'
tensionresolution: The moving target principle supplements the standard of care by requiring engineers to go beyond historical baselines even when regulatory standards have not yet been updated to require it.
textreferences: For more than a century, engineers have assumed that future climate and weather conditions will be consistent with historical climate and weather data.
textreferences: In recent decades, as climate and weather data are updated, the historical dataset changes as climate and weather patterns continue to change.
textreferences: This necessitates that climate and weather patterns be addressed not as fixed by historical patterns but rather recognized as a 'moving target.'
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T10:32:26.862297
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Competing Public Goods Balancing Invoked By Engineer A Developer vs Upstream Community
type: CompetingPublicGoodsBalancinginEngineeringAdvisoryRoles
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Client B Cost-Directing Developer
appliedto: Local Permitting Regulatory Authority
appliedto: Upstream Neighborhood Twenty Homes Community
balancingwith: Client Loyalty
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A identified a genuine conflict between two legitimate public goods — the public benefit of a new healthcare facility requiring the tidal crossing upgrade, and the public welfare of twenty upstream homeowners facing accelerated uninhabitability — requiring Engineer A to present both goods and their trade-offs to Client B and the regulatory authority rather than resolving the conflict unilaterally
confidence: 0.87
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T00:13:22.311648+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T00:13:22.311648+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: In this context, competing public goods balancing requires Engineer A to present the full trade-off between the public benefit of the healthcare facility and the public welfare cost to upstream homeowners, and to recommend that the regulatory authority make the value trade-off decision through the public hearing process rather than allowing it to be resolved by default through the omission of specialized analysis
invokedby: Engineer A Tidal Crossing Infrastructure Design Engineer
principleclass: Competing Public Goods Balancing in Engineering Advisory Roles
sourcetext: anticipating this to be a difficult question to answer in the project's public hearings
tensionresolution: The competing public goods balancing principle requires Engineer A to present both goods transparently to decision-makers rather than allowing Client B's cost management preference to unilaterally resolve the trade-off in favor of the healthcare facility at the expense of upstream homeowners
textreferences: Client B directs Engineer A to proceed without the costly analysis unless and until such an analysis is requested by the applicable regulatory authorities
textreferences: anticipating this to be a difficult question to answer in the project's public hearings
textreferences: it is Engineer A's judgment, based on hydraulic evaluation procedures presented at a recent transportation agency conference, that the proposed project may result in some upstream homes becoming uninhabitable a decade or more earlier than would otherwise be the case
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:31:11.063082
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Conditional Proceeding Under Documented Uncertainty Invoked as Counterfactual
type: ConditionalProceedingUnderDocumentedUncertainty
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Decision whether to proceed with tidal crossing design without specialized analysis
balancingwith: Climate-Informed Infrastructure Design Standard
balancingwith: Public Welfare Paramount
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Had Engineer A been professionally comfortable predicting that significant public health, safety, and welfare impacts were unlikely, Engineer A could have ethically proceeded with the project while documenting that judgment in writing and noting in public statements that more detailed analysis would be required to confirm it — but this conditional permission does not apply given the facts presented
confidence: 0.85
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T00:19:27.254437+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T00:19:27.254437+00:00
importance: medium
interpretation: The conditional permission to proceed under documented uncertainty is not available to Engineer A in this case because the facts indicate that Engineer A cannot form a professional judgment that significant harm is unlikely — the condition precedent for the permission is not satisfied
invokedby: Engineer A Tidal Crossing Infrastructure Design Engineer
principleclass: Conditional Proceeding Under Documented Uncertainty
sourcetext: The outcome of this case might have been different had Engineer A been comfortable with predicting that significant public health, safety, and welfare impacts were unlikely, in which case Engineer A might have ethically been able to proceed while noting both in writing and in public statements that more detailed analysis would be required to confirm that judgment.
tensionresolution: The conditional permission to proceed is bounded by the engineer's honest professional assessment; where the engineer cannot form a judgment that significant harm is unlikely, the permission does not apply and the full escalation obligation is triggered
textreferences: The outcome of this case might have been different had Engineer A been comfortable with predicting that significant public health, safety, and welfare impacts were unlikely, in which case Engineer A might have ethically been able to proceed while noting both in writing and in public statements that more detailed analysis would be required to confirm that judgment. However, with the facts as presented, Engineer A should engage Client B in discussions about the need for the detailed evaluation...
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:31:11.070636
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Conditional Proceeding Under Documented Uncertainty as Alternative Pathway for Engineer A
type: ConditionalProceedingUnderDocumentedUncertainty
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Decision whether to proceed without specialized subconsultant analysis
appliedto: Regulatory permitting process
balancingwith: Non-Acquiescence to Client Directive Suppressing Safety Analysis
balancingwith: Post-Client-Refusal Escalation Assessment Obligation
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: An alternative ethical pathway would permit Engineer A to proceed with the project without the specialized analysis if Engineer A documents in writing the professional judgment that the risk, while present, is insufficiently certain to require analysis before proceeding — and discloses this uncertainty to regulators during permitting.
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T14:10:34.833493+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T14:10:34.833493+00:00
importance: medium
interpretation: In this context, the principle's applicability is limited by the fact that Engineer A's professional judgment affirmatively identifies material risk (decade-earlier uninhabitability of twenty homes), making conditional proceeding ethically questionable without at minimum regulatory disclosure.
invokedby: Engineer A Climate Change Impact Evaluating Infrastructure Engineer
principleclass: Conditional Proceeding Under Documented Uncertainty
sourcetext: It is Engineer A's judgment, based on hydraulic evaluation procedures presented at a recent transportation agency conference, that the proposed project may result in some upstream homes becoming uninhabitable a decade or more earlier than would otherwise be the case.
tensionresolution: The principle may permit conditional proceeding only if Engineer A's confidence that the risk is not material is reasonable — but the case facts suggest Engineer A believes the risk is real, limiting the applicability of this pathway.
textreferences: Client B directs Engineer A to proceed without the costly analysis unless and until such an analysis is requested by the applicable regulatory authorities.
textreferences: It is Engineer A's judgment, based on hydraulic evaluation procedures presented at a recent transportation agency conference, that the proposed project may result in some upstream homes becoming uninhabitable a decade or more earlier than would otherwise be the case.
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T10:32:26.855155
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Engineer A BER 18-9 Graduated Escalation Coastal Development Withdrawal
type: GraduatedEscalationBeforeProjectWithdrawalObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A performed hydrodynamic modeling for a residential development and advocated for design to the 100-year storm surge elevation; the owner refused to agree that such protection was required.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.91
derived from principle: Climate-Informed Infrastructure Design Standard Invoked by BER Case 18-9 Precedent
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T14:21:57.794732+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T14:21:57.794732+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A (BER Case 18-9)
obligationclass: Graduated Escalation Before Project Withdrawal Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A in BER Case 18-9 was obligated to continue attempting to convince the owner of the potential for damage from storm surge, and, failing agreement on the proposed design standard, to withdraw from the project.
sourcetext: The BER concluded that Engineer A should continue to attempt to convince the owner of the potential for damage to future residents and the public, and, failing agreement on Engineer A's proposed design standard, Engineer A should withdraw from the project.
temporalscope: After the owner's refusal to adopt the recommended design standard
textreferences: The BER concluded that Engineer A should continue to attempt to convince the owner of the potential for damage to future residents and the public, and, failing agreement on Engineer A's proposed design standard, Engineer A should withdraw from the project.
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T10:32:26.864757
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Engineer A Graduated Escalation Tidal Crossing Client B Refusal
type: GraduatedEscalationBeforeProjectWithdrawalObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Client B has directed Engineer A to forgo the specialized hydrologic/hydraulic analysis; Engineer A must pursue graduated escalation before withdrawal is warranted.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.95
derived from principle: Graduated Escalation Before Withdrawal Invoked Against Client B
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T14:21:57.794732+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T14:21:57.794732+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Graduated Escalation Before Project Withdrawal Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to pursue a graduated escalation sequence with Client B: first engaging Client B in discussions about the need for detailed evaluation and disclosure of potential impacts and alternatives; then proposing submission of an engineering report to regulatory agencies and the public; and only withdrawing if Client B refuses both courses of action.
sourcetext: Engineer A should engage Client B in discussions about the need for the detailed evaluation and disclosure of the potential impacts on the public and alternatives for the project to mitigate those impacts, and the potential risk to Client B of not evaluating the potential impacts.
temporalscope: After Client B's refusal to authorize the specialized analysis
textreferences: Engineer A should engage Client B in discussions about the need for the detailed evaluation and disclosure of the potential impacts on the public and alternatives for the project to mitigate those impacts, and the potential risk to Client B of not evaluating the potential impacts.
textreferences: Failing agreement by Client B to either of these courses of action the BER believes that Engineer A should withdraw from the project.
textreferences: If Client B remains unconvinced, Engineer A should propose to Client B that engineer a provides the potential concern that may necessitate more detailed evaluation in an engineering report for consideration by regulatory agencies and the public.
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T10:32:26.864924
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Engineer A Regulatory Authority Proactive Risk Disclosure Without Client Authorization Tidal Crossing
type: RegulatoryAuthorityProactiveRiskDisclosureWithoutClientAuthorizationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
defeasible under: Client B Deferral of Third-Party Risk Analysis
defeasible under: Competing Duties — Client Authority vs. Third-Party Protection
casecontext: Client B has directed Engineer A to forgo the specialized analysis; Engineer A must evaluate whether the identified risk to twenty upstream homes warrants independent regulatory disclosure notwithstanding Client B's directive.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.88
derived from principle: Proactive Risk Disclosure Invoked By Engineer A Upstream Flood
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T14:13:00.331319+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T14:13:00.331319+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Regulatory Authority Proactive Risk Disclosure Without Client Authorization Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A is obligated to evaluate whether the preliminary finding of material flood risk to twenty upstream homes is sufficiently serious to require proactive disclosure to the applicable regulatory authority independent of Client B's authorization, recognizing that the paramount duty to protect public health, safety, and welfare may require disclosure to regulators even though Client B has directed Engineer A to proceed without the specialized analysis.
sourcetext: Client B directs Engineer A to proceed without the costly analysis unless and until such an analysis is requested by the applicable regulatory authorities.
temporalscope: After Client B's directive to forgo the specialized analysis and after graduated escalation steps have been exhausted or refused
textreferences: Client B directs Engineer A to proceed without the costly analysis unless and until such an analysis is requested by the applicable regulatory authorities.
textreferences: It is Engineer A's judgment, based on hydraulic evaluation procedures presented at a recent transportation agency conference, that the proposed project may result in some upstream homes becoming uninhabitable a decade or more earlier than would otherwise be the case.
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T10:32:26.857558
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Engineer A Regulatory Report Submission Proposal Tidal Crossing Escalation
type: RegulatoryReportSubmissionProposalasEscalationStepObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: As the second step in the graduated escalation sequence, after Client B refuses to authorize the specialized analysis, Engineer A must propose the regulatory report pathway before withdrawal.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.93
derived from principle: Post-Client-Refusal Escalation Assessment Obligation Triggered by Client B's Refusal
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T14:21:57.794732+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T14:21:57.794732+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Regulatory Report Submission Proposal as Escalation Step Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated, if Client B remained unconvinced after initial engagement, to propose to Client B that Engineer A document the identified public health, safety, and welfare concern in an engineering report for submission to and consideration by regulatory agencies and the public.
sourcetext: If Client B remains unconvinced, Engineer A should propose to Client B that engineer a provides the potential concern that may necessitate more detailed evaluation in an engineering report for consideration by regulatory agencies and the public.
temporalscope: After Client B's refusal of the initial engagement discussions, before withdrawal
textreferences: If Client B remains unconvinced, Engineer A should propose to Client B that engineer a provides the potential concern that may necessitate more detailed evaluation in an engineering report for consideration by regulatory agencies and the public.
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T10:32:26.865257
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Environmental Stewardship Invoked By Engineer A Tidal Saltmarsh
type: EnvironmentalStewardshipinEngineeringPractice
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Tidal saltmarsh crossing design
appliedto: Upstream hydraulic conditions
balancingwith: Client Cost Management Preferences
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A's design work involves upgrading a tidal crossing through a tidal saltmarsh, requiring consideration of the hydraulic and ecological impacts of increasing the crossing's hydraulic capacity on the saltmarsh system and upstream hydrological conditions
confidence: 0.85
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T00:13:22.311648+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T00:13:22.311648+00:00
importance: medium
interpretation: In this context, environmental stewardship requires Engineer A to assess the ecological and hydraulic impacts of the tidal crossing upgrade on the saltmarsh system and to recommend design alternatives that minimize those impacts, including impacts on upstream flood risk
invokedby: Engineer A Tidal Crossing Infrastructure Design Engineer
principleclass: Environmental Stewardship in Engineering Practice
sourcetext: Engineer A is a consulting engineer representing Client B, a developer who is proposing to develop a health care facility that requires a significant upgrade to the property's access road that crosses a tidal saltmarsh
tensionresolution: Environmental stewardship obligations reinforce rather than conflict with the public welfare obligation in this case, as both require assessment of the hydraulic impacts of the tidal crossing upgrade
textreferences: Engineer A is a consulting engineer representing Client B, a developer who is proposing to develop a health care facility that requires a significant upgrade to the property's access road that crosses a tidal saltmarsh
textreferences: Engineer A's scope includes design and local permitting of the roadway, including an upgrade of the tidal crossing from a small culvert to a small bridge, increasing its hydraulic capacity
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:31:11.062896
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Environmental Stewardship Invoked in Tidal Saltmarsh Crossing Design
type: EnvironmentalStewardshipinEngineeringPractice
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Tidal saltmarsh crossing design
appliedto: Upstream hydrological impacts
balancingwith: Client cost directives
balancingwith: Regulatory compliance as sufficient defense
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The tidal crossing upgrade from culvert to bridge in a tidal saltmarsh implicates environmental stewardship obligations, including consideration of hydrological impacts on the saltmarsh ecosystem and upstream watershed from increased hydraulic capacity.
confidence: 0.87
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T14:10:34.833493+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T14:10:34.833493+00:00
importance: medium
interpretation: In this context, environmental stewardship requires Engineer A to assess not only the direct design impacts on the saltmarsh but also the upstream hydrological consequences of increased hydraulic capacity for the coastal watershed.
invokedby: Engineer A Climate Change Impact Evaluating Infrastructure Engineer
principleclass: Environmental Stewardship in Engineering Practice
sourcetext: Engineer A is a consulting engineer representing Client B, a developer who is proposing to develop a health care facility that requires a significant upgrade to the property's access road that crosses a tidal saltmarsh.
tensionresolution: Environmental stewardship reinforces the obligation to conduct the specialized hydrologic/hydraulic analysis by situating the upstream flood risk within the broader context of coastal ecosystem management.
textreferences: Engineer A is a consulting engineer representing Client B, a developer who is proposing to develop a health care facility that requires a significant upgrade to the property's access road that crosses a tidal saltmarsh.
textreferences: Engineer A's scope includes design and local permitting of the roadway, including an upgrade of the tidal crossing from a small culvert to a small bridge, increasing its hydraulic capacity.
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T10:32:26.855321
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Interdisciplinary Competence Threshold Invoked by BER Discussion Section
type: InterdisciplinaryCompetenceThresholdforSpecializedReferral
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Hydrologic and hydraulic analysis of tidal crossing flooding impacts
appliedto: Specialized subconsultant engagement decision
balancingwith: Client Loyalty
balancingwith: Professional Competence
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The BER holds that Engineer A need not be a modelling expert but must have sufficient understanding of hydrology, hydraulics, and coastal modeling to recognize that there is sufficient potential for flooding to merit a detailed, complex evaluation — and that Engineer A in fact has such understanding, triggering the obligation to propose specialized subconsultant engagement.
confidence: 0.96
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T14:20:08.457238+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T14:20:08.457238+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: In this context, the interdisciplinary competence threshold principle requires Engineer A to recognize the need for specialized modelling even though Engineer A is not a modelling expert, and to propose engagement of the specialized subconsultant rather than treating absence of personal expertise as a defense.
invokedby: Engineer A Climate Change Impact Evaluating Infrastructure Engineer
principleclass: Interdisciplinary Competence Threshold for Specialized Referral
sourcetext: Engineer A need not necessarily be a modelling expert. However, Engineer A needs to have sufficient understanding of hydrology, hydraulics, and coastal modeling to form a reasonable judgment that there is sufficient potential for flooding of other properties to merit a detailed, complex evaluation of future conditions.
tensionresolution: The competence threshold principle resolves in favor of recognizing the need for specialized analysis; Engineer A's cross-disciplinary literacy is sufficient to trigger the referral obligation even without personal modelling expertise.
textreferences: Based on the facts in this case, it is clear that Engineer A has such an understanding of the broad project issues.
textreferences: Engineer A need not necessarily be a modelling expert.
textreferences: However, Engineer A needs to have sufficient understanding of hydrology, hydraulics, and coastal modeling to form a reasonable judgment that there is sufficient potential for flooding of other properties to merit a detailed, complex evaluation of future conditions.
textreferences: Such judgments increasingly necessitate engineers to have sufficient understanding of related areas of engineering practice and science to determine when more specialized evaluation is needed to assure protection of public health, safety, and welfare.
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T10:32:26.862674
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Interdisciplinary Competence Threshold Invoked for Hydraulic Modeling Recognition
type: InterdisciplinaryCompetenceThresholdforSpecializedReferral
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Assessment of flooding risk to upstream neighborhood
appliedto: Decision whether to recommend specialized hydrologic and hydraulic analysis
balancingwith: Client cost management directives
balancingwith: Professional Competence
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A, while not required to be a hydrodynamic modeling expert, must possess sufficient understanding of hydrology, hydraulics, and coastal modeling to recognize that the tidal crossing project creates sufficient potential for flooding of upstream properties to merit detailed specialized evaluation
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T00:19:27.254437+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T00:19:27.254437+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The threshold competence obligation is satisfied when Engineer A can form a reasonable professional judgment that specialized analysis is warranted — the obligation is to recognize necessity, not to perform the specialized work
invokedby: Engineer A Tidal Crossing Infrastructure Design Engineer
principleclass: Interdisciplinary Competence Threshold for Specialized Referral
sourcetext: Engineer A need not necessarily be a modelling expert. However, Engineer A needs to have sufficient understanding of hydrology, hydraulics, and coastal modeling to form a reasonable judgment that there is sufficient potential for flooding of other properties to merit a detailed, complex evaluation of future conditions.
tensionresolution: Engineer A's cross-disciplinary literacy is sufficient to trigger the obligation to recommend specialized analysis, even though Engineer A is not a specialist in hydrodynamic modeling
textreferences: Based on the facts in this case, it is clear that Engineer A has such an understanding of the broad project issues.
textreferences: Engineer A need not necessarily be a modelling expert. However, Engineer A needs to have sufficient understanding of hydrology, hydraulics, and coastal modeling to form a reasonable judgment that there is sufficient potential for flooding of other properties to merit a detailed, complex evaluation of future conditions.
textreferences: Such judgments increasingly necessitate engineers to have sufficient understanding of related areas of engineering practice and science to determine when more specialized evaluation is needed to assure protection of public health, safety, and welfare.
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:31:11.070319
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Non-Acquiescence to Client Directive Suppressing Safety Analysis Invoked by BER Discussion Section
type: Non-AcquiescencetoClientDirectiveSuppressingSafetyAnalysis
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Client B's direction to forgo specialized hydrologic and hydraulic subconsultant analysis
balancingwith: Client Loyalty
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The BER holds that Engineer A must not acquiesce to Client B's direction to forgo specialized hydrologic and hydraulic analysis; Engineer A must engage Client B in discussions about the need for detailed evaluation, propose regulatory report submission if Client B remains unconvinced, and withdraw if Client B refuses both courses of action.
confidence: 0.96
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T14:20:08.457238+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T14:20:08.457238+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: In this context, the non-acquiescence principle requires Engineer A to treat Client B's cost-based direction to forgo analysis as ethically impermissible when Engineer A's professional judgment indicates that the analysis is necessary to identify material flooding risks to upstream homeowners.
invokedby: Engineer A Climate Change Impact Evaluating Infrastructure Engineer
principleclass: Non-Acquiescence to Client Directive Suppressing Safety Analysis
sourcetext: Engineer A should engage Client B in discussions about the need for the detailed evaluation and disclosure of the potential impacts on the public and alternatives for the project to mitigate those impacts, and the potential risk to Client B of not evaluating the potential impacts.
tensionresolution: Non-acquiescence principle overrides client direction; Engineer A must advocate for analysis and disclosure even against client resistance, escalating to regulatory submission or withdrawal if client refuses.
textreferences: Engineer A should engage Client B in discussions about the need for the detailed evaluation and disclosure of the potential impacts on the public and alternatives for the project to mitigate those impacts, and the potential risk to Client B of not evaluating the potential impacts.
textreferences: Failing agreement by Client B to either of these courses of action the BER believes that Engineer A should withdraw from the project.
textreferences: If Client B remains unconvinced, Engineer A should propose to Client B that engineer a provides the potential concern that may necessitate more detailed evaluation in an engineering report for consideration by regulatory agencies and the public.
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T10:32:26.863013
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Non-Acquiescence to Unsafe Client Directives Invoked By Engineer A
type: Non-AcquiescencetoUnsafeClientDirectives
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Client B Cost-Directing Developer
appliedto: Specialized hydrologic and hydraulic analysis decision
balancingwith: Client Loyalty
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Client B directed Engineer A to proceed without the specialized hydraulic analysis unless and until requested by regulatory authorities; Engineer A's professional obligation requires refusal to acquiesce to this directive when professional judgment indicates the analysis is necessary to identify material risks to upstream homeowners
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T00:13:22.311648+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T00:13:22.311648+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: In this context, the non-acquiescence principle requires Engineer A to refuse to proceed without the specialized analysis, to document the professional judgment supporting that refusal, and to advise Client B in writing of the risks of proceeding without the analysis
invokedby: Engineer A Tidal Crossing Infrastructure Design Engineer
principleclass: Non-Acquiescence to Unsafe Client Directives
sourcetext: Client B directs Engineer A to proceed without the costly analysis unless and until such an analysis is requested by the applicable regulatory authorities
tensionresolution: The client's authority to direct scope and cost does not extend to directing the omission of safety-relevant analysis when the engineer's professional judgment identifies material risk to third-party welfare
textreferences: Client B directs Engineer A to proceed without the costly analysis unless and until such an analysis is requested by the applicable regulatory authorities
textreferences: Engineer A proposes a complex and costly hydrologic and hydraulic analysis by a specialized subconsultant to predict the extent to which sea level rise and the increased hydraulic capacity of the tidal crossing will result in flood damage to a neighborhood of twenty upstream homes
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:31:11.062348
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Professional Competence in Risk Assessment Invoked for Engineer A Hydraulic Judgment
type: ProfessionalCompetenceinRiskAssessment
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Decision to recommend specialized analysis
appliedto: Flood risk assessment for upstream neighborhood
balancingwith: Conditional Proceeding Under Documented Uncertainty
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A must apply specialized technical competence in hydrology, hydraulics, and coastal engineering to identify and assess the flood risks created by the tidal crossing project, and must act on that assessment even though the full quantification of risk requires additional specialized modeling
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T00:19:27.254437+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T00:19:27.254437+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The competence obligation requires Engineer A to act on preliminary qualitative risk assessments rather than deferring action pending the completion of specialized quantitative modeling — the preliminary assessment is itself a professional product that generates obligations
invokedby: Engineer A Tidal Crossing Infrastructure Design Engineer
principleclass: Professional Competence in Risk Assessment
sourcetext: Based on the facts in this case, it is clear that Engineer A has such an understanding of the broad project issues.
tensionresolution: Where preliminary professional assessment indicates reasonably likely and significant harm, the competence obligation requires action rather than deferral pending perfect information
textreferences: Based on the facts in this case, it is clear that Engineer A has such an understanding of the broad project issues.
textreferences: Engineer A needs to have sufficient understanding of hydrology, hydraulics, and coastal modeling to form a reasonable judgment that there is sufficient potential for flooding of other properties to merit a detailed, complex evaluation of future conditions.
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:31:11.071555
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Public Welfare Paramount Invoked by Engineer A Against Client B's Cost Directive
type: PublicWelfarePrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Client B's directive to forgo safety analysis
appliedto: Twenty upstream homes facing accelerated uninhabitability
balancingwith: Client Loyalty
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A's identification of material flood risk to twenty upstream homes — and Client B's directive to forgo analysis that would characterize that risk — creates a direct conflict between public welfare and client cost preferences, requiring Engineer A to hold public welfare paramount.
confidence: 0.98
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T14:10:34.833493+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T14:10:34.833493+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: In this context, public welfare paramount requires Engineer A to refuse to suppress safety analysis, notify affected parties or regulators, and escalate if Client B persists in blocking the analysis.
invokedby: Engineer A Climate Change Impact Evaluating Infrastructure Engineer
principleclass: Public Welfare Principle
sourcetext: Client B directs Engineer A to proceed without the costly analysis unless and until such an analysis is requested by the applicable regulatory authorities.
tensionresolution: Public welfare paramount overrides client cost preferences when the engineer has identified material risk to an identifiable community of twenty homes facing accelerated uninhabitability.
textreferences: Client B directs Engineer A to proceed without the costly analysis unless and until such an analysis is requested by the applicable regulatory authorities.
textreferences: It is Engineer A's judgment, based on hydraulic evaluation procedures presented at a recent transportation agency conference, that the proposed project may result in some upstream homes becoming uninhabitable a decade or more earlier than would otherwise be the case.
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T10:32:26.854376
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Regulatory Gap Awareness Invoked for Climate Change and Existing Standards
type: RegulatoryGapAwarenessandProactiveRiskDisclosure
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Local Permitting Regulatory Authority
appliedto: Tidal crossing bridge replacement design
balancingwith: Client cost management directives
balancingwith: Regulatory compliance as ethical floor
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A must recognize that applicable regulatory standards for the tidal crossing design have not been updated to reflect current climate science, and must proactively disclose the resulting risk gap to Client B, regulators, and the upstream community rather than treating regulatory compliance as equivalent to adequate public protection
confidence: 0.89
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T00:19:27.254437+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T00:19:27.254437+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The regulatory gap awareness obligation is triggered when the engineer recognizes that existing regulatory standards are based on historical climate data that no longer reliably predicts future conditions — compliance with outdated standards does not discharge the public welfare obligation
invokedby: Engineer A Tidal Crossing Infrastructure Design Engineer
principleclass: Regulatory Gap Awareness and Proactive Risk Disclosure
sourcetext: That obligation is not bounded by what is required by law, or by regulations, but rather is stated broadly.
tensionresolution: Regulatory compliance is the ethical floor, not the ceiling; where regulatory standards have not kept pace with current climate science, the engineer's public welfare obligation requires going beyond regulatory minimums
textreferences: Considering the effects of climate change in engineering planning and design adds substantial complexity to engineering decision-making as engineers consider 'going beyond' existing requirements to provide long-term protection of public health, safety, and welfare.
textreferences: That obligation is not bounded by what is required by law, or by regulations, but rather is stated broadly.
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:31:11.071409
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Regulatory Gap Awareness and Proactive Risk Disclosure Invoked by BER Discussion Section
type: RegulatoryGapAwarenessandProactiveRiskDisclosure
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Climate change impacts on flooding risk to upstream homeowners
appliedto: Regulatory standards for tidal crossing design
balancingwith: Client Loyalty
balancingwith: Standard of Care as Ethical Floor
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The BER holds that Engineer A's obligation to address climate change impacts exists regardless of whether applicable law or regulations require it — establishing that when regulatory standards have not been updated to reflect current climate science, engineers must proactively disclose the resulting risk gap rather than treating regulatory compliance as adequate public protection.
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T14:20:08.457238+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T14:20:08.457238+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: In this context, the regulatory gap principle requires Engineer A to identify and disclose that regulatory standards may not capture the full flooding risk posed by the tidal crossing upgrade under projected future climate conditions, and to propose regulatory report submission to ensure that gap is addressed.
invokedby: Engineer A Climate Change Impact Evaluating Infrastructure Engineer
principleclass: Regulatory Gap Awareness and Proactive Risk Disclosure
sourcetext: That obligation is not bounded by what is required by law, or by regulations, but rather is stated broadly.
tensionresolution: Regulatory gap awareness principle requires proactive disclosure beyond regulatory compliance; Engineer A must not treat regulatory compliance as a complete discharge of public protection obligation.
textreferences: Considering the effects of climate change in engineering planning and design adds substantial complexity to engineering decision-making as engineers consider 'going beyond' existing requirements to provide long-term protection of public health, safety, and welfare.
textreferences: Engineer A does have an ethical obligation to address the impacts of the project on public health, safety, and welfare regardless of whether or not that is required by applicable law.
textreferences: That obligation is not bounded by what is required by law, or by regulations, but rather is stated broadly.
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T10:32:26.863552
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Third-Party Flood Risk Community Notification Obligation Invoked for Upstream Homeowners
type: Third-PartyFloodRiskCommunityNotificationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Regulatory permitting authorities
appliedto: Upstream Homeowners Flood Risk Community
balancingwith: Client Loyalty
balancingwith: Confidentiality
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A has identified through professional assessment that the tidal crossing upgrade will materially accelerate uninhabitability of twenty upstream homes; the principle requires Engineer A to ensure those homeowners or regulatory authorities are informed of this risk even though the upstream community is not a party to the engineering engagement.
confidence: 0.96
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T14:10:34.833493+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T14:10:34.833493+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: In this context, the principle requires Engineer A to ensure notification through appropriate channels — either directly to the upstream community or through regulatory disclosure during permitting — even if Client B has not authorized such notification.
invokedby: Engineer A Climate Change Impact Evaluating Infrastructure Engineer
principleclass: Third-Party Flood Risk Community Notification Obligation
sourcetext: It is Engineer A's judgment, based on hydraulic evaluation procedures presented at a recent transportation agency conference, that the proposed project may result in some upstream homes becoming uninhabitable a decade or more earlier than would otherwise be the case.
tensionresolution: The principle establishes that third-party notification obligations are not contingent on client authorization when the engineer has identified material risk to an identifiable community.
textreferences: Engineer A proposes a complex and costly hydrologic and hydraulic analysis by a specialized subconsultant to predict the extent to which sea level rise and the increased hydraulic capacity of the tidal crossing will result in flood damage to a neighborhood of twenty upstream homes during future high tides and storm surges.
textreferences: It is Engineer A's judgment, based on hydraulic evaluation procedures presented at a recent transportation agency conference, that the proposed project may result in some upstream homes becoming uninhabitable a decade or more earlier than would otherwise be the case.
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T10:32:26.853999
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Client Loyalty Invoked By Client B Cost Management Directive
type: ClientLoyalty
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer A Tidal Crossing Infrastructure Design Engineer
appliedto: Specialized hydrologic and hydraulic analysis decision
balancingwith: Non-Acquiescence to Unsafe Client Directives
balancingwith: Proactive Risk Disclosure
balancingwith: Public Welfare Paramount
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Client B directed Engineer A to proceed without the costly specialized hydraulic analysis unless and until requested by regulatory authorities, invoking the client's legitimate authority to direct project scope and cost management within the bounds of professional ethics
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T00:13:22.311648+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T00:13:22.311648+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: In this context, client loyalty creates a legitimate tension with Engineer A's public welfare and proactive risk disclosure obligations; the client's cost management directive is a legitimate exercise of client authority that Engineer A must respect within the bounds of professional ethics, but that authority does not extend to suppressing safety-relevant analysis
invokedby: Client B Cost-Directing Developer
principleclass: Client Loyalty
sourcetext: Client B directs Engineer A to proceed without the costly analysis unless and until such an analysis is requested by the applicable regulatory authorities
tensionresolution: Client loyalty is overridden by public welfare paramount when the client's directive would result in the suppression of safety-relevant analysis affecting identifiable third parties; Engineer A must advise Client B of this limit and refuse to acquiesce in the directive
textreferences: Client B directs Engineer A to proceed without the costly analysis unless and until such an analysis is requested by the applicable regulatory authorities
textreferences: Engineer A is a consulting engineer representing Client B
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:31:11.063539
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Client Non-Compliance Insistence — Deferral of Safety Analysis
type: ClientNon-ComplianceInsistenceState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Client B's direction to proceed without analysis; ongoing
affectedparties: Client B
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Upstream homeowners
concept category: State
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T06:39:47.280651+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T06:39:47.280651+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Client B directs Engineer A to proceed without the costly analysis unless and until such an analysis is requested by the applicable regulatory authorities.
stateclass: Client Non-Compliance Insistence State
subject: Client B's insistence on proceeding without the risk analysis Engineer A has identified as professionally warranted
terminatedby: Client B authorizing the analysis, regulatory demand for the study, or Engineer A withdrawing
textreferences: Client B directs Engineer A to proceed without the costly analysis unless and until such an analysis is requested by the applicable regulatory authorities.
triggeringevent: Client B directing Engineer A to forgo the specialized subconsultant analysis to control costs
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T10:32:26.861227
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Competing Duties — Client Authority vs. Third-Party Protection
type: CompetingDutiesState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Client B's direction to proceed without analysis through resolution
affectedparties: Client B
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Regulatory authorities
affectedparties: Upstream homeowners
concept category: State
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T06:39:47.280651+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T06:39:47.280651+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Client B directs Engineer A to proceed without the costly analysis unless and until such an analysis is requested by the applicable regulatory authorities.
stateclass: Competing Duties State
subject: Engineer A's simultaneous obligations to serve Client B's project interests and to protect upstream homeowners from foreseeable harm
terminatedby: Resolution through analysis authorization, disclosure to regulators, or project withdrawal
textreferences: Client B directs Engineer A to proceed without the costly analysis unless and until such an analysis is requested by the applicable regulatory authorities.
textreferences: It is Engineer A's judgment, based on hydraulic evaluation procedures presented at a recent transportation agency conference, that the proposed project may result in some upstream homes becoming uninhabitable a decade or more earlier than would otherwise be the case.
triggeringevent: Client B's direction to defer the risk analysis, placing Engineer A's faithful agent duty in direct conflict with the paramount obligation to protect public health, safety, and welfare
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T10:32:26.861386
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Conditional Proceeding Under Documented Uncertainty Invoked by BER Discussion Section
type: ConditionalProceedingUnderDocumentedUncertainty
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Decision whether to proceed with tidal crossing design without specialized hydrologic analysis
balancingwith: Non-Acquiescence to Client Directive Suppressing Safety Analysis
balancingwith: Public Welfare Paramount
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The BER notes that the outcome might have been different had Engineer A been comfortable predicting that significant public health, safety, and welfare impacts were unlikely — in which case Engineer A might have ethically proceeded while documenting that judgment in writing and noting in public statements that more detailed analysis would be required to confirm it. Because Engineer A was not so comfortable, this conditional permission does not apply.
confidence: 0.94
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T14:20:08.457238+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T14:20:08.457238+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: In this context, the conditional proceeding principle establishes the boundary of its own application: it is available only when the engineer is genuinely comfortable that significant harm is unlikely, and it is unavailable when the engineer's professional judgment indicates that significant harm is reasonably likely.
invokedby: Engineer A Climate Change Impact Evaluating Infrastructure Engineer
principleclass: Conditional Proceeding Under Documented Uncertainty
sourcetext: The outcome of this case might have been different had Engineer A been comfortable with predicting that significant public health, safety, and welfare impacts were unlikely, in which case Engineer A might have ethically been able to proceed while noting both in writing and in public statements that more detailed analysis would be required to confirm that judgment.
tensionresolution: The conditional proceeding permission is unavailable in this case because Engineer A's professional judgment indicates that significant flooding impacts are reasonably likely; the principle therefore resolves in favor of requiring full analysis or withdrawal.
textreferences: The outcome of this case might have been different had Engineer A been comfortable with predicting that significant public health, safety, and welfare impacts were unlikely, in which case Engineer A might have ethically been able to proceed while noting both in writing and in public statements that more detailed analysis would be required to confirm that judgment.
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T10:32:26.862829
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Engineer A Climate Change Moving Target Design Consideration Tidal Crossing
type: ClimateChangeMovingTargetDesignConsiderationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
defeasible under: Regulatory Standard Climate Gap - Tidal Crossing Project
casecontext: The local 25-year storm standard is based on historical data that does not capture sea level rise and changing precipitation patterns; Engineer A must incorporate current climate science into the assessment.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.92
derived from principle: Climate as Moving Target Invoked by BER Discussion Section
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T14:21:57.794732+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T14:21:57.794732+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Climate Change Moving Target Design Consideration Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to treat future climate and weather conditions as a dynamic moving target rather than fixed historical baselines when assessing the hydraulic and flood impacts of the tidal crossing upgrade.
sourcetext: This necessitates that climate and weather patterns be addressed not as fixed by historical patterns but rather recognized as a 'moving target.'
temporalscope: Throughout the design and assessment phase of the tidal crossing project
textreferences: Engineer A has an ethical obligation to address the impacts of the project on public health, safety, and welfare regardless of whether or not that is required by applicable law.
textreferences: The BER believes that Engineer A has an obligation to consider climate and weather changes in the future with respect to potential impacts on public health, safety, and welfare, where such impacts are reasonably likely and significant.
textreferences: This necessitates that climate and weather patterns be addressed not as fixed by historical patterns but rather recognized as a 'moving target.'
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T10:32:26.864437
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Engineer A Climate Change Moving Target Tidal Crossing Design
type: ClimateChangeMovingTargetDesignConsiderationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A has recognized, based on hydraulic evaluation procedures from a recent transportation agency conference, that the regulatory standard based on historical data does not capture the dynamic trajectory of sea level rise and changing storm patterns relevant to the tidal crossing upgrade.
compliancestatus: partial
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.92
derived from principle: Climate Change as Moving Target Invoked by Engineer A in Tidal Crossing Design
derived from principle: Climate Change as Moving Target Invoked for Tidal Crossing Design
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T14:13:00.331319+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T14:13:00.331319+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Climate Change Moving Target Design Consideration Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A is obligated to treat future climate and weather conditions as a dynamic moving target in the tidal crossing design, incorporating current scientific understanding of sea level rise and changed precipitation patterns rather than relying solely on historical data baselines embedded in the 25-year storm standard.
sourcetext: It is Engineer A's judgment, based on hydraulic evaluation procedures presented at a recent transportation agency conference, that the proposed project may result in some upstream homes becoming uninhabitable a decade or more earlier than would otherwise be the case.
temporalscope: Throughout the design and permitting process for the tidal crossing upgrade
textreferences: It is Engineer A's judgment, based on hydraulic evaluation procedures presented at a recent transportation agency conference, that the proposed project may result in some upstream homes becoming uninhabitable a decade or more earlier than would otherwise be the case.
textreferences: The local development regulations and national design codes and standards have not yet been updated to reflect changing conditions and weather patterns, including effects of sea level rise and changes in precipitation intensities and recurrence intervals effected by on-going climate change.
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T10:32:26.856109
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Engineer A Climate Informed Infrastructure Design Standard Application
type: Climate-AdjustedRegulatoryGapRiskDisclosureObligation
type: NamedIndividual
defeasible under: Climate-Informed Design Obligation Activation — Tidal Crossing Upgrade
defeasible under: Regulatory Standard Climate Gap — Engineer A Project
casecontext: Engineer A applied hydraulic evaluation procedures from a recent transportation agency conference to assess climate-adjusted flood risk, identifying that the proposed project may accelerate upstream home uninhabitability.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.86
derived from principle: Climate-Informed Infrastructure Design Invoked By Engineer A
derived from principle: Climate-Informed Infrastructure Design Standard Invoked for Tidal Crossing
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T00:15:23.499283+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T00:15:23.499283+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Climate-Adjusted Regulatory Gap Risk Disclosure Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to apply climate-informed hydraulic evaluation procedures — including those presented at the recent transportation agency conference — to assess the climate-adjusted flood risk of the proposed tidal crossing upgrade, and to disclose the results of that assessment to Client B and the regulatory authority, even when local regulations do not yet require such analysis.
sourcetext: It is Engineer A's judgment, based on hydraulic evaluation procedures presented at a recent transportation agency conference, that the proposed project may result in some upstream homes becoming uninhabitable a decade or more earlier than would otherwise be the case.
temporalscope: During design and permitting phases, upon identifying the regulatory gap between current standards and climate-adjusted risk
textreferences: It is Engineer A's judgment, based on hydraulic evaluation procedures presented at a recent transportation agency conference, that the proposed project may result in some upstream homes becoming uninhabitable a decade or more earlier than would otherwise be the case.
textreferences: The local development regulations and national design codes and standards have not yet been updated to reflect changing conditions and weather patterns, including effects of sea level rise and changes in precipitation intensities and recurrence intervals effected by on-going climate change.
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:31:11.065383
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Engineer A Conditional Project Withdrawal Client B Refusal Tidal Crossing
type: ConditionalProjectWithdrawalAfterClientRefusalofSafetyDisclosureObligation
type: NamedIndividual
defeasible under: Client B Refusal of Climate Evaluation and Disclosure
casecontext: Client B directed Engineer A to forgo the recommended specialized hydraulic analysis; Engineer A's graduated escalation steps — client discussion and written report proposal — were the prerequisite conditions for withdrawal.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.89
derived from principle: Post-Client-Refusal Escalation Assessment Obligation Invoked by BER Discussion Section
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T00:21:20.043237+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T00:21:20.043237+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Conditional Project Withdrawal After Client Refusal of Safety Disclosure Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to withdraw from the tidal crossing project if Client B refused both the opportunity to conduct the recommended specialized hydraulic analysis and the opportunity to document the identified flood risk concern in an engineering report for regulatory consideration.
sourcetext: Failing agreement by Client B to either of these courses of action the BER believes that Engineer A should withdraw from the project.
temporalscope: Upon Client B's refusal of both graduated escalation options
textreferences: Failing agreement by Client B to either of these courses of action the BER believes that Engineer A should withdraw from the project.
textreferences: In BER Case 18-9, Engineer A worked for a developer to perform hydrodynamic modeling and coastal risk assessment regarding a proposed residential development... The BER concluded that Engineer A should continue to attempt to convince the owner of the potential for damage to future residents and the public, and, failing agreement on Engineer A's proposed design standard, Engineer A should withdraw from the project.
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:31:11.072306
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Engineer A Conditional Withdrawal Obligation
type: ConditionalWithdrawalObligationState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From the point at which Client B refuses both proposed courses of action, until Engineer A withdraws
affectedparties: Client B
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: General public
affectedparties: Third-party property owners
concept category: State
confidence: 0.89
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T00:10:17.210310+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T00:10:17.210310+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Failing agreement by Client B to either of these courses of action the BER believes that Engineer A should withdraw from the project
stateclass: Conditional Withdrawal Obligation State
subject: Engineer A's ethical position following Client B's refusal of both detailed climate evaluation and disclosure to regulatory agencies
terminatedby: Engineer A's withdrawal from the project
textreferences: Failing agreement by Client B to either of these courses of action the BER believes that Engineer A should withdraw from the project
textreferences: In BER Case 18-9, failing agreement on Engineer A's proposed design standard, Engineer A should withdraw from the project
triggeringevent: Client B's refusal to agree to either detailed climate impact evaluation or submission of the concern to regulatory agencies and the public in an engineering report
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:31:11.061095
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Engineer A Regulatory-Minimum-Only Compliance Insufficiency Disclosure Tidal Crossing
type: Regulatory-Minimum-OnlyCompliancePublicSafetyInsufficiencyDisclosureObligation
type: NamedIndividual
defeasible under: Engineer A Regulatory Standard Climate Gap
defeasible under: Regulatory Standard Climate Gap — Tidal Crossing Project
casecontext: Engineer A has identified that the local regulatory standard does not capture the dynamic trajectory of sea level rise and changing storm patterns, and that designing to the regulatory minimum will not adequately protect upstream homeowners from accelerated flood risk.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.88
derived from principle: Standard of Care as Ethical Floor Invoked Against 25-Year Storm Regulatory Minimum
derived from principle: Standard of Care as Ethical Floor Invoked by BER Discussion Section
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T14:13:00.331319+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T14:13:00.331319+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Regulatory-Minimum-Only Compliance Public Safety Insufficiency Disclosure Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A is obligated to disclose to Client B and to applicable regulatory authorities that compliance with the 25-year storm standard based on historical data is insufficient to protect public health, safety, and welfare given current climate science, and to recommend design standards or analyses that go beyond the regulatory minimum.
sourcetext: Local development regulations require designing for a 25-year fresh-water storm, and assume that future weather conditions will be consistent with updated historical data.
temporalscope: Before submitting permit applications and before public hearings on the tidal crossing upgrade
textreferences: Local development regulations require designing for a 25-year fresh-water storm, and assume that future weather conditions will be consistent with updated historical data.
textreferences: The local development regulations and national design codes and standards have not yet been updated to reflect changing conditions and weather patterns
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T10:32:26.856546
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Engineer A Third Party Upstream Flood Risk Notification Twenty Homes
type: Third-PartyUpstreamFloodRiskCommunityNotificationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
defeasible under: Client Refusal of Safety Evaluation — Client B Coastal Project
casecontext: Engineer A identified that the proposed tidal crossing upgrade would increase hydraulic capacity in a way that, combined with sea level rise, would accelerate flood risk to approximately twenty upstream homes.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.86
derived from principle: Third-Party Flood Risk Community Notification Obligation Invoked for Upstream Homeowners
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T00:15:23.499283+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T00:15:23.499283+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Third-Party Upstream Flood Risk Community Notification Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to notify the approximately twenty upstream homeowners — and/or the applicable regulatory authority — that the proposed tidal crossing upgrade may result in their homes becoming uninhabitable a decade or more earlier than would otherwise be the case, based on Engineer A's professional judgment derived from hydraulic evaluation procedures presented at a recent transportation agency conference.
sourcetext: It is Engineer A's judgment, based on hydraulic evaluation procedures presented at a recent transportation agency conference, that the proposed project may result in some upstream homes becoming uninhabitable a decade or more earlier than would otherwise be the case.
temporalscope: Upon forming the professional judgment that upstream homes face accelerated uninhabitability risk, and before or during the regulatory permitting process
textreferences: Engineer A proposes a complex and costly hydrologic and hydraulic analysis by a specialized subconsultant to predict the extent to which sea level rise and the increased hydraulic capacity of the tidal crossing will result in flood damage to a neighborhood of twenty upstream homes during future high tides and storm surges
textreferences: It is Engineer A's judgment, based on hydraulic evaluation procedures presented at a recent transportation agency conference, that the proposed project may result in some upstream homes becoming uninhabitable a decade or more earlier than would otherwise be the case.
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:31:11.063837
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Non-Acquiescence to Client Directive Suppressing Safety Analysis Invoked Against Client B
type: Non-AcquiescencetoClientDirectiveSuppressingSafetyAnalysis
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Client B's directive to proceed without specialized subconsultant analysis
appliedto: Upstream flood risk characterization obligation
balancingwith: Client Loyalty
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Client B directs Engineer A to forgo the specialized hydrologic/hydraulic analysis unless regulators request it; the principle prohibits Engineer A from acquiescing to this directive because Engineer A's professional judgment has identified material risk to twenty upstream homes that the omitted analysis would characterize.
confidence: 0.97
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T14:10:34.833493+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T14:10:34.833493+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: In this context, the principle requires Engineer A to formally object to or refuse Client B's directive, because the omitted analysis is necessary to identify and characterize material risks to public safety — not merely a cost optimization.
invokedby: Engineer A Climate Change Impact Evaluating Infrastructure Engineer
principleclass: Non-Acquiescence to Client Directive Suppressing Safety Analysis
sourcetext: Client B directs Engineer A to proceed without the costly analysis unless and until such an analysis is requested by the applicable regulatory authorities.
tensionresolution: The principle establishes that cost-based client directives cannot override the engineer's obligation to conduct safety-critical analysis when professional judgment identifies material public risk.
textreferences: Client B directs Engineer A to proceed without the costly analysis unless and until such an analysis is requested by the applicable regulatory authorities.
textreferences: Engineer A proposes a complex and costly hydrologic and hydraulic analysis by a specialized subconsultant to predict the extent to which sea level rise and the increased hydraulic capacity of the tidal crossing will result in flood damage to a neighborhood of twenty upstream homes during future high tides and storm surges.
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T10:32:26.853774
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Non-Acquiescence to Client Directive Suppressing Safety Analysis Invoked Against Client B Refusal
type: Non-AcquiescencetoClientDirectiveSuppressingSafetyAnalysis
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Client B's cost-based refusal to authorize specialized analysis
appliedto: Upstream flood risk to twenty homes
balancingwith: Client Loyalty
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A must not acquiesce to Client B's direction to forgo the recommended specialized hydrologic and hydraulic analysis when Engineer A's professional judgment indicates that such analysis is necessary to identify and characterize material flood risks to the upstream residential community
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T00:19:27.254437+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T00:19:27.254437+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Client B's cost management rationale does not override Engineer A's professional obligation to ensure that safety-relevant analysis is performed when the engineer's judgment indicates it is necessary to protect third-party welfare
invokedby: Engineer A Tidal Crossing Infrastructure Design Engineer
principleclass: Non-Acquiescence to Client Directive Suppressing Safety Analysis
sourcetext: Engineer A does have an ethical obligation to address the impacts of the project on public health, safety, and welfare regardless of whether or not that is required by applicable law.
tensionresolution: The client's authority to direct the scope of the engineering engagement does not extend to directing the suppression of safety-relevant analysis that the engineer's professional judgment identifies as necessary
textreferences: Engineer A does have an ethical obligation to address the impacts of the project on public health, safety, and welfare regardless of whether or not that is required by applicable law.
textreferences: Failing agreement by Client B to either of these courses of action the BER believes that Engineer A should withdraw from the project.
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:31:11.070940
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Third-Party Flood Risk Community Notification Obligation Invoked for Upstream Neighborhood
type: Third-PartyFloodRiskCommunityNotificationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Local Permitting Regulatory Authority
appliedto: Upstream Neighborhood Twenty Homes Community
balancingwith: Client Loyalty
balancingwith: Client confidentiality
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A must ensure that the upstream residential community of approximately twenty homes is informed of the identified flood risk through either direct notification or through formal written reports submitted to regulatory agencies for public consideration
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T00:19:27.254437+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T00:19:27.254437+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The obligation to notify affected third parties is discharged through the formal regulatory report mechanism proposed in the graduated escalation sequence — the report to regulatory agencies serves as the vehicle for community notification
invokedby: Engineer A Tidal Crossing Infrastructure Design Engineer
principleclass: Third-Party Flood Risk Community Notification Obligation
sourcetext: Engineer A should propose to Client B that engineer a provides the potential concern that may necessitate more detailed evaluation in an engineering report for consideration by regulatory agencies and the public.
tensionresolution: The third-party notification obligation overrides client preferences about information disclosure when identifiable community members face material flood risk from the proposed project
textreferences: Engineer A should engage Client B in discussions about the need for the detailed evaluation and disclosure of the potential impacts on the public and alternatives for the project to mitigate those impacts
textreferences: Engineer A should propose to Client B that engineer a provides the potential concern that may necessitate more detailed evaluation in an engineering report for consideration by regulatory agencies and the public.
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:31:11.071090
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Third-Party Flood Risk Notification Invoked By Engineer A Upstream Homes
type: Third-PartyAffectedPartyDirectNotificationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Local Permitting Regulatory Authority
appliedto: Upstream Neighborhood Twenty Homes Community
balancingwith: Client Loyalty
balancingwith: Confidentiality
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A identified approximately twenty upstream homeowners as an identifiable third-party community facing material risk of accelerated uninhabitability due to the proposed tidal crossing upgrade, creating an obligation to ensure that those homeowners or the regulatory authority with jurisdiction over their welfare receive timely notification of the identified risk
confidence: 0.87
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T00:13:22.311648+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T00:13:22.311648+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: In this context, the third-party notification obligation requires Engineer A to ensure that the local permitting regulatory authority is informed of the upstream flood risk during the permitting process, and to consider whether direct notification of the upstream homeowners is warranted if regulatory channels are inadequate
invokedby: Engineer A Tidal Crossing Infrastructure Design Engineer
principleclass: Third-Party Affected Party Direct Notification Obligation
sourcetext: Engineer A proposes a complex and costly hydrologic and hydraulic analysis by a specialized subconsultant to predict the extent to which sea level rise and the increased hydraulic capacity of the tidal crossing will result in flood damage to a neighborhood of twenty upstream homes during future high tides and storm surges
tensionresolution: The obligation to notify identifiable third parties of material safety risks overrides client preferences for confidentiality or cost management when those third parties face risk of uninhabitability
textreferences: Engineer A proposes a complex and costly hydrologic and hydraulic analysis by a specialized subconsultant to predict the extent to which sea level rise and the increased hydraulic capacity of the tidal crossing will result in flood damage to a neighborhood of twenty upstream homes during future high tides and storm surges
textreferences: it is Engineer A's judgment, based on hydraulic evaluation procedures presented at a recent transportation agency conference, that the proposed project may result in some upstream homes becoming uninhabitable a decade or more earlier than would otherwise be the case
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:31:11.062111
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Climate-Informed Infrastructure Design Standard Invoked by BER Case 18-9 Precedent
type: Climate-InformedInfrastructureDesignStandard
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: 100-year storm surge design standard
appliedto: Coastal residential development hydrodynamic modeling
balancingwith: Client Loyalty
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: In BER Case 18-9, Engineer A performed hydrodynamic modeling and coastal risk assessment and advocated for design to the then-projected 100-year storm surge elevation based on updated historic weather data — establishing the precedent that engineers designing climate-sensitive infrastructure must incorporate current climate projections even when owners resist.
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T14:20:08.457238+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T14:20:08.457238+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: In the BER Case 18-9 context, the climate-informed design standard required Engineer A to advocate for a design standard based on updated climate projections rather than accepting the owner's position that lower projections were adequate.
invokedby: BER Case 18-9 Engineer A Climate-Aware Coastal Infrastructure Engineer
principleclass: Climate-Informed Infrastructure Design Standard
sourcetext: Based on newly identified historic weather data, Engineer A advocated that the project be designed for the then-projected 100-year storm surge elevation due to public safety risks even at lower projections.
tensionresolution: Climate-informed design standard overrides owner preference for lower design standard; Engineer A must advocate for updated standard and withdraw if owner refuses.
textreferences: Based on newly identified historic weather data, Engineer A advocated that the project be designed for the then-projected 100-year storm surge elevation due to public safety risks even at lower projections.
textreferences: In BER Case 18-9, Engineer A worked for a developer to perform hydrodynamic modeling and coastal risk assessment regarding a proposed residential development.
textreferences: The BER concluded that Engineer A should continue to attempt to convince the owner of the potential for damage to future residents and the public, and, failing agreement on Engineer A's proposed design standard, Engineer A should withdraw from the project.
textreferences: The Owner refused to agree that such protection was required or appropriate.
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T10:32:26.862474
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Climate-Informed Infrastructure Design Standard Invoked for Tidal Crossing
type: Climate-InformedInfrastructureDesignStandard
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Flood risk assessment for upstream neighborhood
appliedto: Tidal crossing bridge replacement design
balancingwith: Client cost management directives
balancingwith: Regulatory compliance as ethical floor
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A must incorporate current scientific understanding of climate change — including updated precipitation data and sea level rise projections — into the tidal crossing bridge replacement design assessment, even where applicable regulatory standards have not yet been updated to require such incorporation
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T00:19:27.254437+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T00:19:27.254437+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The obligation to design to current climate science rather than outdated regulatory baselines is triggered when the engineer's professional judgment indicates that failure to do so may result in material harm to public safety or property
invokedby: Engineer A Tidal Crossing Infrastructure Design Engineer
principleclass: Climate-Informed Infrastructure Design Standard
sourcetext: Considering the effects of climate change in engineering planning and design adds substantial complexity to engineering decision-making as engineers consider 'going beyond' existing requirements to provide long-term protection of public health, safety, and welfare.
tensionresolution: Regulatory compliance based on outdated historical climate data is insufficient to discharge the public welfare obligation when current climate science indicates materially different future conditions
textreferences: Considering the effects of climate change in engineering planning and design adds substantial complexity to engineering decision-making as engineers consider 'going beyond' existing requirements to provide long-term protection of public health, safety, and welfare.
textreferences: The BER believes that Engineer A has an obligation to consider climate and weather changes in the future with respect to potential impacts on public health, safety, and welfare, where such impacts are reasonably likely and significant.
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:31:11.070788
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Climate Change as Moving Target Invoked for Tidal Crossing Design
type: ClimateChangeasMovingTargetinEngineeringDesign
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Flood risk assessment for upstream neighborhood
appliedto: Hydrologic and hydraulic analysis for tidal crossing
balancingwith: Client cost management directives
balancingwith: Regulatory compliance as ethical floor
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A must treat future climate and weather conditions as a moving target rather than a fixed historical baseline when assessing flood risks to upstream properties from the proposed tidal crossing infrastructure upgrade
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T00:19:27.254437+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T00:19:27.254437+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The obligation to treat climate as a moving target requires Engineer A to incorporate current climate projections rather than relying on historical data that may no longer reliably predict future flood conditions
invokedby: Engineer A Tidal Crossing Infrastructure Design Engineer
principleclass: Climate Change as Moving Target in Engineering Design
sourcetext: This necessitates that climate and weather patterns be addressed not as fixed by historical patterns but rather recognized as a 'moving target.'
tensionresolution: The moving target nature of climate data means regulatory compliance based on historical data is insufficient to discharge the public welfare obligation; current scientific understanding must inform the assessment
textreferences: For more than a century, engineers have assumed that future climate and weather conditions will be consistent with historical climate and weather data. In recent decades, as climate and weather data are updated, the historical dataset changes as climate and weather patterns continue to change. This necessitates that climate and weather patterns be addressed not as fixed by historical patterns but rather recognized as a 'moving target.'
textreferences: The BER believes that Engineer A has an obligation to consider climate and weather changes in the future with respect to potential impacts on public health, safety, and welfare, where such impacts are reasonably likely and significant.
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:31:11.070157
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Engineer A BER 07.6 Objective Complete Reporting Bird Species Threat
type: ObjectiveandCompleteReportingObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer A Objective Truthful Reporting Bird Species BER Case 07.6
prevails over: Engineer A Objective Truthful Reporting Bird Species BER Case 07.6
casecontext: Engineer A's firm biologist identified that a condominium development project could threaten a bird species inhabiting adjacent protected wetlands; Engineer A was preparing an analysis for submission to a public authority considering the developer's proposal.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.93
derived from principle: Objectivity Invoked by BER Case 07.6 Precedent
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T14:21:57.794732+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T14:21:57.794732+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A (BER Case 07.6)
obligationclass: Objective and Complete Reporting Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A in BER Case 07.6 was obligated to include information about the threat to the bird species in the written report submitted to the public authority, and to advise the client of its inclusion, notwithstanding that the information was adverse to the client's development interests.
sourcetext: The BER determined that it was unethical for Engineer A to not include the information about the threat to the bird species in a written report that would be submitted to a public authority that was considering the developer's proposal.
temporalscope: At the time of preparing the written report for submission to the public authority
textreferences: Engineer A should have included the information in the written report and advised the client of its inclusion.
textreferences: The BER determined that it was unethical for Engineer A to not include the information about the threat to the bird species in a written report that would be submitted to a public authority that was considering the developer's proposal.
textreferences: The BER noted that engineers have an obligation to be objective and truthful in professional reports, statements, or testimony and include all relevant and pertinent information in such reports.
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T10:32:26.864611
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Engineer A Client Risk Consequence Communication Client B Tidal Crossing
type: ClientRiskConsequenceCommunicationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer A Public Welfare Paramount Gray Area Climate Change Tidal Crossing
defeasible under: Client B Deferral of Third-Party Risk Analysis
casecontext: Client B directed Engineer A to forgo the recommended specialized hydraulic analysis for cost reasons; Engineer A's faithful agent duty required communicating the consequences of that refusal to Client B.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.87
derived from principle: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits Invoked by BER Discussion Section
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T00:21:20.043237+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T00:21:20.043237+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Client Risk Consequence Communication Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to communicate to Client B not only the public welfare rationale for the recommended specialized hydraulic analysis but also the specific professional, legal, and reputational risks to Client B of declining to authorize that analysis or the written documentation of the identified concern.
sourcetext: Engineer A should engage Client B in discussions about the need for the detailed evaluation and disclosure of the potential impacts on the public and alternatives for the project to mitigate those impacts, and the potential risk to Client B of not evaluating the potential impacts.
temporalscope: During discussions with Client B about the recommended specialized hydraulic analysis
textreferences: Engineer A should engage Client B in discussions about the need for the detailed evaluation and disclosure of the potential impacts on the public and alternatives for the project to mitigate those impacts, and the potential risk to Client B of not evaluating the potential impacts.
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:31:11.072583
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Engineer A Climate-Adjusted Regulatory Gap Risk Disclosure Tidal Crossing
type: Climate-AdjustedRegulatoryGapRiskDisclosureObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer A Faithful Agent Written Risk Notification Client B Tidal Crossing
prevails over: Engineer A Climate Change Moving Target Design Consideration Tidal Crossing
casecontext: Engineer A has identified that local development regulations and national design codes have not been updated to reflect sea level rise and changed precipitation patterns, and that the regulatory minimum is insufficient to characterize the actual flood risk to upstream homeowners.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.9
derived from principle: Regulatory Gap Awareness and Proactive Risk Disclosure Invoked by BER Discussion Section
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T14:13:00.331319+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T14:13:00.331319+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Climate-Adjusted Regulatory Gap Risk Disclosure Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A is obligated to disclose to Client B and to applicable regulatory authorities that the local 25-year storm standard and the assumption of historically consistent future weather conditions are outdated relative to current climate science, and that regulatory compliance alone does not constitute adequate public protection for the tidal crossing upgrade.
sourcetext: The local development regulations and national design codes and standards have not yet been updated to reflect changing conditions and weather patterns, including effects of sea level rise and changes in precipitation intensities and recurrence intervals effected by on-going climate change.
temporalscope: Upon Engineer A's identification of the regulatory gap and before submission of permit applications or public hearing presentations
textreferences: Local development regulations require designing for a 25-year fresh-water storm, and assume that future weather conditions will be consistent with updated historical data.
textreferences: The local development regulations and national design codes and standards have not yet been updated to reflect changing conditions and weather patterns, including effects of sea level rise and changes in precipitation intensities and recurrence intervals effected by on-going climate change.
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T10:32:26.855908
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Engineer A Graduated Escalation Before Withdrawal Tidal Crossing
type: GraduatedEscalationBeforeProjectWithdrawalObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer A Conditional Project Withdrawal After Client Refusal Tidal Crossing
prevails over: Engineer A Conditional Project Withdrawal After Client Refusal Tidal Crossing
casecontext: Engineer A identified that the proposed tidal crossing upgrade would materially accelerate flood risk for approximately twenty upstream homes; Client B directed Engineer A to forgo the recommended specialized hydraulic analysis unless requested by regulatory authorities.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.9
derived from principle: Graduated Escalation Before Withdrawal Invoked Against Client B
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T00:21:20.043237+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T00:21:20.043237+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Graduated Escalation Before Project Withdrawal Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to pursue a graduated sequence of escalation steps with Client B — first engaging in substantive discussion about the need for specialized hydraulic analysis and public disclosure, then proposing to document the concern in an engineering report for regulatory consideration — before withdrawing from the tidal crossing project.
sourcetext: Engineer A should engage Client B in discussions about the need for the detailed evaluation and disclosure of the potential impacts on the public and alternatives for the project to mitigate those impacts, and the potential risk to Client B of not evaluating the potential impacts.
temporalscope: Upon Client B's refusal to authorize the recommended specialized hydraulic analysis
textreferences: Engineer A should engage Client B in discussions about the need for the detailed evaluation and disclosure of the potential impacts on the public and alternatives for the project to mitigate those impacts, and the potential risk to Client B of not evaluating the potential impacts.
textreferences: Failing agreement by Client B to either of these courses of action the BER believes that Engineer A should withdraw from the project.
textreferences: If Client B remains unconvinced, Engineer A should propose to Client B that engineer a provides the potential concern that may necessitate more detailed evaluation in an engineering report for consideration by regulatory agencies and the public.
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:31:11.071848
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Engineer A Preliminary Judgment Qualified Disclosure Client B Upstream Risk
type: PreliminaryJudgmentRiskDisclosureQualificationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer A Regulatory Authority Proactive Disclosure Upstream Flood Risk
defeasible under: Unverified Third-Party Flood Risk - Upstream Homes
casecontext: Engineer A's risk assessment is characterized as a professional judgment based on conference-presented procedures rather than a confirmed finding from a completed specialized analysis.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.86
derived from principle: Fact-Based Disclosure Obligation Invoked By Engineer A Preliminary Judgment
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T00:15:23.499283+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T00:15:23.499283+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Preliminary Judgment Risk Disclosure Qualification Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to disclose to Client B and relevant parties the preliminary professional judgment that the proposed project may accelerate upstream home uninhabitability, while clearly qualifying that this judgment is based on hydraulic evaluation procedures presented at a recent transportation agency conference rather than a completed specialized hydraulic analysis, and that the specialized analysis is needed to confirm and quantify the risk.
sourcetext: It is Engineer A's judgment, based on hydraulic evaluation procedures presented at a recent transportation agency conference, that the proposed project may result in some upstream homes becoming uninhabitable a decade or more earlier than would otherwise be the case.
temporalscope: Upon forming the preliminary professional judgment, before and during client communications about the proposed analysis
textreferences: It is Engineer A's judgment, based on hydraulic evaluation procedures presented at a recent transportation agency conference, that the proposed project may result in some upstream homes becoming uninhabitable a decade or more earlier than would otherwise be the case.
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:31:11.064256
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Proactive Risk Disclosure Invoked By Engineer A Upstream Flood
type: ProactiveRiskDisclosure
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Local Permitting Regulatory Authority
appliedto: Upstream Neighborhood Twenty Homes Community
balancingwith: Client Loyalty
balancingwith: Fact-Based Disclosure Obligation
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A proactively identified and proposed to analyze the upstream flood risk from the tidal crossing upgrade before the regulatory authority requested such analysis, demonstrating the professional obligation to communicate identified risks without waiting for formal requests
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T00:13:22.311648+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T00:13:22.311648+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: In this context, proactive risk disclosure requires Engineer A to communicate the identified upstream flood risk to the local permitting regulatory authority during the permitting process, even though Client B has directed that the specialized analysis be deferred until requested by the authority
invokedby: Engineer A Tidal Crossing Infrastructure Design Engineer
principleclass: Proactive Risk Disclosure
sourcetext: Engineer A proposes a complex and costly hydrologic and hydraulic analysis by a specialized subconsultant to predict the extent to which sea level rise and the increased hydraulic capacity of the tidal crossing will result in flood damage to a neighborhood of twenty upstream homes during future high tides and storm surges
tensionresolution: Proactive risk disclosure requires communication of preliminary professional judgments about material risks, qualified appropriately as to their certainty, without waiting for regulatory requests that may never come if the risk is not disclosed
textreferences: Client B directs Engineer A to proceed without the costly analysis unless and until such an analysis is requested by the applicable regulatory authorities
textreferences: Engineer A proposes a complex and costly hydrologic and hydraulic analysis by a specialized subconsultant to predict the extent to which sea level rise and the increased hydraulic capacity of the tidal crossing will result in flood damage to a neighborhood of twenty upstream homes during future high tides and storm surges, anticipating this to be a difficult question to answer in the project's public hearings
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:31:11.062734
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Client-Directed Deferral of Third-Party Risk Analysis — Upstream Flood Study
type: Client-DirectedDeferralofThird-PartyRiskAnalysisState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Client B's direction to proceed without analysis; persists unless regulatory authorities demand the study or Engineer A refuses to continue
affectedparties: Client B
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Public
affectedparties: Regulatory authorities
affectedparties: Twenty upstream homeowners
concept category: State
confidence: 0.98
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T06:39:47.280651+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T06:39:47.280651+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Client B directs Engineer A to proceed without the costly analysis unless and until such an analysis is requested by the applicable regulatory authorities.
stateclass: Client-Directed Deferral of Third-Party Risk Analysis State
subject: Client B's explicit direction to Engineer A to proceed without the specialized hydrologic and hydraulic analysis
terminatedby: Regulatory authority request for the analysis, Client B reversing the direction, or Engineer A declining to proceed without the analysis
textreferences: Client B directs Engineer A to proceed without the costly analysis unless and until such an analysis is requested by the applicable regulatory authorities.
triggeringevent: Client B's instruction to proceed without the costly analysis unless and until requested by applicable regulatory authorities
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T10:32:26.860851
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Client B Deferral of Third-Party Risk Analysis
type: Client-DirectedDeferralofThird-PartyRiskAnalysisState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Client B's direction to proceed without analysis until analysis is authorized, required by regulators, or Engineer A disassociates
affectedparties: Client B
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Regulatory authorities
affectedparties: Twenty upstream homeowners
concept category: State
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T00:09:07.016855+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T00:09:07.016855+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Client B directs Engineer A to proceed without the costly analysis unless and until such an analysis is requested by the applicable regulatory authorities.
stateclass: Client-Directed Deferral of Third-Party Risk Analysis State
subject: Client B's explicit direction to Engineer A to proceed without the recommended hydrologic and hydraulic analysis
terminatedby: Client B authorizing the analysis, regulatory authority requiring it, Engineer A disassociating, or project abandonment
textreferences: Client B directs Engineer A to proceed without the costly analysis unless and until such an analysis is requested by the applicable regulatory authorities.
triggeringevent: Client B's explicit direction to Engineer A to proceed without the costly hydrologic and hydraulic analysis unless and until required by regulatory authorities
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:31:11.056876
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Engineer A Client Cost-Directive Safety Analysis Non-Subordination Tidal Crossing
type: ClientCost-DirectiveSafetyAnalysisNon-SubordinationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer A Faithful Agent Written Risk Notification Client B Tidal Crossing
defeasible under: Client-Directed Deferral of Third-Party Risk Analysis — Client B Project
defeasible under: Client Non-Compliance Insistence — Deferral of Safety Analysis
casecontext: Client B has directed Engineer A to proceed without the costly specialized analysis unless regulators request it, overriding Engineer A's professional recommendation that the analysis is necessary to characterize material flood risks to upstream homeowners.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.9
derived from principle: Non-Acquiescence to Client Directive Suppressing Safety Analysis Invoked Against Client B
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T14:13:00.331319+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T14:13:00.331319+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Client Cost-Directive Safety Analysis Non-Subordination Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A is obligated to refuse to subordinate the professionally recommended specialized hydrologic and hydraulic analysis to Client B's cost-reduction directive, and to document in writing both Client B's directive and Engineer A's professional objection to proceeding without the analysis.
sourcetext: Client B directs Engineer A to proceed without the costly analysis unless and until such an analysis is requested by the applicable regulatory authorities.
temporalscope: Upon receipt of Client B's directive to forgo the specialized analysis
textreferences: Client B directs Engineer A to proceed without the costly analysis unless and until such an analysis is requested by the applicable regulatory authorities.
textreferences: Engineer A proposes a complex and costly hydrologic and hydraulic analysis by a specialized subconsultant to predict the extent to which sea level rise and the increased hydraulic capacity of the tidal crossing will result in flood damage to a neighborhood of twenty upstream homes
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T10:32:26.856403
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Engineer A Objective Truthful Reporting Bird Species BER Case 07.6
type: ObjectiveandCompleteReportingObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer A BER 07.6 Objective Complete Reporting Bird Species Threat
casecontext: Engineer A's firm biologist reported that the condominium project could threaten a 'threatened species' inhabiting adjacent protected wetlands; the public authority considering the developer's proposal would reasonably be interested in this information.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.91
derived from principle: Objectivity Invoked by BER Case 07.6 Precedent
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T00:21:20.043237+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T00:21:20.043237+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A (BER Case 07.6)
obligationclass: Objective and Complete Reporting Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to include information about the threat to the bird species in the written report submitted to the public authority considering the developer's proposal, and to advise the client of its inclusion, notwithstanding the client's potential preference to omit the information.
sourcetext: The BER determined that it was unethical for Engineer A to not include the information about the threat to the bird species in a written report that would be submitted to a public authority that was considering the developer's proposal.
temporalscope: Upon receipt of the biologist's report about the threatened bird species
textreferences: Engineer A should have included the information in the written report and advised the client of its inclusion.
textreferences: The BER determined that it was unethical for Engineer A to not include the information about the threat to the bird species in a written report that would be submitted to a public authority that was considering the developer's proposal.
textreferences: The BER noted that engineers have an obligation to be objective and truthful in professional reports, statements, or testimony and include all relevant and pertinent information in such reports.
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:31:11.073013
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Engineer A Third-Party Upstream Flood Risk Notification Twenty Homes
type: Third-PartyUpstreamFloodRiskCommunityNotificationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer A Faithful Agent Written Risk Notification Client B Tidal Crossing
defeasible under: Client Non-Compliance Insistence — Deferral of Safety Analysis
prevails over: Engineer A Faithful Agent Written Risk Notification Client B Tidal Crossing
casecontext: Engineer A has identified through professional judgment that the proposed tidal crossing upgrade will materially accelerate uninhabitability of twenty upstream homes, but Client B has directed Engineer A to forgo the specialized analysis that would quantify this risk.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.91
derived from principle: Third-Party Flood Risk Community Notification Obligation Invoked for Upstream Neighborhood
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T14:13:00.331319+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T14:13:00.331319+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Third-Party Upstream Flood Risk Community Notification Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A is obligated to notify the twenty upstream homeowners in writing of the identified risk that the tidal crossing upgrade may accelerate their homes' uninhabitability by a decade or more, based on Engineer A's preliminary professional judgment, so that they can take protective action and participate meaningfully in regulatory proceedings.
sourcetext: It is Engineer A's judgment, based on hydraulic evaluation procedures presented at a recent transportation agency conference, that the proposed project may result in some upstream homes becoming uninhabitable a decade or more earlier than would otherwise be the case.
temporalscope: Upon Engineer A's formation of the preliminary professional judgment regarding upstream flood risk, and before or during the public hearing process
textreferences: It is Engineer A's judgment, based on hydraulic evaluation procedures presented at a recent transportation agency conference, that the proposed project may result in some upstream homes becoming uninhabitable a decade or more earlier than would otherwise be the case.
textreferences: anticipating this to be a difficult question to answer in the project's public hearings
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T10:32:26.856258
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Proactive Risk Disclosure Invoked for Climate-Driven Flood Impacts
type: ProactiveRiskDisclosure
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Client B Cost-Directing Developer
appliedto: Local Permitting Regulatory Authority
appliedto: Upstream Neighborhood Twenty Homes Community
balancingwith: Client Loyalty
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A must proactively communicate the identified climate-driven flood risks to Client B, regulatory authorities, and the affected upstream community without waiting for formal requests or for harm to materialize
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T00:19:27.254437+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T00:19:27.254437+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The proactive disclosure obligation requires Engineer A to initiate disclosure of the flood risk through the graduated escalation sequence rather than remaining silent in the absence of a specific request for risk information
invokedby: Engineer A Tidal Crossing Infrastructure Design Engineer
principleclass: Proactive Risk Disclosure
sourcetext: Engineer A should engage Client B in discussions about the need for the detailed evaluation and disclosure of the potential impacts on the public and alternatives for the project to mitigate those impacts, and the potential risk to Client B of not evaluating the potential impacts.
tensionresolution: The proactive disclosure obligation is triggered by the identification of reasonably likely and significant impacts on third-party welfare, regardless of whether the client has requested such disclosure
textreferences: Engineer A should engage Client B in discussions about the need for the detailed evaluation and disclosure of the potential impacts on the public and alternatives for the project to mitigate those impacts, and the potential risk to Client B of not evaluating the potential impacts.
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:31:11.071240
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Public Welfare Paramount Invoked By Engineer A Tidal Crossing
type: PublicWelfareParamount
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Tidal crossing bridge replacement design
appliedto: Upstream Neighborhood Twenty Homes Community
balancingwith: Client Loyalty
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A identified that the proposed tidal crossing upgrade may cause approximately twenty upstream homes to become uninhabitable a decade or more earlier than would otherwise be the case, triggering a paramount obligation to protect those third-party homeowners whose welfare is directly threatened by the design decision
confidence: 0.96
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T00:13:22.311648+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T00:13:22.311648+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: In this context, public welfare paramount requires Engineer A to resist Client B's directive to forgo specialized hydraulic analysis, to disclose the identified risk to the local permitting regulatory authority, and to consider direct notification of the upstream homeowners if regulatory channels are inadequate
invokedby: Engineer A Tidal Crossing Infrastructure Design Engineer
principleclass: Public Welfare Paramount
sourcetext: it is Engineer A's judgment, based on hydraulic evaluation procedures presented at a recent transportation agency conference, that the proposed project may result in some upstream homes becoming uninhabitable a decade or more earlier than would otherwise be the case
tensionresolution: Public welfare paramount overrides client cost management preferences when the engineer's professional judgment identifies material risk of uninhabitability to an identifiable third-party community; the client's authority to direct scope does not extend to suppressing safety-relevant analysis
textreferences: Client B directs Engineer A to proceed without the costly analysis unless and until such an analysis is requested by the applicable regulatory authorities
textreferences: it is Engineer A's judgment, based on hydraulic evaluation procedures presented at a recent transportation agency conference, that the proposed project may result in some upstream homes becoming uninhabitable a decade or more earlier than would otherwise be the case
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:31:11.061562
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Objectivity Invoked by BER Case 07.6 Precedent
type: Objectivity
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Environmental analysis report submitted to public authority for development approval
appliedto: Threatened bird species information
balancingwith: Client Loyalty
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: In BER Case 07.6, the BER determined that Engineer A was ethically obligated to include information about the threatened bird species in the written report submitted to the public authority — holding that engineers must be objective and truthful in professional reports and include all relevant and pertinent information, not just information favorable to the client's development proposal.
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T14:20:08.457238+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T14:20:08.457238+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: In the BER Case 07.6 context, objectivity required Engineer A to include material environmental findings in the report regardless of client preference, because the public authority approving the development would reasonably be interested in that information.
invokedby: BER Case 07.6 Engineer A Environmental Engineering Consultant
principleclass: Objectivity
sourcetext: The BER noted that engineers have an obligation to be objective and truthful in professional reports, statements, or testimony and include all relevant and pertinent information in such reports, and that it would be reasonable to assume that the public authority approving the development would be interested in this information.
tensionresolution: Objectivity and completeness obligation overrides client preference for omission; Engineer A must include all relevant and pertinent information in professional reports submitted to public authorities.
textreferences: The BER determined that it was unethical for Engineer A to not include the information about the threat to the bird species in a written report that would be submitted to a public authority that was considering the developer's proposal.
textreferences: The BER noted that engineers have an obligation to be objective and truthful in professional reports, statements, or testimony and include all relevant and pertinent information in such reports, and that it would be reasonable to assume that the public authority approving the development would be interested in this information.
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T10:32:26.863373
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Engineer A Non-Acquiescence Client B Safety Analysis Suppression
type: Non-AcquiescencetoClientSafetyOverrideObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer A Faithful Agent Written Risk Notification Client B Tidal Crossing
prevails over: Engineer A Faithful Agent Written Risk Notification Client B Tidal Crossing
casecontext: Client B directed Engineer A to proceed without the costly specialized hydraulic analysis, which Engineer A had identified as necessary to assess foreseeable risk to approximately twenty upstream homes.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.87
derived from principle: Non-Acquiescence to Client Directive Suppressing Safety Analysis Invoked by BER Discussion Section
derived from principle: Non-Acquiescence to Unsafe Client Directives Invoked By Engineer A
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T00:15:23.499283+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T00:15:23.499283+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Non-Acquiescence to Client Safety Override Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to refuse to simply acquiesce to Client B's directive to forgo the specialized hydraulic analysis without formally objecting in writing, documenting the professional recommendation, and evaluating whether the public welfare risk requires escalation beyond the client relationship to regulatory authorities or upstream homeowners.
sourcetext: Client B directs Engineer A to proceed without the costly analysis unless and until such an analysis is requested by the applicable regulatory authorities.
temporalscope: Upon receiving Client B's directive to forgo the specialized analysis
textreferences: Client B directs Engineer A to proceed without the costly analysis unless and until such an analysis is requested by the applicable regulatory authorities.
textreferences: It is Engineer A's judgment, based on hydraulic evaluation procedures presented at a recent transportation agency conference, that the proposed project may result in some upstream homes becoming uninhabitable a decade or more earlier than would otherwise be the case.
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:31:11.064958
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Engineer A Regulatory Authority Proactive Disclosure Upstream Flood Risk
type: RegulatoryAuthorityProactiveRiskDisclosureWithoutClientAuthorizationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer A Faithful Agent Written Risk Notification Client B Tidal Crossing
competes with: Engineer A Preliminary Judgment Qualified Disclosure Client B Upstream Risk
prevails over: Engineer A Faithful Agent Written Risk Notification Client B Tidal Crossing
casecontext: Client B directed Engineer A to proceed without the specialized hydraulic analysis unless requested by regulatory authorities, but Engineer A's professional judgment indicates material risk to approximately twenty upstream homes.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.83
derived from principle: Proactive Risk Disclosure Invoked for Climate-Driven Flood Impacts
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T00:15:23.499283+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T00:15:23.499283+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Regulatory Authority Proactive Risk Disclosure Without Client Authorization Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to evaluate whether the preliminary professional judgment that the tidal crossing upgrade may accelerate upstream home uninhabitability is sufficiently serious to require proactive disclosure to the applicable regulatory authority, independent of Client B's authorization, and to make such disclosure if the risk threshold warrants it — particularly given that Client B has directed Engineer A to forgo the analysis needed to quantify the risk.
sourcetext: Client B directs Engineer A to proceed without the costly analysis unless and until such an analysis is requested by the applicable regulatory authorities.
temporalscope: Upon determining that the preliminary risk finding warrants regulatory disclosure notwithstanding Client B's directive
textreferences: Client B directs Engineer A to proceed without the costly analysis unless and until such an analysis is requested by the applicable regulatory authorities.
textreferences: It is Engineer A's judgment, based on hydraulic evaluation procedures presented at a recent transportation agency conference, that the proposed project may result in some upstream homes becoming uninhabitable a decade or more earlier than would otherwise be the case.
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:31:11.064397
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Fact-Based Disclosure Obligation Invoked By Engineer A Preliminary Judgment
type: Fact-BasedDisclosureObligation
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Client B Cost-Directing Developer
appliedto: Local Permitting Regulatory Authority
balancingwith: Proactive Risk Disclosure
balancingwith: Professional Competence in Risk Assessment
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A's risk assessment is characterized as a professional 'judgment' based on conference-presented procedures rather than a confirmed finding from completed specialized analysis, requiring Engineer A to disclose the identified risk with appropriate qualification as a preliminary assessment while recommending specialized analysis to confirm or refute it
confidence: 0.85
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T00:13:22.311648+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T00:13:22.311648+00:00
importance: medium
interpretation: In this context, fact-based disclosure obligation requires Engineer A to communicate the preliminary risk assessment to Client B and the regulatory authority with appropriate epistemic qualification — as a professional judgment requiring confirmation through specialized analysis — rather than either suppressing the concern or asserting it as a confirmed finding
invokedby: Engineer A Tidal Crossing Infrastructure Design Engineer
principleclass: Fact-Based Disclosure Obligation
sourcetext: it is Engineer A's judgment, based on hydraulic evaluation procedures presented at a recent transportation agency conference, that the proposed project may result in some upstream homes becoming uninhabitable a decade or more earlier than would otherwise be the case
tensionresolution: Fact-based disclosure obligation and proactive risk disclosure are reconciled by disclosing the preliminary judgment with appropriate qualification and recommending specialized analysis to confirm or refute it
textreferences: it is Engineer A's judgment, based on hydraulic evaluation procedures presented at a recent transportation agency conference, that the proposed project may result in some upstream homes becoming uninhabitable a decade or more earlier than would otherwise be the case
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:31:11.063387
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Faithful Agent Notification Invoked By Engineer A Client B
type: FaithfulAgentNotificationObligationforProjectSuccessRisk
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Client B Cost-Directing Developer
appliedto: Public hearing process for development permit
balancingwith: Client Cost Management Preferences
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A's faithful agent obligation to Client B requires advising Client B in writing that proceeding without the specialized hydraulic analysis creates regulatory, legal, and reputational risks for the developer — including the risk that the upstream flood risk will become a contested issue in public hearings that could delay or defeat the project
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T00:13:22.311648+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T00:13:22.311648+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: In this context, the faithful agent notification obligation requires Engineer A to advise Client B that the decision to forgo specialized analysis is not merely an ethical risk but a project success risk, because the upstream flood risk is 'anticipated to be a difficult question to answer in the project's public hearings'
invokedby: Engineer A Tidal Crossing Infrastructure Design Engineer
principleclass: Faithful Agent Notification Obligation for Project Success Risk
sourcetext: anticipating this to be a difficult question to answer in the project's public hearings
tensionresolution: The faithful agent obligation encompasses advising clients of risks to project success, including regulatory and public hearing risks arising from inadequate safety analysis; this obligation aligns with rather than conflicts with the public welfare obligation in this case
textreferences: Client B directs Engineer A to proceed without the costly analysis unless and until such an analysis is requested by the applicable regulatory authorities
textreferences: anticipating this to be a difficult question to answer in the project's public hearings
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:31:11.062537
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits Invoked by BER Discussion Section
type: FaithfulAgentObligationWithinEthicalLimits
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Escalation and withdrawal decision
appliedto: Tidal crossing design engagement with Client B
balancingwith: Non-Acquiescence to Client Directive Suppressing Safety Analysis
balancingwith: Public Welfare Paramount
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The BER's structured escalation pathway — engage Client B, propose regulatory report, withdraw — operationalizes the faithful agent principle: Engineer A must serve Client B's legitimate interests diligently while retaining the authority and obligation to escalate or withdraw when Client B's direction conflicts with public welfare obligations.
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T14:20:08.457238+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T14:20:08.457238+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: In this context, the faithful agent principle requires Engineer A to first engage Client B in good faith discussions about the need for specialized analysis before escalating — preserving the client relationship to the extent possible while retaining the independent professional obligation to protect the public.
invokedby: Engineer A Climate Change Impact Evaluating Infrastructure Engineer
principleclass: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
sourcetext: Engineer A should engage Client B in discussions about the need for the detailed evaluation and disclosure of the potential impacts on the public and alternatives for the project to mitigate those impacts, and the potential risk to Client B of not evaluating the potential impacts.
tensionresolution: Faithful agent obligation yields to public welfare paramount when Client B refuses both analysis and regulatory disclosure; Engineer A must withdraw rather than continue serving a client whose direction conflicts with public protection obligations.
textreferences: Engineer A should engage Client B in discussions about the need for the detailed evaluation and disclosure of the potential impacts on the public and alternatives for the project to mitigate those impacts, and the potential risk to Client B of not evaluating the potential impacts.
textreferences: Failing agreement by Client B to either of these courses of action the BER believes that Engineer A should withdraw from the project.
textreferences: If Client B remains unconvinced, Engineer A should propose to Client B that engineer a provides the potential concern that may necessitate more detailed evaluation in an engineering report for consideration by regulatory agencies and the public.
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T10:32:26.864078
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Engineer A Conditional Proceeding Documented Uncertainty Tidal Crossing Alternative Pathway
type: ConditionalProceedingUnderDocumentedUncertaintyObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer A Public Welfare Paramount Gray Area Climate Change Tidal Crossing
defeasible under: Foreseeable Third-Party Flooding Harm from Hydraulic Capacity Increase
defeasible under: Potential Safety Risk Without Confirmed Imminent Harm — Engineer A Climate Assessment
defeasible under: Public Safety Paramount Obligation Beyond Legal Requirements
casecontext: The BER identifies this as an alternative ethical pathway that was not available to Engineer A given the facts, because Engineer A was not comfortable predicting that significant impacts were unlikely.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.84
derived from principle: Conditional Proceeding Under Documented Uncertainty Invoked by BER Discussion Section
derived from principle: Conditional Proceeding Under Documented Uncertainty as Alternative Pathway for Engineer A
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T14:21:57.794732+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T14:21:57.794732+00:00
importance: medium
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Conditional Proceeding Under Documented Uncertainty Obligation
obligationstatement: Had Engineer A been reasonably confident that significant public health, safety, and welfare impacts were unlikely, Engineer A would have been obligated to document that judgment in writing and note in public statements that more detailed analysis would be required to confirm it, as the condition for ethically proceeding without the specialized analysis.
sourcetext: The outcome of this case might have been different had Engineer A been comfortable with predicting that significant public health, safety, and welfare impacts were unlikely, in which case Engineer A might have ethically been able to proceed while noting both in writing and in public statements that more detailed analysis would be required to confirm that judgment.
temporalscope: At the time of project assessment, if the engineer's professional judgment supported a finding of unlikely significant impacts
textreferences: The outcome of this case might have been different had Engineer A been comfortable with predicting that significant public health, safety, and welfare impacts were unlikely, in which case Engineer A might have ethically been able to proceed while noting both in writing and in public statements that more detailed analysis would be required to confirm that judgment.
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T10:32:26.865562
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Graduated Escalation Before Withdrawal Invoked Against Client B
type: GraduatedEscalationBeforeWithdrawalObligation
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Client B's refusal to authorize specialized hydrologic and hydraulic analysis
appliedto: Decision about project continuation
balancingwith: Client Loyalty
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
balancingwith: Non-Acquiescence to Unsafe Client Directives
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A must pursue a graduated sequence — first engaging Client B in discussion about the need for specialized evaluation and disclosure, then proposing a formal written engineering report to regulatory agencies, and only then withdrawing — rather than immediately withdrawing upon Client B's initial refusal
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T00:19:27.254437+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T00:19:27.254437+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The graduated escalation obligation requires Engineer A to exhaust intermediate remediation steps that may protect the public even if Client B is ultimately unpersuaded, before exercising the final remedy of withdrawal
invokedby: Engineer A Tidal Crossing Infrastructure Design Engineer
principleclass: Graduated Escalation Before Withdrawal Obligation
sourcetext: Engineer A should engage Client B in discussions about the need for the detailed evaluation and disclosure of the potential impacts on the public and alternatives for the project to mitigate those impacts, and the potential risk to Client B of not evaluating the potential impacts.
tensionresolution: Withdrawal is ethically required but only after graduated escalation steps have been exhausted; the graduated sequence maximizes the probability that public safety concerns are addressed before the engineer's last resort is exercised
textreferences: Engineer A should engage Client B in discussions about the need for the detailed evaluation and disclosure of the potential impacts on the public and alternatives for the project to mitigate those impacts, and the potential risk to Client B of not evaluating the potential impacts. If Client B remains unconvinced, Engineer A should propose to Client B that engineer a provides the potential concern that may necessitate more detailed evaluation in an engineering report for consideration by regulatory agencies and the public. Failing agreement by Client B to either of these courses of action the BER believes that Engineer A should withdraw from the project.
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:31:11.070472
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Engineer A Conditional Project Withdrawal After Client Refusal Tidal Crossing
type: ConditionalProjectWithdrawalAfterClientRefusalofSafetyDisclosureObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer A Faithful Agent Written Risk Notification Client B Tidal Crossing
competes with: Engineer A Graduated Escalation Before Withdrawal Tidal Crossing
defeasible under: Engineer A Conditional Withdrawal Obligation
defeasible under: Professional Disassociation Decision — Engineer A Withdrawal Threshold
casecontext: If Client B refuses all graduated escalation steps — both the specialized analysis and the written risk report for regulatory submission — Engineer A's continued participation in the project would constitute complicity in suppressing material flood risk information from regulators and the affected community.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.87
derived from principle: Post-Client-Refusal Escalation Assessment Obligation Invoked by BER Discussion Section
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T14:13:00.331319+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T14:13:00.331319+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Conditional Project Withdrawal After Client Refusal of Safety Disclosure Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A is obligated to withdraw from the tidal crossing project if Client B refuses both the specialized hydrologic and hydraulic analysis and the proposal to document the flood risk in a written engineering report for regulatory consideration, recognizing that continued participation under those conditions would make Engineer A complicit in the suppression of material public safety risks to twenty upstream homeowners.
sourcetext: Client B directs Engineer A to proceed without the costly analysis unless and until such an analysis is requested by the applicable regulatory authorities.
temporalscope: Conditionally, after all graduated escalation steps have been refused by Client B
textreferences: Client B directs Engineer A to proceed without the costly analysis unless and until such an analysis is requested by the applicable regulatory authorities.
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T10:32:26.857701
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Engineer A Public Welfare Paramount Gray Area Climate Change Tidal Crossing
type: SafetyObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer A Client Risk Consequence Communication Client B Tidal Crossing
competes with: Engineer A Conditional Proceeding Documented Uncertainty Tidal Crossing Alternative Pathway
competes with: Engineer A Faithful Agent Written Risk Notification Client B Tidal Crossing
prevails over: Engineer A Conditional Proceeding Documented Uncertainty Tidal Crossing Alternative Pathway
prevails over: Engineer A Faithful Agent Written Risk Notification Client B Tidal Crossing
casecontext: The applicable local development regulations and national design codes had not been updated to reflect climate change effects; Engineer A's public welfare obligation extended beyond regulatory compliance to encompass climate-driven risks.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.92
derived from principle: Public Welfare Paramount Invoked By Engineer A Tidal Crossing
derived from principle: Public Welfare Paramount Invoked by BER Discussion Section
derived from principle: Public Welfare Paramount Invoked by Engineer A Against Client B's Cost Directive
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T00:21:20.043237+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T00:21:20.043237+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Safety Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to hold paramount the protection of public health, safety, and welfare — including the welfare of the approximately twenty upstream homeowners facing accelerated flood risk — regardless of whether applicable law or regulations required such consideration, and to address the impacts of the tidal crossing project on public welfare even in the absence of explicit regulatory mandates.
sourcetext: Professional engineers have a primary ethical obligation to hold paramount the protection of public health, safety, and welfare.
temporalscope: Throughout the design and assessment phase of the tidal crossing project
textreferences: Engineer A does have an ethical obligation to address the impacts of the project on public health, safety, and welfare regardless of whether or not that is required by applicable law.
textreferences: Professional engineers have a primary ethical obligation to hold paramount the protection of public health, safety, and welfare.
textreferences: That obligation is not bounded by what is required by law, or by regulations, but rather is stated broadly.
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:31:11.072855
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Post-Client-Refusal Escalation Assessment Obligation Invoked by BER Discussion Section
type: Post-Client-RefusalEscalationAssessmentObligation
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Client B's refusal to fund specialized hydrologic analysis
appliedto: Decision whether to submit engineering report to regulatory agencies
balancingwith: Client Loyalty
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The BER holds that if Client B remains unconvinced after Engineer A's advocacy, Engineer A must propose submission of an engineering report to regulatory agencies for public consideration — and if Client B refuses even that intermediate escalation step, Engineer A must withdraw from the project.
confidence: 0.96
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T14:20:08.457238+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T14:20:08.457238+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: In this context, the post-refusal escalation principle generates a two-stage escalation obligation: first, propose regulatory report submission; second, withdraw if client refuses both analysis and disclosure. The client's refusal does not discharge Engineer A's independent public protection obligation.
invokedby: Engineer A Climate Change Impact Evaluating Infrastructure Engineer
principleclass: Post-Client-Refusal Escalation Assessment Obligation
sourcetext: If Client B remains unconvinced, Engineer A should propose to Client B that engineer a provides the potential concern that may necessitate more detailed evaluation in an engineering report for consideration by regulatory agencies and the public. Failing agreement by Client B to either of these courses of action the BER believes that Engineer A should withdraw from the project.
tensionresolution: Post-refusal escalation obligation overrides client preference for silence; Engineer A must escalate to regulatory disclosure or withdraw, rather than treating client refusal as a complete discharge of professional obligation.
textreferences: Failing agreement by Client B to either of these courses of action the BER believes that Engineer A should withdraw from the project.
textreferences: If Client B remains unconvinced, Engineer A should propose to Client B that engineer a provides the potential concern that may necessitate more detailed evaluation in an engineering report for consideration by regulatory agencies and the public.
textreferences: The BER concluded that Engineer A should continue to attempt to convince the owner of the potential for damage to future residents and the public, and, failing agreement on Engineer A's proposed design standard, Engineer A should withdraw from the project.
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T10:32:26.863212
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Engineer A Climate Change Impact Evaluating Infrastructure Engineer
type: ClimateChangeImpactEvaluatingInfrastructureEngineer
type: NamedIndividual
adheres to principle: Client Loyalty Obligation of Engineer A to Client B
adheres to principle: Climate-Informed Infrastructure Design Standard Invoked by Engineer A for Tidal Crossing
adheres to principle: Climate Change as Moving Target Invoked by Engineer A in Tidal Crossing Design
adheres to principle: Climate as Moving Target Invoked by BER Discussion Section
adheres to principle: Conditional Proceeding Under Documented Uncertainty Invoked by BER Discussion Section
adheres to principle: Conditional Proceeding Under Documented Uncertainty as Alternative Pathway for Engineer A
adheres to principle: Environmental Stewardship Invoked in Tidal Saltmarsh Crossing Design
adheres to principle: Ethics Code as Higher Standard Than Legal Minimum Invoked by BER Discussion Section
adheres to principle: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits Invoked by BER Discussion Section
adheres to principle: Interdisciplinary Competence Threshold Invoked by BER Discussion Section
adheres to principle: Non-Acquiescence to Client Directive Suppressing Safety Analysis Invoked Against Client B
adheres to principle: Non-Acquiescence to Client Directive Suppressing Safety Analysis Invoked by BER Discussion Section
adheres to principle: Post-Client-Refusal Escalation Assessment Obligation Invoked by BER Discussion Section
adheres to principle: Post-Client-Refusal Escalation Assessment Obligation Triggered by Client B's Refusal
adheres to principle: Public Welfare Paramount Invoked by BER Discussion Section
adheres to principle: Public Welfare Paramount Invoked by Engineer A Against Client B's Cost Directive
adheres to principle: Regulatory Gap Awareness and Proactive Risk Disclosure Invoked by BER Discussion Section
adheres to principle: Regulatory Gap Awareness and Proactive Risk Disclosure Invoked by Engineer A
adheres to principle: Standard of Care as Ethical Floor Invoked Against 25-Year Storm Regulatory Minimum
adheres to principle: Standard of Care as Ethical Floor Invoked by BER Discussion Section
adheres to principle: Third-Party Flood Risk Community Notification Obligation Invoked for Upstream Homeowners
has obligation: Engineer A Climate Change Moving Target Tidal Crossing Design
has obligation: Engineer A Conditional Project Withdrawal Client B Refusal Tidal Crossing
has obligation: Engineer A Graduated Escalation Tidal Crossing Client B Refusal
has obligation: Engineer A Non-Acquiescence Client B Safety Analysis Suppression
has obligation: Engineer A Public Welfare Paramount Gray Area Climate Change Tidal Crossing
has obligation: Engineer A Regulatory Report Submission Proposal Tidal Crossing Escalation
has obligation: Engineer A Third Party Upstream Flood Risk Notification Twenty Homes
attributes: {'license': 'Professional Engineer', 'specialty': 'Hydrology, hydraulics, and coastal engineering (sufficient understanding)', 'obligation_trigger': 'Recognition that significant flooding impacts on other properties are reasonably likely under future climate conditions'}
caseinvolvement: Engineer A is the primary professional engineer responsible for evaluating the infrastructure project's impacts on public health, safety, and welfare in light of climate change. Engineer A must judge whether specialized hydrologic/hydraulic/coastal modeling is needed, engage Client B on the need for detailed evaluation and disclosure, and withdraw if Client B refuses both courses of action.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T06:42:51.640746+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T06:42:51.640746+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'public_responsibility_to', 'target': 'Affected Public'}
relationships: {'type': 'reports_to_if_client_refuses', 'target': 'Regulatory Agencies and Public'}
relationships: {'type': 'serves', 'target': 'Client B Development Project Client Refusing Safety Evaluation'}
rolecategory: public_responsibility
roleclass: Climate Change Impact Evaluating Infrastructure Engineer
sourcetext: Engineer A does have an ethical obligation to address the impacts of the project on public health, safety, and welfare regardless of whether or not that is required by applicable law
textreferences: Engineer A does have an ethical obligation to address the impacts of the project on public health, safety, and welfare regardless of whether or not that is required by applicable law
textreferences: Engineer A has an obligation to consider climate and weather changes in the future
textreferences: Engineer A needs to have sufficient understanding of hydrology, hydraulics, and coastal modeling
textreferences: Engineer A should engage Client B in discussions about the need for the detailed evaluation
textreferences: Failing agreement by Client B... the BER believes that Engineer A should withdraw from the project
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T10:32:26.877613
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Engineer A Faithful Agent Written Risk Notification Client B Tidal Crossing
type: FaithfulAgentWrittenRiskNotificationWithoutInvestigationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer A Client Cost-Directive Safety Analysis Non-Subordination Tidal Crossing
competes with: Engineer A Climate-Adjusted Regulatory Gap Risk Disclosure Tidal Crossing
competes with: Engineer A Conditional Project Withdrawal After Client Refusal Tidal Crossing
competes with: Engineer A Non-Acquiescence Client B Safety Analysis Suppression
competes with: Engineer A Public Welfare Paramount Gray Area Climate Change Tidal Crossing
competes with: Engineer A Regulatory Authority Proactive Disclosure Upstream Flood Risk
competes with: Engineer A Third-Party Upstream Flood Risk Notification Twenty Homes
defeasible under: Client Non-Compliance Insistence — Deferral of Safety Analysis
defeasible under: Competing Duties - Faithful Agent vs. Public Safety
defeasible under: Competing Duties — Client Authority vs. Third-Party Protection
defeasible under: Engineer A Conditional Withdrawal Obligation
defeasible under: Foreseeable Upstream Flood Harm - Tidal Crossing Upgrade
defeasible under: Public Safety at Risk - Upstream Residential Flood Hazard
defeasible under: Public Safety at Risk — Upstream Residential Flood Exposure
casecontext: Engineer A identified a foreseeable risk to project success and third-party welfare from proceeding without the specialized hydraulic analysis, and Client B directed Engineer A to forgo that analysis.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.88
derived from principle: Faithful Agent Notification Invoked By Engineer A Client B
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T00:15:23.499283+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T00:15:23.499283+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Faithful Agent Written Risk Notification Without Investigation Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to advise Client B in writing that proceeding without the specialized hydraulic analysis creates a foreseeable risk that the project will not be successful — specifically that the tidal crossing upgrade may accelerate uninhabitability of upstream homes and create regulatory and legal exposure — while recognizing that this notification duty does not extend to an obligation to conduct the specialized analysis without Client B's authorization.
sourcetext: Client B directs Engineer A to proceed without the costly analysis unless and until such an analysis is requested by the applicable regulatory authorities.
temporalscope: Upon receiving Client B's directive to forgo the specialized analysis
textreferences: Client B directs Engineer A to proceed without the costly analysis unless and until such an analysis is requested by the applicable regulatory authorities.
textreferences: Engineer A proposes a complex and costly hydrologic and hydraulic analysis by a specialized subconsultant to predict the extent to which sea level rise and the increased hydraulic capacity of the tidal crossing will result in flood damage to a neighborhood of twenty upstream homes during future high tides and storm surges, anticipating this to be a difficult question to answer in the project's public hearings.
wasattributedto: Case 88 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:31:11.064535
was generated by: ProEthica Case 88 Extraction

Engineer A Tidal Crossing Infrastructure Design Engineer
type: TidalCrossingInfrastructureDesignEngineer
type: NamedIndividual
adheres to principle: Client Loyalty Bounded by Public Welfare Invoked Against Client B Cost Directives
adheres to principle: Climate-Informed Infrastructure Design Invoked By Engineer A
adheres to principle: Climate-Informed Infrastructure Design Standard Invoked for Tidal Crossing
adheres to principle: Climate Change as Moving Target Invoked for Tidal Crossing Design
adheres to principle: Competing Public Goods Balancing Invoked By Engineer A Developer vs Upstream Community
adheres to principle: Conditional Proceeding Under Documented Uncertainty Invoked as Counterfactual
adheres to principle: Environmental Stewardship Invoked By Engineer A Tidal Saltmarsh
adheres to principle: Fact-Based Disclosure Obligation Invoked By Engineer A Preliminary Judgment
adheres to principle: Faithful Agent Notification Invoked By Engineer A Client B
adheres to principle: Graduated Escalation Before Withdrawal Invoked Against Client B
adheres to principle: Interdisciplinary Competence Threshold Invoked for Hydraulic Modeling Recognition
adheres to principle: Non-Acquiescence to Client Directive Suppressing Safety Analysis Invoked Against Client B Refusal
adheres to principle: Non-Acquiescence to Unsafe Client Directives Invoked By Engineer A
adheres to principle: Proactive Risk Disclosure Invoked By Engineer A Upstream Flood
adheres to principle: Proactive Risk Disclosure Invoked for Climate-Driven Flood Impacts
adheres to principle: Professional Competence in Risk Assessment Invoked By Engineer A Hydraulic Evaluation
adheres to principle: Professional Competence in Risk Assessment Invoked for Engineer A Hydraulic Judgment
adheres to principle: Public Welfare Paramount Invoked By Engineer A Tidal Crossing
adheres to principle: Public Welfare Paramount Invoked in Climate Change Gray Areas
adheres to principle: Regulatory Gap Awareness Invoked By Engineer A Climate Change
adheres to principle: Regulatory Gap Awareness Invoked for Climate Change and Existing Standards
adheres to principle: Third-Party Flood Risk Community Notification Obligation Invoked for Upstream Neighborhood
adheres to principle: Third-Party Flood Risk Notification Invoked By Engineer A Upstream Homes
has obligation: Engineer A Client B Override Documentation Obligation Tidal Crossing
has obligation: Engineer A Client Cost-Directive Safety Analysis Non-Subordination Tidal Crossing
has obligation: Engineer A Client Risk Consequence Communication Client B Tidal Crossing
has obligation: Engineer A Client Risk Consequence Communication Tidal Crossing
has obligation: Engineer A Climate-Adjusted Regulatory Gap Risk Disclosure Tidal Crossing
has obligation: Engineer A Climate Change Moving Target Design Consideration Tidal Crossing
has obligation: Engineer A Climate Change Moving Target Tidal Crossing Design
has obligation: Engineer A Climate Informed Infrastructure Design Standard Application
has obligation: Engineer A Climate Moving Target Design Consideration Tidal Crossing
has obligation: Engineer A Climate Regulatory Gap Disclosure Client B Tidal Crossing
has obligation: Engineer A Competing Public Goods Healthcare Upstream Community Balanced Advisory
has obligation: Engineer A Conditional Proceeding Documented Uncertainty Tidal Crossing Alternative Pathway
has obligation: Engineer A Conditional Project Withdrawal After Client Refusal Tidal Crossing
has obligation: Engineer A Conditional Project Withdrawal Client B Refusal Tidal Crossing
has obligation: Engineer A Conditional Project Withdrawal Tidal Crossing Both Avenues Refused
has obligation: Engineer A Environmental Justice Risk Disclosure Upstream Homes
has obligation: Engineer A Faithful Agent Written Risk Notification Client B Tidal Crossing
has obligation: Engineer A Formal Client Project Failure Risk Notification Tidal Crossing
has obligation: Engineer A Graduated Escalation Before Withdrawal Tidal Crossing
has obligation: Engineer A Graduated Escalation Tidal Crossing Client B Refusal
has obligation: Engineer A Gray Area Public Welfare Judgment Documentation Tidal Crossing
has obligation: Engineer A Interdisciplinary Competence Threshold Recognition Tidal Crossing
has obligation: Engineer A Interdisciplinary Threshold Recognition Hydraulic Referral Tidal Crossing
has obligation: Engineer A Non-Acquiescence Client B Safety Analysis Suppression
has obligation: Engineer A Preliminary Judgment Qualified Disclosure Client B Upstream Risk
has obligation: Engineer A Preliminary Judgment Risk Disclosure Qualification Tidal Crossing
has obligation: Engineer A Public Hearing Climate Risk Information Gap Remediation Tidal Crossing
has obligation: Engineer A Public Hearing Testimony Completeness Upstream Flood Risk
has obligation: Engineer A Public Welfare Paramount Gray Area Climate Change Tidal Crossing
has obligation: Engineer A Regulatory-Minimum-Only Compliance Insufficiency Disclosure Tidal Crossing
has obligation: Engineer A Regulatory Authority Proactive Disclosure Upstream Flood Risk
has obligation: Engineer A Regulatory Authority Proactive Risk Disclosure Without Client Authorization Tidal Crossing
has obligation: Engineer A Regulatory Report Submission Proposal Client B Tidal Crossing
has obligation: Engineer A Regulatory Report Submission Proposal Escalation Tidal Crossing
has obligation: Engineer A Regulatory Report Submission Proposal Tidal Crossing Escalation
has obligation: Engineer A Specialized Subconsultant Engagement Recommendation Tidal Crossing
has obligation: Engineer A Specialized Subconsultant Hydraulic Analysis Recommendation Client B
has obligation: Engineer A Third-Party Upstream Flood Risk Notification Twenty Homes
has obligation: Engineer A Third Party Upstream Flood Risk Notification Twenty Homes
has obligation: Engineer A Tidal Hydraulic Capacity Upgrade Third-Party Flood Impact Assessment Tidal Crossing
has obligation: Engineer A Tidal Saltmarsh Environmental Impact Assessment Tidal Crossing
attributes: {'license': 'Professional Engineer (consulting)', 'specialty': 'Hydraulic and roadway infrastructure design', 'knowledge_basis': 'Hydraulic evaluation procedures from recent transportation agency conference', 'professional_judgment': 'Proposed project may render upstream homes uninhabitable a decade or more earlier than otherwise'}
caseinvolvement: Consulting engineer retained by Client B to design and permit a roadway upgrade including a tidal crossing bridge replacement; identified climate-change-driven upstream flood risk; proposed specialized subconsultant analysis; directed by client to forgo the analysis absent regulatory requirement.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 88
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T00:08:44.407742+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 88
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T00:08:44.407742+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'public_responsibility_toward', 'target': 'Upstream Residential Flood Risk Community'}
relationships: {'type': 'regulatory_interface', 'target': 'Local Permitting Regulatory Authority'}