Engineer A applied their seal consistent with state law
Engineer A did not cite their use of AI-software or its large language models, and submitted the draft report to Client W for review
Engineer A opted to use open-sourced artificial intelligence (AI) software to create an initial draft of the necessary report and to use AI-assisted drafting tools to generate preliminary design documents
A professional engineering role in which the practitioner uses AI-assisted drafting or synthesis tools to generate preliminary design documents or reports, while retaining full professional accountability for the accuracy, completeness, and regulatory compliance of the final work product bearing their seal.
Should not omit disclosure of AI use where professional standards or client expectations require transparency
Should not rely on AI outputs for safety-critical design elements without independent verification
Should not seal or submit AI-generated work without thorough independent review
AI output is incorporated into a deliverable submitted to a client or stamped with a professional seal
AI software is used to generate a draft report, design document, or other professional work product
Obligation to disclose AI tool use to clients and relevant parties
Obligation to ensure AI-generated work meets professional and regulatory standards before sealing or submitting
Obligation to take professional responsibility for all content regardless of its generative origin
Obligation to verify accuracy, originality, and completeness of AI-generated content
Transforms general honesty, competence, and professional accountability principles into specific duties of disclosure, verification, and independent review when AI tools contribute substantially to a professional work product.
AI-generated content is fully replaced by independently authored content
Disclosure of AI use is made and work product is re-evaluated under applicable standards
Engineer A did not cite the AI-assisted drafting tools they used to generate the engineering design documents
State in which a professional's work product has been substantially generated or drafted by artificial intelligence tools, creating obligations regarding disclosure of AI use, verification of accuracy and originality, professional accountability for the output, and compliance with applicable professional and legal standards governing AI-assisted work.
Intellectual Honesty in Authorship Principle
Accurate attribution of AI-generated content in submitted work products and transmittal documents
Engineer A also made minor adjustments to some of the wording to personalize the content.
The Client commented that the report read as if written by two different authors but was otherwise satisfactory.
Misrepresentation of professional work; breach of client trust; potential disciplinary action for dishonest professional conduct
Duty of an engineer to accurately represent the intellectual origin and authorship of professional work products, including disclosure when AI tools have substantially generated the content, and to refrain from presenting AI-generated work as the engineer's own original intellectual product.
Follow emerging best practices and professional society guidance on AI attribution
Include a methodology section describing AI tool contributions
Proactively disclose AI use in cover letters or report headers
BER Case 98-3 emphasized that engineers must acknowledge significant contributions by others. AI, while not a human contributor, fundamentally shaped the report and design documents, warranting disclosure under Code section III.9, '[e]ngineers shall give credit for engineering work to those to whom credit is due, and will recognize the proprietary interests of others.'
There are currently no universal guidelines mandating AI disclosure in engineering work, but best practices suggest informing clients when AI substantially contributes to a work product.
Misrepresentation of work product authorship, undermining client trust, ethics code violation under attribution and honesty provisions
Ethical constraint requiring that an engineer disclose and appropriately attribute the substantial contribution of AI tools to a professional work product, consistent with the professional obligation to give credit for engineering work to those to whom credit is due, so that clients and reviewers can accurately assess the origin and nature of the work.
Documented disclosure to client that AI tools substantially contributed to the work product, made prior to or concurrent with delivery
Given that Client W identified issues in the engineering design and questioned inconsistencies in the report, proactive disclosure could have prevented misunderstandings and strengthened trust.
While Engineer A reviewed the content, the lack of disclosure raises concerns about transparency.
Erosion of client trust; potential misunderstanding of work product provenance; violation of transparency norms under NSPE III.9
This obligation is substantively the same concept as the already-extracted AI Tool Disclosure Obligation. The present class emphasizes the proactive and best-practice dimension but covers the same duty to disclose AI contribution to clients and stakeholders.
Duty of an engineer to proactively inform clients and other stakeholders when AI tools have substantially contributed to a professional work product, so that stakeholders can assess the nature and provenance of the work and so that transparency and trust are maintained, even in the absence of universal mandatory disclosure guidelines.
Evidence that the engineer defined solution guidelines prior to AI use, critically reviewed outputs, and documented the basis for accepting the final work product
By relying on AI-assisted tools without a comprehensive verification process of its output, Engineer A risked violating this requirement.
Much like directing an engineering intern to solve a problem, responsible use of AI requires an engineer to outline solution guidelines and constraints. Recommendations from the program or intern should not be blindly accepted, they should be considered and challenged and the resulting outputs should be understood.
Violation of responsible charge requirements; potential public safety harm; disciplinary action; licensure consequences
Duty of an engineer who uses AI-assisted tools to generate professional work products to exercise genuine direction and control over the AI process, including outlining solution guidelines and constraints before generation, critically challenging outputs, and verifying that results conform to professional and project-specific standards before acceptance, rather than passively accepting AI-generated content.
Consult applicable professional society guidance on AI disclosure before using AI tools
Establish office policy requiring AI use notation in all deliverables
Include explicit disclosure language in submitted work products identifying AI tool use
Again, Engineer A did not cite the AI-assisted drafting tools they used to generate the engineering design documents.
Misrepresentation of work product authorship, breach of client trust, potential disciplinary action by licensing board, and undermining of professional integrity standards.
Ethical and professional constraint requiring an engineer who uses AI tools to generate or substantially assist in producing a work product to disclose that use to the client and relevant parties, so that the client can accurately assess the nature and origin of the work product delivered.
Cross-check AI-generated design elements against local regulatory requirements
Engage a qualified peer reviewer when personal competence to verify AI output is uncertain
Limit AI tool use to areas where the engineer has sufficient expertise to evaluate outputs
Perform line-by-line technical review of all AI-generated content against applicable standards
Client W noticed several issues with the AI-generated design documents, including misaligned dimensions and an omission of key safety features required by local regulations.
Engineer A completed a cursory review of the AI-generated plans and adjusted certain elements to align with site-specific conditions.
Submission of deficient or non-compliant work products, public safety risk, professional seal applied to work not meeting responsible charge standards, regulatory violations, and client harm.
Competence and safety constraint requiring an engineer who uses AI-generated outputs as the basis for professional work products to conduct a sufficiently thorough independent technical review of those outputs before submission, such that the engineer can take responsible charge and ensure accuracy, regulatory compliance, and fitness for purpose.
Evidence of systematic review process for AI-generated content, including cross-checking against authoritative sources and regulatory requirements
Client W, however, noticed several issues with the AI-generated design documents, including misaligned dimensions and an omission of key safety features required by local regulations.
Submission of technically deficient work products; public safety risk; professional discipline; liability for errors in AI-generated content
This obligation is a specialization of the existing Competence Obligation, applied specifically to the context of AI-generated outputs. The existing class covers the general duty to practice within competence, but does not address the specific verification duty that arises when AI tools are used to generate professional work products. A new class is warranted to capture this distinct obligation type.
Duty of an engineer who uses AI-assisted tools to generate technical work products to conduct a sufficiently thorough and competent review of AI-generated outputs before submitting or sealing those outputs, commensurate with the engineer's professional responsibility and the risk profile of the work.
[CompetenceObligation] Requirement to perform services only in areas of competence (NSPE II.2)
Professional engineering practice involving AI-assisted drafting or synthesis tools
Identify AI-generated content in professional deliverables
Represent authorship accurately in submitted work products
Capability to recognize when the use of AI-assisted tools or large language models in professional work products triggers a disclosure obligation, and to communicate that use accurately and transparently to clients and other stakeholders.
Open-textured obligation whose scope depends on evolving professional norms, jurisdictional rules, and the degree to which AI contribution materially shaped the work product.
Disclose use of AI software in report preparation
Disclose use of AI-assisted drafting tools in design documents
Identify limitations of AI-generated content to clients
Academic submission of AI-generated text without attribution
Engineer submitting AI-drafted report without disclosure to client
Engineer using AI-generated design documents without noting tool provenance in submittal
Requires engineers to identify AI tools used, note their role in the work product, and flag limitations of AI-generated content in professional submittals.
Client expectations of seamless deliverables
Competitive pressure to conceal novel tool use
Clients, regulators, and the public are entitled to know the methods and tools used to produce professional work so they can evaluate its reliability and the engineer's independent judgment.
Professional principle requiring engineers to disclose their use of AI-assisted tools, large language models, or automated drafting software in the preparation of professional work products, enabling clients, reviewers, and the public to assess the provenance and reliability of the work.
The threshold of required understanding varies with the stakes of the work product and the maturity of the AI tool, requiring contextual judgment about when AI-generated output is sufficiently verified.
Conduct substantive review of AI-generated technical content
Decline to seal work that cannot be independently verified
Understand AI tool functionality before professional use
Verify AI-generated design documents against applicable regulations and site conditions
Engineer conducting only cursory review of AI-generated design documents that omit safety features
Engineer relying on AI synthesis without cross-checking against domain-specific standards
Engineer using new AI drafting tool without understanding its accuracy limitations
Requires engineers to understand AI tool capabilities and limitations before use, apply domain expertise to verify outputs, and refuse to seal or submit work they cannot independently validate.
Availability of mentorship or supervisory review
Time and resource pressures to deliver work products
The AI drafting software was new to the market and Engineer A had no previous experience with the tool.
Professional licensure places responsibility for work product on the engineer, not the tool. AI tools do not hold licenses and cannot bear professional accountability, so the engineer must be competent to evaluate what the tool produces.
Professional competence principle requiring engineers who use AI-assisted tools to possess sufficient understanding of those tools to critically evaluate, verify, and take professional responsibility for all AI-generated outputs before incorporating them into sealed or submitted work products.
Adversarial Data Selection Prohibition Obligation
Report or findings document applies analytical methods consistently to all available data; selection criteria for included data are stated and technically justified.
Engineer B appears to have assumed a responsibility to defend the client municipality by the selective use of data. This is an egregious denial of the duties and responsibilities of a professional engineer in any setting, legal, quasi-legal or non-legal.
Facts are not adversarial, even if they may be conflicting.
the select language of the report precludes any interpretation that any or all 90 piles met the factor of safety requirement.
Constitutes an egregious denial of professional duties; undermines the integrity of the engineering profession; may expose the engineer to disciplinary action.
The existing Expert Witness Neutrality Obligation and Contradictory Evidence Disclosure Obligation are related but address different duties. The Expert Witness Neutrality Obligation focuses on objectivity and not omitting contradictory evidence in the litigation expert role. The Contradictory Evidence Disclosure Obligation focuses on acknowledging contradictory evidence. This class captures a distinct and more general prohibition: the affirmative duty to refrain from selectively deploying data to serve an adversarial purpose in any professional setting, not only in expert witness roles. The case text explicitly states this applies in legal, quasi-legal, and non-legal settings, making it a broader and independently grounded obligation.
Duty of an engineer in any professional setting to refrain from selectively using technical data to defend a client's position, and to present technical findings on the basis of all available evidence rather than choosing data that supports a predetermined conclusion.
Must not frame conclusions to impugn another professional without factual basis
Must not omit material technical findings that favor the opposing party
Professional retained by one party in an active dispute against another party
Professional's findings are intended to serve as evidence or support in a legal or quasi-legal proceeding
Duty to resist selective use of data to serve client's adversarial interest
Heightened duty of objectivity and completeness
Obligation to include all relevant technical facts regardless of which party they favor
Transforms the general duty of objectivity into a heightened obligation to resist adversarial distortion of technical findings, and activates the duty to include all relevant and pertinent information in professional reports.
Engineer B appears to have assumed a responsibility to defend the client municipality by the selective use of data
It is not evident from the facts of the case that Engineer B's selective use of technical fact was inspired by the adversarial circumstance, nor does it matter
an adversarial relationship is established between the municipality and Engineer A to resolve the sharing of a settlement cost
State in which a professional is retained to perform technical work within a dispute or litigation context where one party seeks to use the professional's findings to advance its legal or financial position against another party, creating elevated risk that adversarial pressures will distort the professional's selection, presentation, or interpretation of technical facts.
Adversarial Pressure Resistance Capability
Professional engineering practice in litigation or quasi-legal contexts
Identify when client interests conflict with complete technical reporting
Maintain balanced presentation of technical facts in contested proceedings
Refuse selective data use even when it would benefit the retaining party
Facts are not adversarial, even if they may be conflicting. Adversarial interests, however, are polarizing to the effect that some facts may be preferred by one interest over the other.
No existing capability class captures the specific competency of resisting adversarial or litigation-context pressure to present findings selectively. Client Boundary Judgment Capability addresses distinguishing legitimate client service from compromising integrity, but does not specifically address the adversarial pressure dynamic and the temptation toward selective data use that arises in contested proceedings. This is a distinct and reusable concept.
Ability to recognize when an adversarial or litigation context is creating pressure to present technical findings selectively, and to resist that pressure by maintaining professional objectivity and completeness regardless of client interest alignment.
Conflict of Interest Disclosure Principle
Written disclosure to client identifying the engineer's financial or competitive interest in the recommended option prior to or concurrent with the advisory recommendation
Engineer A is qualified to provide construction services under Progressive-Design-Build and Construction-Manager-at-Risk delivery methods.
Engineer A recommended Progressive Design Build. Accompanying the recommendation, Engineer A provided a summary of the firm's experience with Progressive-Design-Build projects and references from past projects.
Client relies on biased advice without knowledge of the conflict; engineer may face disciplinary action for failure to disclose conflict of interest
This is a specialization of the existing Disclosure Obligation, focused specifically on conflict-of-interest disclosure in an advisory role where the engineer stands to benefit from the recommended option. The existing Disclosure Obligation is the closest match but does not encode the advisory-role and self-interest-in-recommendation specifics. Medium confidence match to parent.
Duty of an engineer serving in a purely advisory capacity to disclose to the client any personal, financial, or competitive interest the engineer holds in the outcome of the advisory recommendation, including any interest in being engaged for subsequent services that would flow from the recommended option.
[DisclosureObligation] Requirement to inform stakeholders about conflicts, limitations, or risks (NSPE II.3.a)
Advisory Objectivity Maintenance Capability
Professional engineering advisory services where the advisor may also be a candidate to perform services under one or more recommended options
Recognize when self-interest is influencing the framing of recommendations
Separate advisory role from potential service provider role
Structure comparative analysis without favoring personally beneficial options
Capability to provide professional advisory recommendations that are free from bias introduced by personal, financial, or competitive interests, including the ability to structure an analysis so that the recommendation reflects the client's interests rather than the advisor's potential benefit.
Requires contextual judgment about when advisory and service-provider interests are sufficiently intertwined to compromise the advisory role, and what structural or disclosure measures are necessary to preserve advisory integrity.
Avoid structuring advice to steer toward self-benefiting outcomes
Disclose anticipated follow-on work interest before or alongside advisory recommendation
Recommend independent review if advisory objectivity is compromised
Cases where a design engineer recommends a project delivery method in which they are the preferred or sole qualified provider
Feasibility advisors who recommend approaches that generate follow-on contracts for themselves
Requires engineers to separate advisory and service-provider roles where feasible, disclose the relationship between the recommendation and any anticipated follow-on work, and ensure the client understands that the recommendation may not be independent.
Engineer A currently has no contractual relationship with City B.
The value of professional advisory services depends on the client's reasonable belief that the advisor is acting in the client's interest. When the advisor stands to benefit from the recommendation, the advisory relationship is structurally compromised unless the interest is disclosed and managed.
Professional principle requiring engineers who serve in a purely advisory capacity to maintain the independence and objectivity of that role, and not to allow their interest in obtaining subsequent work to shape the content or scope of the advice they provide.
Advisory work product demonstrates balanced analysis of all relevant options without promotional content favoring options in which the engineer has a financial interest
Engineer A prepared a summary memo to City B Administrator and only identified Design-Bid-Build and Progressive-Design-Build as viable project delivery options.
Client receives biased advice; engineer undermines public trust in the profession; potential disciplinary action for conduct involving dishonesty or conflict of interest
Duty of an engineer engaged in a purely advisory capacity to provide objective, unbiased analysis and recommendations that serve the client's interests rather than the engineer's own commercial interests, and to refrain from using the advisory engagement as a vehicle to solicit or position for subsequent work.
Disclose any personal interest that might influence option selection
Document the basis for any option excluded from analysis
Present all approved or available options within the advisory scope
Under the proposed funding source, there are four approved project delivery methods: Design-Bid-Build, Construction-Management-at-Risk, Fixed-Price-Design-Build, and Progressive-Design-Build.
Client makes uninformed decisions based on incomplete information, engineer breaches fiduciary duty, potential disciplinary action for ethics violation
The selective omission of options is driven by a conflict of interest and partially maps to Conflict of Interest Avoidance. However, the specific mechanism here is the completeness of advisory disclosure rather than merely the existence of a conflict, making this a variant that warrants a distinct class. The closest existing class is Conflict of Interest Avoidance but it does not capture the affirmative duty to present all options.
Conflict of Interest Avoidance (Constraint)
Ethical constraint requiring that an engineer providing advisory services to a client present all materially relevant options, methods, or alternatives within the scope of the advisory request, prohibiting selective disclosure that omits options the client is entitled to consider, particularly when the omission serves the engineer's own interests.
[Conflict_of_Interest_Avoidance] Constraint established by ethics code provisions
Approving Engineer Verification Obligation
Documented evidence of independent technical review of submitted documents prior to approval, including identification of any deficiencies communicated to the submitting engineer
The signed and sealed drawings and specifications are ultimately approved by Engineer B of the engineering staff of the federal agency funding the project
much of the design detail is lacking in the drawings and specifications and that Hi-Lo Construction declares that certain parts of the project are 'unbuildable' without major changes
Professional discipline; enabling advancement of deficient documents; potential public safety risk from reliance on approved but deficient designs
Responsible Charge Verification Obligation addresses the duty of a licensed engineer in responsible charge to verify work before sealing. The present obligation applies to a reviewing or approving engineer at a funding agency rather than the originating engineer, and the verification duty runs to independent review of another's submission rather than one's own work. It is a variant of the same underlying competence principle applied to a distinct role context, warranting a separate class.
Responsible Charge Verification Obligation
Duty of an engineer employed by a funding or regulatory agency to review and approve design documents to conduct a sufficiently thorough and independent technical review to identify material deficiencies, incompleteness, or unbuildable elements before approving the documents, and not to rely solely on the submitting engineer's seal as a substitute for independent verification.
[ResponsibleChargeVerificationObligation] Duty of a licensed engineer in responsible charge to conduct a comprehensive, experience-based verification of all work products before sealing or submitting them, including active involvement in design and development rather than merely reviewing completed documents, so that the engineer can genuinely certify the work meets professional and safety standards.
Requires interpretation of what constitutes a substantial contribution warranting attribution, and how attribution norms developed for human contributors extend to non-human automated tools.
Cite technical sources referenced or synthesized by AI tools
Disclose AI contributions to clients when those contributions substantially shaped the work
Ensure AI-generated content does not obscure the provenance of underlying technical authority
BER Case 98-3 requirement that engineers acknowledge significant contributions by others
Engineer A failing to include citations of pertinent documents of technical authority in AI-generated report
NSPE Code section III.9 requiring credit for engineering work to those to whom credit is due
Requires engineers to disclose when AI tools substantially contributed to a work product, to cite authoritative sources referenced or synthesized by AI, and to ensure the work product accurately represents its intellectual origins.
Client confidentiality regarding tool selection
BER Case 98-3 emphasized that engineers must acknowledge significant contributions by others. AI, while not a human contributor, fundamentally shaped the report and design documents, warranting disclosure under Code section III.9.
Per Code section III.9, engineers are required to 'give credit for engineering work to those to whom credit is due,' so Engineer A's ethical use of the AI software would need to include appropriate citations.
The facts do not indicate the AI-generated report included citations of pertinent documents of technical authority.
Accurate attribution preserves the integrity of the professional record, enables quality assessment by clients and reviewers, and respects the intellectual contributions of others including the developers of tools that generate substantive content.
Professional virtue principle requiring engineers to give appropriate credit for contributions to their work products, including contributions from AI tools, automated systems, or other non-engineer sources that substantially shaped the content or design, so that recipients can accurately assess the provenance and intellectual basis of the work.
Grounds abstract ethical principles in concrete prior decisions, enabling pattern-based analogical reasoning for similar fact situations.
In BER Case 18-10, Engineer A was the lead engineer on an independent external review
In BER Case 96-8, Engineer A was a peer reviewer serving as part of an organized peer-review program.
It is helpful to consider how the BER has addressed peer review issues in the past.
BER Case Precedent is a specific subtype of the canonical Case Precedent class. The BER qualifier narrows the authority source but the category is identical.
A documented case decision issued by the NSPE Board of Ethical Review that provides analogical reasoning patterns and precedential guidance for resolving professional ethics questions in engineering practice.
[CasePrecedent] Concrete instances that exemplify principle application
Decline to bid if deficiencies cannot be adequately quantified or addressed
Include bid items for additional services required to complete deficient work
Request clarification from owner or design engineer before bidding
Engineer C could have requested further clarification from the owner or Engineer A in order to better understand the engineering drawings
Engineer C had no one to fault but himself for the problems Engineer C encountered in attempting to build the project
Engineer C submitted the low bid on the project, presumably knowing inadequacies of the documents as well as the obvious risks involved
If the engineering documents were incomplete or inadequate, then Engineer C's bid should have reflected that fact and contained appropriate bid items for additional services required to complete the work for the benefit of the owner
Engineer-contractor bears responsibility for losses arising from unbuildable contract; professional ethics violation for submitting bid that does not reflect known document deficiencies
Ethical and professional constraint requiring that an engineer-contractor who identifies deficiencies, incompleteness, or unbuildable elements in bidding documents must either include appropriate bid items reflecting the cost of additional work needed to complete the project, request clarification from the owner or design engineer before submitting a bid, or decline to bid. Submitting a low bid while knowing or having reasonable grounds to know that the documents are inadequate, without reflecting that inadequacy in the bid, constitutes a professional ethics violation.
Whether the bid included line items or qualifications addressing identified document deficiencies, or whether the bidder sought clarification before submitting
Engineer C had no one to fault but himself for the problems Engineer C encountered in attempting to build the project. Engineer C submitted the low bid on the project, presumably knowing inadequacies of the documents as well as the obvious risks involved.
Professional discipline; financial loss from underbid contract; inability to claim relief for self-created construction difficulties
Duty of an engineer-contractor who identifies deficiencies, incompleteness, or unbuildable elements in bidding documents during bid review to ensure that the submitted bid reflects those deficiencies, either by including appropriate bid items for additional services required to complete the work or by seeking clarification from the owner or design engineer before submitting, rather than submitting a low bid that ignores known inadequacies and then attributing resulting construction problems to the design documents.
Bid Document Adequacy Assessment Capability
Civil and structural engineering in public works construction contracting
Identify unbuildable or underspecified design elements
Incorporate identified deficiencies into bid pricing
Make informed decision about whether to submit a bid
Review bidding documents for completeness and buildability
Contractor Deficiency Notification Obligation
Engineer C had an opportunity to review the bidding documents which included appropriate engineering drawings, plans, and specifications. From such a review, Engineer C should have had a sense of what would be necessary to complete the project.
Engineer C had the necessary background and experience to carefully evaluate the engineering drawings as well as other aspects of the work in order to make an informed decision as to whether to bid on the project.
Technical capability of an engineer-contractor to critically evaluate bidding documents, including engineering drawings, plans, and specifications, to determine whether they are complete, buildable, and adequate to support a construction bid, and to identify deficiencies that should be reflected in bid pricing or clarification requests before submitting a bid.
Principle requiring engineers in contractor roles to apply their professional judgment to bidding documents and to communicate identified deficiencies through the bidding process rather than suppressing them in pursuit of a competitive advantage.
Include bid items for additional services when documents are incomplete
Refrain from submitting bids that conceal known document inadequacies
Request clarification from owner or design engineer before bidding on deficient documents
BER case involving Engineer C who bid on an unbuildable dam project without disclosing document inadequacies in the bid
Requires engineer-contractors to include bid items for additional services when documents are incomplete, to request clarification before bidding when documents are ambiguous, and to refrain from submitting artificially low bids that conceal known document deficiencies.
Honesty and professional integrity in commercial transactions, protection of the owner from uninformed contract awards, and professional accountability for the consequences of knowingly accepting deficient work conditions.
Professional principle requiring an engineer-contractor who identifies deficiencies, ambiguities, or inadequacies in bidding documents to reflect those deficiencies in the bid submission, either by including appropriate bid items for additional services required to remedy the deficiencies or by seeking clarification from the owner or design engineer before submitting. An engineer-contractor who submits a low bid while knowingly accepting the risks of inadequate documents cannot later attribute resulting construction difficulties to others.
Civil and structural engineering design for infrastructure construction projects
Assess whether documents are sufficient for bidding and construction
Determine whether design elements are constructable as specified
Identify missing design detail in drawings and specifications
Engineer A generally agrees with Hi-Lo's characterization
Engineer C, owner of Hi-Lo Construction, that much of the design detail is lacking in the drawings and specifications and that Hi-Lo Construction declares that certain parts of the project are 'unbuildable' without major changes.
Technical capability to evaluate engineering drawings and specifications for constructability, including the ability to identify elements that are unbuildable as designed, assess whether sufficient design detail is present for construction, and determine whether the documents are adequate for contractor use.
CADD-Assisted Document Preparation State
Engineer may not seal documents prepared by others without exercising genuine direction and control
Engineer must have sufficient technical knowledge to review and verify CADD outputs
Documents are prepared for signing and sealing by a registered professional engineer
Engineer directs others who use CADD tools to prepare documents
Engineer uses CADD tools to prepare documents personally
Duty to exercise direction and control over subordinates using CADD tools
Duty to maintain responsible charge over CADD-generated documents
Duty to verify accuracy and completeness of documents before sealing
Transforms the general duty of responsible charge into specific obligations regarding oversight of technology-assisted document preparation, whether the engineer is the direct author or the supervising professional.
Documents are signed and sealed and work is complete
Engineer withdraws from responsible charge of the work
Engineer A, a registered professional engineer signs and seals documents he prepared using a CADD system
Engineer B, a registered professional engineer signs and seals documents which are the results of the efforts of others using a CADD system working under Engineer B's direction and control
State in which engineering documents are prepared using computer-aided design and drafting (CADD) systems, either by the engineer of record personally or by others working under that engineer's direction and control, creating conditions in which the signing and sealing engineer must demonstrate sufficient engagement with and oversight of the work to satisfy responsible charge requirements.
Professional engineering practice involving CADD-assisted document production
Confirm personal authorship of CADD-produced documents before sealing
Decline to seal documents not personally prepared without adequate supervisory review
Distinguish self-prepared documents from documents prepared by subordinates
Technology Tool Non-Substitution Obligation
AI Authorship Representation Capability covers the concept of accurately representing the intellectual origin and authorship of professional work products, including distinguishing between tool-generated content and original professional work. CADD authorship verification is a variant of this concept applied to CADD systems rather than AI, but the core capability is the same: ensuring the seal accurately reflects who actually prepared the document. Medium confidence match as a variant of the existing class.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to verify that documents produced using a CADD system were personally prepared by the engineer before applying a professional seal, including the ability to distinguish between documents the engineer authored directly and documents produced by others, and to ensure the seal accurately represents the engineer's personal authorship.
[AIAuthorshipRepresentationCapability] Capability to accurately represent the intellectual origin and authorship of professional work products, including the ability to distinguish between AI-generated content and original professional work and to avoid misrepresenting AI output as one's own independent analysis.
Engineer must not incorporate CADD-generated solutions that the engineer does not fully understand
Engineer must not treat CADD output as a substitute for professional competence
CADD system generates design solutions that the engineer has not independently derived
Engineer uses CADD or similar automated design systems to prepare engineering documents
Obligation to ensure CADD output is understood and not merely accepted on faith
Obligation to exercise independent professional judgment rather than deferring to system output
Obligation to verify personal competence with the specific CADD system in use
Transforms the general competence principle into a specific obligation to understand the tools being used and to maintain independent judgment when those tools generate design solutions.
Engineer ceases use of CADD systems on the project
Engineer demonstrates sufficient proficiency and understanding of system limitations
CADD utilized beyond its ability to serve as a valuable tool has a propensity to be utilized as a crutch or substitute for judgement
The change to CADD provides the BER with concerns that require assurance that the professional engineer has the requisite background, education and training to be proficient with the dynamics of CADD including the limitations of current technology
State in which a professional engineer uses computer-aided drafting and design systems to prepare or assist in preparing engineering documents, creating an obligation to demonstrate sufficient background, education, and training to understand the capabilities and limitations of those systems, and to ensure that the systems serve as tools augmenting professional judgment rather than substitutes for it.
Responsible Charge Engineer in the ontology captures the obligation of active engagement and personal accountability over work product, which is the core obligation at issue when an engineer seals CADD-produced documents. However, the CADD-specific context and the distinction between self-prepared versus directed-others work adds a specialization not fully expressed by the existing class, so a new class is warranted while acknowledging the parent relationship.
A licensed professional engineering role in which the practitioner signs and seals engineering documents produced using computer-aided design and drafting (CADD) systems, bearing full professional accountability for the technical content of those documents regardless of whether the practitioner personally operated the CADD system or directed others to do so.
[ResponsibleChargeEngineer] A licensed professional engineering role in which the practitioner bears formal responsible charge over a project or work product, meaning they must be actively engaged in the engineering process from conception to completion, personally make or directly supervise all engineering decisions, and cannot satisfy this obligation by reviewing completed documents after the fact without involvement in design and development.
Engage qualified assistance when CADD capabilities exceed the engineer's understanding
Limit reliance on CADD outputs to areas within the engineer's demonstrated competence
Obtain formal training in CADD systems before use on professional projects
The key point is that the engineer must utilize such systems to assist the engineer in the performance of professional services and not employ such systems as a replacement for professional competence and expertise.
Engineer may seal documents reflecting outputs the engineer does not understand, exposing the public to undetected design errors and exposing the engineer to professional liability and disciplinary action.
The existing Unfamiliar Tool Competence Constraint captures the same core concept: limiting an engineer's permissible use of a tool with which they lack sufficient experience or understanding, and requiring adequate competence before reliance on outputs. The CADD-specific framing here is a variant of that general class applied to computer-aided design systems. Medium confidence match because the existing class is general enough to subsume this, but the CADD context and the BER's specific articulation of proficiency requirements add detail not fully expressed in the existing label.
Competence constraint requiring that a professional engineer who uses computer-aided drafting and design systems in the preparation of engineering documents possess sufficient background, education, and training to be proficient with the dynamics of those systems, including an understanding of their limitations, so that the systems serve as tools under professional direction rather than substitutes for engineering judgment.
[UnfamiliarToolCompetenceConstraint] Competence constraint limiting an engineer's permissible use of a tool, technology, or method with which they lack sufficient experience or understanding, requiring that the engineer either acquire adequate competence before use, limit reliance on the tool's outputs, or obtain qualified assistance, so that professional work products meet required standards.
Evidence that the engineer has received training in the specific CADD system used and can identify and correct system-generated errors
The key requirement is that an engineer possesses sufficient competence, assumes full responsibility for the work product and carefully directs, controls and reviews the material prepared under the engineer's responsible charge.
Potential professional liability; ethical violation under NSPE II.2; risk of sealing documents the engineer does not genuinely understand
This is a specialization of the general Competence Obligation, narrowed to the specific context of CADD and computer-assisted design tool proficiency. The existing Competence Obligation covers the general duty to practice only within areas of competence, and this obligation applies that duty to the specific technological context of CADD systems and their limitations.
Duty of a licensed engineer who uses CADD or similar computer-assisted design systems in the preparation of professional work products to possess sufficient background, education, and training to be proficient with the dynamics of those systems, including their limitations, so that the engineer can exercise genuine professional judgment rather than relying on system outputs as a substitute for competence.
He was consulted about technical questions and provided answers and direction in these matters
he was involved in helping to establish the concept, the design requirements, and the review elements of the design or project status as the design progressed
the chief engineer within a large engineering firm affixed his seal to some of the plans prepared by registered engineers working under his general direction
The chief engineer sealing supervisor is a specialization of Responsible Charge Engineer: the practitioner bears formal responsible charge over work prepared by others and must be actively engaged in direction and control, which is precisely the definition of Responsible Charge Engineer. The large-firm supervisory context is case-specific detail, not a distinct role type.
A senior licensed professional engineering role in which the practitioner holds the position of chief engineer within a large engineering firm, affixes their seal to plans prepared by registered and non-registered engineers working under their general direction, and bears professional accountability for those documents even when the volume and complexity of concurrent projects makes detailed personal review of every drawing impractical. The role requires that the practitioner be sufficiently engaged in concept development, design requirements, and progressive review to exercise meaningful direction and control, and must check and review plans in some detail before sealing.
Client Budget Pressure Resistance Capability
Professional engineering practice involving client-directed omission of safety measures
Communicate the professional basis for refusing to continue work without recommended safeguards
Decline to proceed with a project when the client insists on omitting required protective measures
Recognize when client budget objections to safety measures cross the threshold requiring work refusal
Client Economic Pressure Refusal Obligation
Client Refusal Regulatory Reporting Obligation
Client X is hesitant to invest in additional protective measures, citing continuing budget limitations.
Despite Engineer L's concerns, Client X insists on proceeding without added safeguards, stating that Client X will address any compliance issues later, if needed.
Client Economic Pressure Resistance Capability is defined as the capability to recognize when a client's refusal to implement professionally recommended safety measures, motivated by cost or economic concerns, creates an obligation to cease work rather than continue, and to act on that obligation by declining to proceed despite client pressure. This is essentially identical to the capability required in this case. The match is high confidence.
Client Economic Pressure Resistance Capability
Capability to recognize when a client's refusal to implement professionally recommended safety or environmental protection measures, motivated by budget or financial constraints, creates an obligation to cease work rather than continue, and to act on that obligation by declining to proceed despite client pressure to continue without the recommended safeguards.
[ClientEconomicPressureResistanceCapability] Capability to recognize when a client's refusal to implement professionally recommended safety measures, motivated by cost or economic concerns, creates an obligation to cease work rather than continue, and to act on that obligation by declining to proceed despite client pressure.
Open-textured obligation requiring judgment about what constitutes sufficient remediation and how long monitoring must continue before the engineer's obligation is discharged.
Contact client upon discovery of violation
Escalate to regulatory authorities if client fails to remediate
Monitor client compliance with applicable law
NSPE BER Case 97-13 requiring Engineer A to follow through to see that correct follow-up action was taken by the public agency
NSPE BER current case requiring Engineer A to monitor wetland fill remediation until satisfied the violation is corrected
Requires engineers to contact the client, identify the violation, specify required remedial steps, and continue oversight until compliance is verified, escalating to authorities if the client fails to act.
Post-Engagement Client Conduct Disclosure Principle
Engineer A had an obligation to follow through to see that correct follow-up action was taken by the public agency.
If the client indicates that those steps will be taken, the engineer should monitor the situation until the engineer is sufficiently satisfied that the situation has been remedied.
An engineer's public welfare obligation is not discharged by merely notifying a client of a violation; the obligation persists until the risk to public resources or safety is actually resolved.
Professional principle requiring an engineer who has identified a client's violation of law or regulation to monitor the client's remedial actions until the engineer is sufficiently satisfied that the violation has been corrected, rather than treating a client's promise of remediation as a substitute for actual compliance.
Public safety engineering with client relationship management
Distinguish between obligations requiring client consent and those that do not
Proceed with regulatory notification without client consent
Resist client pressure to delay or condition safety reporting on client approval
Engineers A B Client Consent Independence
as this duty is a fundamental canon of the NSPE Code of Ethics, the consent of the MWC is not required.
Public Safety Paramount Judgment Capability covers recognizing that the obligation to hold paramount public safety takes precedence over duties of loyalty to a client. The present capability is a specific application of that broader judgment, focused on the procedural dimension that client consent is not a prerequisite for safety reporting. It is a variant of the existing class at medium confidence.
Public Safety Paramount Judgment Capability
Capability to recognize that the professional obligation to report a public health or safety risk to regulatory authorities does not require the client's consent or approval, and to proceed with required reporting and regulatory notification without seeking or waiting for client permission.
[PublicSafetyParamountJudgmentCapability] Capability to recognize that the professional obligation to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public takes precedence over duties of loyalty to a client or former client, and to act on that recognition by taking affirmative steps such as regulatory reporting even when doing so is adverse to the client's interests.
Evidence that the engineer proceeded with regulatory notification without seeking client approval, and that the notification was not delayed pending client consent.
As Engineers A and B are required to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public, and as this duty is a fundamental canon of the NSPE Code of Ethics, the consent of the MWC is not required.
Conditioning safety reporting on client consent allows the client to suppress mandatory disclosures and leaves the public exposed to identified health and safety risks.
Duty of an engineer to proceed with required safety reporting and regulatory notification without seeking or waiting for the client's consent, recognizing that the paramount duty to public welfare does not depend on client authorization and that client consent is not a precondition for fulfilling mandatory safety reporting obligations.
Professional engineering practice involving AI and cloud-based tools
Assess data sensitivity before uploading to external platforms
Identify when tool use constitutes placing information in the public domain
Obtain client consent for use of proprietary information in AI tools
Per Code section II.1.c, confidential information can only be shared with prior consent of the Client.
When Engineer A uploaded Client W's information into the AI open-source interface, this was tantamount to placing the Client's private information in the public domain.
The existing Confidentiality Scope Reasoning Capability addresses reasoning about limits of confidentiality obligations, but that class focuses on distinguishing between protecting review contents and procedurally improper conduct. This capability is more specifically about recognizing when tool use exposes client data to public domains and obtaining consent, which is a distinct application of confidentiality reasoning in the AI tool context. A medium-confidence match to the parent concept is appropriate, but the AI-tool-specific data upload dimension is sufficiently distinct to warrant a new class.
Confidentiality Scope Reasoning Capability
Capability to recognize when professional activities involving third-party platforms or tools would expose client confidential or proprietary information to unauthorized parties, and to obtain appropriate consent or take protective measures before proceeding.
[ConfidentialityScopeReasoningCapability] Capability to reason about the limits of confidentiality obligations, distinguishing between protecting the contents of a review and using confidentiality as a basis for procedurally improper conduct such as covert review.
Documented client consent prior to any upload of proprietary data to external or public-domain tools
Breach of client confidentiality; potential legal liability; disciplinary action by licensing board
This is a specific variant of the existing Confidentiality Obligation, narrowed to the context of uploading client data into public-domain AI tools without consent. The existing class covers duty to protect confidential information generally; this specialization addresses the AI-tool transmission vector.
Duty of an engineer to refrain from uploading or transmitting client-provided confidential or proprietary information into public-domain tools, platforms, or interfaces without prior written consent from the client, recognizing that such transmission is equivalent to placing the information in the public domain.
[ConfidentialityObligation] Duty to protect confidential information of clients or employers (NSPE III.4)
Open-textured obligation requiring engineers to assess not only intentional disclosure but also constructive or incidental disclosure arising from tool selection and workflow decisions.
Assess data exposure risks before selecting AI or cloud-based tools
Inform clients of tool limitations regarding data privacy
Obtain client consent before uploading proprietary information to external platforms
Engineer A uploading Client W proprietary site data into a public-domain open-source AI interface without client consent
NSPE Code section II.1.c requiring prior consent before sharing confidential client information
Requires engineers to evaluate whether any tool, platform, or workflow exposes client data to third parties or public access, and to obtain explicit client consent before using such tools with confidential information.
Professional Competence (use of best available tools)
The facts here do not indicate Engineer A obtained permission from Client W to use the private information in the public domain.
Clients entrust engineers with sensitive project information on the assumption that it will be protected; unauthorized disclosure, even unintentional, violates that trust and may cause competitive, legal, or reputational harm.
The existing Confidentiality Principle covers the general obligation to protect client information. This instance adds a domain-specific qualifier about constructive disclosure through AI tool use, which is a meaningful variant warranting a more specific class rather than a direct match. The existing Confidentiality Principle does not address the incidental-disclosure-via-tool-selection scenario, so a variant class is appropriate.
Relational principle requiring engineers to protect client-provided information from unauthorized disclosure, including disclosure that occurs incidentally through the use of third-party tools or platforms that place private data in publicly accessible domains, unless the client has given prior informed consent.
[ConfidentialityPrinciple] Must be balanced against public safety obligations and legal disclosure requirements.
Third parties with access to exposed data
Anonymize or de-identify data before use in external tools
Obtain written client consent before uploading data to any external platform
Use only secure, private, client-approved systems
When Engineer A uploaded Client W's information into the AI open-source interface, this was tantamount to placing the Client's private information in the public domain. The facts here do not indicate Engineer A obtained permission from Client W to use the private information in the public domain.
Breach of client confidentiality, exposure of proprietary information to public domain, loss of client trust, potential legal liability
Confidentiality constraint prohibiting an engineer from sharing, uploading, or otherwise transmitting confidential client information to any external system or third party without first obtaining the client's explicit prior consent, regardless of the purpose or perceived benefit of the transmission.
Must not continue using the platform with client data absent consent
Must not represent the work product as fully confidential if data was exposed
Confidential client data uploaded to an open or third-party platform
No prior client consent obtained for such use
Duty to assess and mitigate downstream confidentiality risks
Duty to cease further uploads without consent
Transforms the general confidentiality principle into a concrete obligation to notify the client and obtain consent before using open-domain AI tools with private client data.
Client is notified and provides retroactive consent
Data is confirmed removed or isolated from public access
Remediation agreement reached with client
State in which a professional has uploaded or transmitted confidential client information to a third-party platform or public-domain system without obtaining prior client consent, creating a breach of confidentiality obligations and potential loss of data control regardless of whether harm has yet materialized.
Must not structure conclusions solely to support client's litigation position
Must not submit a report that omits material technical findings favorable to the opposing party
Professional selectively uses data in a manner that serves the client's adversarial interest
Professional's conclusions are structured to impugn an opposing party rather than to resolve a technical question
Professional's report omits material facts that would undermine the client's position
Duty to avoid misrepresentation through omission
Duty to correct the incomplete or biased report
Obligation to include all relevant and pertinent information
Transforms the general duty of honesty and objectivity into a specific prohibition on advocacy-driven omission of technical facts, and activates obligations of completeness and truthfulness in professional reports.
Professional revises report to include all material facts
as an engineering document the report is incomplete and does a disservice to Engineer B's client municipality by potentially misdirecting a conclusion
the report appears to serve no purpose except to impugn Engineer A, or to support the original testimony of the municipality's expert witness
State in which a professional has oriented their technical work product toward defending or advancing the client's position in a dispute rather than providing an objective and complete professional analysis, resulting in selective presentation of data, omission of unfavorable findings, and a report that serves advocacy rather than professional truth-telling.
Professional may not simply defer to client's business judgment when public safety is at stake
Professional must evaluate whether continued participation without safeguards is ethically permissible
Client explicitly declines to implement recommended safeguards
Client states intention to address compliance only if later required
Professional has notified client of a risk and applicable regulatory requirements
Duty to consider withdrawal from the engagement if safety cannot be assured
Duty to protect public health, safety, and welfare
Obligation to assess whether reporting to regulatory authorities is required
Transforms the general duty to protect public safety into a specific obligation to evaluate escalation options, including regulatory reporting and withdrawal, when a client explicitly refuses to implement safety measures and defers compliance to an indefinite future.
Client agrees to implement protective measures
Client X insists on proceeding without added safeguards, stating that Client X will address any compliance issues later, if needed
The existing Client Override of Safety Recommendation State captures the situation where a client directs the professional to proceed without implementing a safety recommendation. The present state adds the specific element of the client explicitly deferring compliance to a future contingency rather than simply overriding the recommendation, which creates a distinct posture of deliberate regulatory non-engagement. The match is medium-confidence because the core structure is the same but the deferral-of-compliance framing is a meaningful variant.
Client Override of Safety Recommendation State
State in which a client, having been informed of a confirmed or qualitatively assessed risk and of applicable regulatory requirements, explicitly declines to implement recommended protective measures and instead states an intention to address compliance issues only if and when required in the future, creating a condition in which the professional's safety and compliance obligations remain active while the client's posture is one of deliberate deferral.
[ClientOverrideofSafetyRecommendationState] State in which a client has been informed of a professional's safety recommendation and has explicitly directed the professional to proceed without implementing that recommendation, citing cost or other business constraints, creating a direct tension between the client's authority over project scope and the professional's duty to protect public safety and comply with applicable regulatory standards.
Client Economic Pressure Continuation Constraint
Cease participation in the project upon client refusal to implement identified safety measures
Document the client's refusal and the engineer's withdrawal
Report the risk to appropriate regulatory authorities after client override
Client X's insistence on moving forward with the project without adequate safeguards creates an ethical dilemma for Engineer L.
Engineer A acted in a manner that suggests the primary obligation was not the public, but the client's economic concerns. For that reason, Engineer A was in violation of Code section II.1.a.
Engineer L cannot ethically acquiesce to Client X's insistence to continue work on the project when Client X refuses to invest in the protective measures identified by Engineer L.
The problematic behavior in BER Case 84-5 was that, when cost concerns were raised by the client, Engineer A 'abandoned the ethical duty [to the public] and proceeded to work on the project.'
Engineer violates paramount public safety obligation; public exposed to unmitigated risk; engineer subject to professional discipline.
The Client Economic Pressure Safety Continuation Constraint in the ontology is precisely this concept: prohibition on continuing work after a client declines safety measures on economic grounds, requiring the engineer to cease participation rather than subordinate public safety to client financial preferences. The BER Case 84-5 and Engineer L facts are direct instantiations.
Client Economic Pressure Safety Continuation Constraint
Ethical constraint prohibiting an engineer from continuing work on a project after a client declines to implement safety measures the engineer has identified as necessary, when the client's refusal is grounded in economic or budget concerns. Proceeding in such circumstances constitutes abandonment of the paramount public safety duty in favor of the client's financial preferences, which violates professional ethics codes.
[ClientEconomicPressureSafetyContinuationConstraint] Ethical constraint prohibiting an engineer from continuing work on a project after a client declines to implement safety measures the engineer has identified as necessary, when proceeding would require the engineer to subordinate public safety obligations to the client's economic concerns. The engineer must cease participation rather than abandon the duty to hold public safety paramount in favor of client financial preferences.
Client Economic Pressure Resistance Principle
Evidence that the engineer ceased work or formally declined to proceed after the client refused to implement identified safety measures
Engineer A 'abandoned the ethical duty [to the public] and proceeded to work on the project.' The BER, in discussing BER Case 84-5, felt that 'Engineer A acted in a manner that suggests the primary obligation was not the public, but the client's economic concerns. For that reason, Engineer A was in violation of Code section II.1.a.'
Violation of Code section II.1.a; potential harm to public health and safety; professional discipline
The existing Client Instruction Limits Obligation covers the duty to decline client instructions that would require violating professional ethics. This class is a more specific variant focused on the scenario where the client's refusal is driven by cost or economic pressure and the engineer must refuse to continue rather than merely decline a specific instruction. The economic pressure dimension and the affirmative duty to stop work distinguish it sufficiently to warrant a separate class, though it is closely related.
Duty of an engineer to refuse to continue work on a project when a client declines to implement safety measures the engineer has identified as necessary, even when the client's refusal is motivated by cost concerns, and to refrain from subordinating the paramount duty to public welfare to the client's economic interests.
[ClientInstructionLimitsObligation] Duty of an engineer to decline client instructions that would require violating professional ethics obligations, recognizing that the faithful agent duty does not extend to complying with directives that breach professional standards.
The principle requires engineers to distinguish between legitimate client cost management decisions and client refusals that cross the threshold of creating unacceptable public risk. This distinction requires professional judgment about the severity of the risk and the adequacy of proposed alternatives.
Document the client's refusal and the engineer's response
Refuse to continue work when client declines necessary safety measures on cost grounds
Treat client refusal of safety measures as a trigger for withdrawal or escalation, not accommodation
BER Case 84-5: Engineer A violated Code by continuing project after client refused to hire safety representative on cost grounds, abandoning ethical duty to public
Present case: Engineer L cannot continue work after Client X refuses to implement protective stormwater measures
Requires engineers to refuse to continue work when client cost objections result in removal of safety measures the engineer has identified as necessary, and to treat such refusals as triggering the obligation to withdraw or escalate rather than to proceed.
Contractual obligations to complete work
The problematic behavior in BER Case 84-5 was that, when cost concerns were raised by the client, Engineer A abandoned the ethical duty [to the public] and proceeded to work on the project.
We note a direct parallel between the 1984 case and the facts under consideration.
The integrity of the engineering profession depends on engineers maintaining their ethical obligations even under financial and relational pressure. Yielding to client economic concerns when public safety is at stake signals that professional duties are negotiable, undermining public trust in the profession.
The Client Economic Pressure Resistance Principle is a specific application of the Public Safety Paramount class already in the ontology, focusing on the scenario where client cost objections are the mechanism by which public safety is threatened. The existing class captures the general obligation to prioritize public safety over competing pressures. The present principle adds specificity about the economic pressure vector, making it a variant rather than an exact match. The individual record will capture the case-specific application.
Professional virtue principle prohibiting engineers from abandoning their ethical duties to the public by yielding to client economic concerns or cost-based objections to necessary safety measures. When a client refuses to fund protective measures that the engineer has identified as necessary for public safety, the engineer must not continue work in a manner that perpetuates the identified risk, regardless of the financial consequences to the client or the professional relationship.
[PublicSafetyParamount] Fundamental principle requiring engineers to prioritize public safety above client instructions, employer directives, or collegial relationships when significant design errors create risk to persons who will occupy or use engineered structures.
Professional must not continue work on a project when client refuses safety measures and no adequate alternative safeguards exist
Professional must not treat client cost concerns as sufficient justification to abandon safety obligations
Client declines the measure on cost grounds
Professional continues work without the measure being implemented
Professional recommends a safety measure
Duty not to subordinate public safety to client economic interests
Duty to advise client when a project will not be successful from a safety standpoint
Duty to hold paramount public health, safety, and welfare
Transforms the abstract duty to hold public safety paramount into a concrete obligation to cease or refuse work when client economic override removes necessary safety safeguards.
Client agrees to implement the safety measure
Professional formally documents refusal and escalates to appropriate authority
Engineer A 'abandoned the ethical duty [to the public] and proceeded to work on the project'
Engineer A acted in a manner that suggests the primary obligation was not the public, but the client's economic concerns
The existing class Client Cost Objection to Safety Measure State captures the condition in which a client declines a safety measure on cost grounds and the professional continues work without it, which is the precise pattern described in BER Case 84-5 and applied to Engineer L's situation here.
Client Cost Objection to Safety Measure State
State in which a professional, after being informed by a client that a recommended safety measure is too costly, continues to work on the project without the safety measure in place, creating a condition in which the professional's conduct signals that the client's economic concerns have displaced the professional's paramount obligation to public safety.
[ClientCostObjectiontoSafetyMeasureState] State in which a client declines to implement a safety measure recommended by the professional engineer on the grounds that the measure is too costly, and the professional continues to work on the project without the safety measure in place, creating a condition in which the professional's primary obligation has shifted from public safety to the client's economic concerns.
Professional must not substitute a personal funding assumption for client-authorized scope decisions
Professional must not withhold information about foreseeable cost impacts from the client
Professional assumes a specific funding source will cover costs arising from an incomplete or deficient deliverable
That assumption is not disclosed to the client or approving authority
The assumption influences the professional's decision to proceed without correcting the deficiency
Duty not to use funding assumptions as justification for delivering incomplete work
Duty to disclose assumptions about funding that affect project scope or cost
Duty to obtain client authorization before relying on third-party funding to cover foreseeable cost overruns
Transforms faithful-agent and honest-communication principles into an obligation to disclose and obtain authorization for any assumption about third-party funding that the professional uses to justify delivering a deficient or incomplete work product.
Assumption is disclosed and validated by the funding authority
Client is informed and authorizes reliance on the assumption
Deficiency is corrected independent of the funding assumption
Engineer A was confident that sufficient federal funds (and not local funding) would cover any potential increased costs
State in which a professional proceeds with or rationalizes a decision to deliver an incomplete or potentially cost-escalating work product on the assumption that a particular funding source, typically a third-party or government grant, will absorb any resulting cost overruns, without disclosing that assumption or obtaining client authorization to rely on it.
Client Instruction Boundary Judgment Capability
Professional engineering ethics and client relations
Communicate the basis for refusal to a client
Decline instructions that conflict with professional ethics
Evaluate whether client instructions are ethically permissible
Engineer B objects to conducting the peer review without advising Engineer A
Owner instructs Engineer B to conduct the peer review without letting Engineer A know
The capability to identify and act on the boundary between client loyalty and professional ethics involves managing conflicting normative requirements, which aligns with Conflict Resolution as defined by Dennis et al. 2016. However, the emphasis here is on judgment about instruction limits rather than mediation between parties, making this a variant at medium confidence.
Capability to recognize when client or employer instructions exceed the limits of professional loyalty and would require violating ethical obligations, and to decline such instructions while articulating the professional basis for refusal.
[ConflictResolution] Capability to manage and resolve conflicts between diverse and potentially conflicting normative requirements (Dennis et al. 2016)
Client Interest versus Public Duty Conflict State
Confidentiality does not override mandatory reporting when law is violated
Professional may not remain silent when public safety is at confirmed risk
Client has invoked confidentiality or instructed non-disclosure
Professional discovers client conduct that threatens public safety or violates law
Professional's duty to client and duty to public cannot both be satisfied
Obligation to notify client of violation and demand remediation
Obligation to report to authorities if client fails to act
Transforms the abstract tension between faithful agency and public safety into a concrete sequential duty: notify client first, monitor response, then escalate to authorities if remediation is not taken.
Conflict resolved through client compliance
Professional reports to appropriate authorities
Engineering practice sometimes places the engineer in the position where the interests of a client and the interests of the public are in open and serious conflict.
The obligation of the engineer to be faithful to the client and not to disclose confidential information concerning the business affairs of a client without that client's consent, and the obligation of the engineer to hold paramount the public health and safety.
The Faithful Agent Duty Conflict State captures the direct conflict between the professional's obligation to act as a faithful agent for the client and the paramount duty to protect public health, safety, and welfare. The present state is the same concept applied to an environmental law violation context. A medium-confidence match is appropriate because the existing class already encodes this tension generically.
State in which a professional faces an open and serious conflict between obligations owed to a client, including confidentiality and faithful agency, and the paramount obligation to protect public health, safety, and welfare, requiring the professional to prioritize public duty when the two cannot be simultaneously satisfied.
[FaithfulAgentDutyConflictState] State in which a professional's obligation to act as a faithful agent or trustee for a client comes into direct conflict with the professional's paramount duty to protect public health, safety, and welfare, requiring the professional to prioritize public safety over client loyalty when the two duties cannot be simultaneously satisfied.
Requires interpretation of the scope and limits of loyalty obligations, distinguishing between legitimate client direction over the manner of professional services and impermissible client direction that overrides independent professional judgment.
Advise clients when their instructions conflict with professional obligations
Decline client instructions that require violating professional duties to third parties
Follow client instructions within the bounds of professional obligations
Cases in which engineers declined client instructions that would require concealment from affected parties
NSPE BER cases establishing that client instructions do not override professional ethical obligations
Engineer B's loyalty to the Owner does not require compliance with the instruction to conduct a covert review, because that instruction conflicts with the professional obligation to notify Engineer A. Engineer B correctly declined to follow the instruction until the Owner consented to notification.
When Owner reluctantly consents to notifying Engineer A
Professional loyalty to clients is instrumental to delivering quality services, but it is bounded by the engineer's independent professional obligations, which clients cannot waive by contract or instruction.
The principle is a specific application of the existing Loyalty class in the ontology, addressing the limits of that loyalty obligation rather than introducing a new concept. The case instantiates Loyalty by showing where Engineer B's duty to the Owner ends and independent professional obligations begin.
Relational principle establishing that an engineer's duty of loyalty to a client does not extend to complying with client instructions that would require the engineer to violate other professional obligations, such as the duty to notify a colleague whose work is under review.
Documented evidence that the engineer formally reported the override and associated risk to the appropriate regulatory authority
Despite those recommendations, the MWC voted to proceed simultaneously with the accelerated evaluation and design of needed water treatment improvements and the change in water source.
Potential harm to public health; professional discipline; license revocation
The obligation is substantively identical to the existing Client Override Public Safety Reporting Obligation, which covers the duty to report to a regulatory authority when a client overrides safety recommendations and proceeds without adequate safeguards.
Client Override Public Safety Reporting Obligation
Duty of an engineer whose professional recommendation has been overridden by a client or governing body to escalate the matter to the appropriate regulatory authority when the override creates a risk to public health or safety, placing the paramount duty to public welfare above the faithful agent duty to the client.
[ClientOverridePublicSafetyReportingObligation] Duty of an engineer to report identified risks to public health or safety to the appropriate regulatory or pollution control authority when the client refuses to implement recommended protective measures and insists on proceeding without adequate safeguards, placing the paramount duty to public welfare above the faithful agent duty to the client.
Requires judgment about the threshold of risk severity that transforms a client disagreement into a professional obligation to refuse or escalate, and about the appropriate channels for escalation.
Document professional objections to client instructions in writing
Notify regulatory authorities when client refusal to act creates risks to public health or safety
Refuse to proceed with work that the engineer has determined is unsafe without adequate protective measures
BER Case 76-4 where a client instructed an engineer to omit adverse findings from a report submitted to a regulatory authority
Engineer L case where Client X insisted on proceeding without additional stormwater safeguards despite identified drinking water risk
Requires engineers to document their professional objections, refuse to seal or submit work that incorporates client-directed omissions of known safety measures, and notify regulatory authorities when client decisions create risks to identifiable third parties.
Despite Engineer L's concerns, Client X insists on proceeding without added safeguards
Engineers derive their professional authority and public trust from their commitment to public welfare; allowing clients to override safety judgments would reduce engineers to mere technical instruments and undermine the social contract that justifies professional licensure.
The existing Public Safety Paramount class captures the fundamental principle that engineers must prioritize public safety above client instructions when significant risks exist. The concept extracted here is a specific operational expression of that fundamental principle in the context of a client override scenario. Rather than creating a redundant class, this is best treated as an instance of Public Safety Paramount, with the client-override context captured in the individual record. Confidence is 0.80 rather than higher because the existing class description focuses on design errors and structural risks, while this case involves environmental and public health risks from client refusal to implement protective measures, but the underlying principle is the same.
Professional principle establishing that when a client instructs an engineer to proceed without implementing safety or environmental protective measures that the engineer has identified as necessary, the engineer must refuse to continue work in a manner that would create or perpetuate the identified risk, and must escalate to appropriate authorities if the client's decision threatens public welfare.
Client Override Safety Withdrawal Constraint
Formally notify the client in writing that continued participation is not possible without adequate safeguards
Refer the client to another engineer who can assess the situation independently
Engineer participates in a project that endangers public health or safety, violating the paramount duty and exposing the engineer to professional discipline and liability.
The Client Instruction Override Constraint establishes that an engineer's duty of loyalty to a client does not extend to following client instructions that require violating professional ethics obligations, and that such instructions must be declined. This case instantiates that constraint in the specific context of a client overriding a safety recommendation and directing the engineer to proceed without safeguards. The existing class is broad enough to cover this scenario, though the present case adds the dimension of confirmed public safety risk and the option of withdrawal. Matching as a variant at medium confidence.
Ethical constraint establishing that when a client explicitly overrides an engineer's safety recommendation in a manner that would require the engineer to continue work on a project that poses a confirmed risk to public health or safety without adequate safeguards, the engineer must decline to continue participation in that project rather than proceed in violation of the paramount public safety duty.
[ClientInstructionOverrideConstraint] Ethical constraint establishing that an engineer's duty of loyalty to a client does not extend to following client instructions that require violating professional ethics obligations, and that such instructions must be declined.
Documented evidence that the engineer reported the client's refusal and the identified risk to the appropriate regulatory authority after the client declined to implement protective measures.
Community relying on drinking water source
Engineer L notifies Client X of this risk, advising that additional protective measures should be considered, especially as local environmental standards require steps to safeguard public water sources.
Failure to report may result in harm to public health, professional discipline, and potential legal liability for the engineer.
The existing Client Override Public Safety Reporting Obligation directly covers the duty to report identified risks to public health or safety to the appropriate regulatory or pollution control authority when the client refuses to implement recommended protective measures and insists on proceeding without adequate safeguards. This case is a near-identical instantiation of that obligation. Matched with high confidence.
Duty of an engineer who has notified a client of a risk to public health or safety and recommended protective measures, and whose client has refused to implement those measures while stating an intent to address compliance issues only if required later, to report the situation to the appropriate regulatory or pollution control authority, placing the paramount duty to public welfare above the faithful agent duty to the client.
Client Remediation Monitoring Constraint
Escalate to regulatory authorities if adequate remediation does not occur within a reasonable period
Establish a monitoring schedule after receiving client assurances
Ongoing environmental or safety harm resulting from unverified remediation that the engineer accepted on the client's word alone.
Ethical constraint requiring that an engineer who has notified a client of a confirmed legal or regulatory violation and received assurances of remediation must actively monitor the client's remedial actions until the engineer is sufficiently satisfied that the violation has been corrected. The engineer may not treat the client's assurance as a substitute for actual verification of compliance.
Professional may not close the matter without confirming adequate remediation
Professional may not indefinitely defer reporting if client is unresponsive
Client has not yet completed remediation
Professional has notified client of a confirmed violation or safety risk
Professional is awaiting client response or corrective action
Obligation to assess adequacy of corrective action taken
Obligation to escalate to authorities if client fails to act within a reasonable time
Obligation to monitor client's remediation progress
Transforms the general duty to protect public safety into a time-bounded monitoring obligation that conditions the escalation duty on the client's response, while preserving the professional's ultimate obligation to report if the client does not act.
Client completes adequate remediation to professional's satisfaction
Professional determines client will not act and reports to authorities
Regulatory authority intervenes independently
If appropriate steps are not taken by the client, the engineer would have an obligation to bring this matter to the attention of the appropriate authorities.
It is clear that Engineer A had an obligation to follow through to see that correct follow-up action was taken by the public agency.
The Confirmed Risk Disclosure State covers the condition in which a professional has identified and documented a concrete risk and notified the client, creating an active obligation to ensure the client responds with adequate safeguards and triggering heightened duties if the client refuses to act. The present state extends that concept by focusing specifically on the monitoring phase after notification, where the professional's reporting obligation is held in conditional abeyance. The match is medium because the existing class captures the post-notification obligation structure but does not specifically name the monitoring phase as a distinct condition.
State in which a professional has notified a client of a confirmed violation or safety risk and is actively monitoring whether the client takes adequate corrective action within a reasonable time, creating a conditional obligation structure in which the professional's duty to report to authorities is held in abeyance pending the outcome of the client's remediation efforts.
[ConfirmedRiskDisclosureState] State in which a professional has identified and documented a concrete risk as a factual finding and has notified the client of that risk, creating an active obligation to ensure the client responds with adequate safeguards and triggering heightened duties if the client refuses to act.
Relational principle requiring interpretation of what genuine client service means when short-term adversarial advantage conflicts with the client's long-term interest in accurate technical guidance.
Advise clients when selective reporting may misdirect their decisions
Explain the basis for discounting adverse evidence rather than omitting it
Provide complete technical findings to the client
NSPE ethical obligations regarding honest professional service to clients
Requires engineers to provide clients with complete technical findings even when those findings are unfavorable, to identify the rational basis for discounting adverse evidence rather than suppressing it, and to recognize that incomplete reporting forfeits the opportunity to serve the client effectively.
by excluding the pile driving records, Engineer B has denied himself the opportunity to present a rational for discounting their value, and thereby to serve his client.
True loyalty to a client requires honest professional judgment, not advocacy-driven selectivity. A client misled by incomplete engineering analysis may make worse decisions than one given complete but unfavorable facts.
No existing principle class addresses the specific relational obligation that genuine client service requires completeness and honesty rather than selective advocacy. The existing principles address investigative diligence, scope disclosure, litigation neutrality, and methodological consistency. This principle concerns the nature of the engineer-client relationship itself and the paradox that partisan selectivity disserves the client. It is a distinct relational concept warranting its own class.
Professional principle holding that an engineer's duty to serve the client is fulfilled through honest, complete, and technically sound work, and that selective or incomplete reporting, even when intended to favor the client, constitutes a disservice by potentially misdirecting conclusions and exposing the client to adverse outcomes.
Client Violation Confrontation Capability
Professional engineering contexts where a discovered client violation requires direct professional communication before regulatory reporting
Contact a client directly upon discovering a violation
Convey the obligation to take immediate remedial steps
Frame the communication so as to give the client a reasonable opportunity to comply before escalation
Identify and communicate the specific legal or regulatory violations observed
Engineer A's actions appear to be obvious -- contact the client and inquire directly about the actions the client has taken and point out the violations of the law and that immediate steps need to be taken to remedy the violation.
Capability to directly contact a client or former client upon discovering a legal or regulatory violation, to identify the specific violations clearly, to communicate the obligation to take immediate remedial action, and to do so in a manner that is direct and professional without being adversarial, giving the client the opportunity to remedy the situation before escalation to regulatory authorities.
Graduated Response Proportionality Principle
Documented record of direct communication with client identifying the violation and specifying required remedial actions.
Engineer A's actions appear to be obvious—contact the client and inquire directly about the actions the client has taken and point out the violations of the law and that immediate steps need to be taken to remedy the violation.
Failure to contact client first may bypass an opportunity for voluntary remediation and may expose the engineer to claims of disproportionate response; failure to contact at all constitutes a breach of the duty to protect public welfare.
Duty of an engineer who discovers that a client has committed a violation of applicable law or regulation to contact the client directly, identify the violation, and require that immediate remedial steps be taken before escalating to regulatory authorities.
Requires ongoing interpretation of what constitutes a prevailing practice versus an unacceptable deviation from ethical standards, and how to distinguish reasonable adaptation from ethical erosion.
Clarify prior opinions found to impose impossible standards
Distinguish adaptation from ethical compromise
Periodically review code interpretations against prevailing practice
BER Case 86-2 modification to reflect actual sealing practices in large firms
Revision of responsible charge standards to accommodate CADD-based practice
Ethics boards must periodically review whether their interpretations of code provisions remain consistent with actual professional practice, and must be willing to clarify or modify prior opinions when those opinions are found to be inconsistent with reasonable prevailing practice.
Risk that prevailing practice reflects widespread ethical failure rather than reasonable adaptation
Stability and predictability of ethical standards
The Code must not impose an impossible or idealistic standard upon engineers, but rather must establish a bench mark of reasonable and rational methods of practice for it to maintain its credibility and adherence.
This Board has long noted that the Code of Ethics is not a static document and must reflect and be in consonance with generally prevailing practices within the engineering profession.
we think the Board's conclusion in BER Case 86-2 should be modified to reflect actual practices which exist within engineering and not impose a impossible standard upon practice.
A code of ethics derives its authority from its acceptance and observance by practitioners; a code that demands the impossible loses its normative force and practical relevance.
Meta-level professional principle recognizing that a code of ethics must reflect and remain consonant with generally prevailing practices within the profession, and must not impose impossible or idealistic standards that would place a significant number of practitioners in unavoidable conflict with the code, thereby undermining the code's credibility and adherence.
Professional engineering ethics interpretation and code administration
Assess whether an ethical ruling reflects actual professional practice
Identify when a prior ruling imposes an impossible standard
Interpret code provisions in light of prevailing professional norms
Support clarification or modification of prior ethical decisions
Code Prevailing Practice Conformance Obligation
The rendering of the Board's opinion in BER Case 86-2, raised a considerable degree of discussion within the engineering community because to many it appeared to be inconsistent with customary and generally prevailing practices within the engineering profession.
Ethical Learning is defined as the ability to adapt to new cases, changing standards, and novel situations while maintaining consistency. Code Evolution Awareness Capability shares the adaptation dimension but is specifically directed at institutional recognition that ethical standards must track prevailing practice rather than impose impossible ideals. The match is a medium-confidence variant: the existing class captures individual-level learning and adaptation, while this capability is more institutional and interpretive in character.
Capability of a professional ethics body or practicing engineer to recognize that a code of professional ethics is not a static document and must be interpreted in light of generally prevailing practices within the profession, including the ability to identify when a prior ethical ruling imposes an impossible or unrealistic standard inconsistent with actual professional practice and to support revision or clarification of that ruling accordingly.
[EthicalLearning] Ability to adapt to new cases, changing standards, and novel situations while maintaining consistency (Anderson & Anderson 2018)
Code Prevailing Practice Conformance Constraint
Consult professional practice surveys and industry standards when interpreting code provisions
Distinguish between aspirational standards and enforceable minimum requirements
Revise or clarify prior interpretations when they are shown to conflict with reasonable prevailing practice
Ethics code interpretations that ignore prevailing practice lose credibility, reduce voluntary compliance, and may impose unjust burdens on practitioners acting in good faith.
Ethical and institutional constraint requiring that professional ethics codes and their authoritative interpretations reflect generally prevailing practices within the profession, prohibiting the imposition of impossible or idealistic standards that would place a significant number of practitioners in unavoidable conflict with the code and thereby undermine the code's credibility and adherence.
Evidence that code interpretations are reviewed against actual prevailing professional practices and updated when significant divergence is identified
Loss of credibility and adherence to the code if standards are set at levels inconsistent with actual professional practice
Duty of professional ethics bodies and engineers interpreting the code of ethics to ensure that ethical standards reflect and remain consonant with generally prevailing practices within the engineering profession, so that the code does not impose impossible or idealistic standards that place a significant number of practitioners in unavoidable conflict with its provisions.
Open-textured obligation whose precise requirements depend on contract terms, the nature of the review, and whether the original engineer's connection to the work has been formally terminated.
Advise client of notification requirement before accepting review
Decline peer review assignment if notification of original engineer is refused
NSPE BER Case 93-3 where owner refused to advise engineer of planned peer review
NSPE Professional Obligation III.7.a requiring knowledge of engineer whose work is reviewed
Requires peer reviewer to decline assignment unless the engineer whose work is under review has been notified, and requires client to provide that notification as a precondition of the review.
Engineer B was completely correct in declining an assignment to conduct a peer review of Engineer A's work subject to an instruction not to disclose the peer review to Engineer A.
Engineers in private practice shall not review the work of another engineer for the same client, except with the knowledge of such engineer, or unless the connection of such engineer with the work has been terminated.
Owner reluctantly agreed to advise Engineer A of the planned peer review.
Respect for professional dignity and collegial relationships, and recognition that concealed review undermines trust and cooperation essential to effective professional practice.
Relational principle requiring that an engineer whose work is subject to peer review by another engineer for the same client must be informed of that review before or at the time it commences, protecting collegial trust and enabling meaningful cooperation while preserving the integrity of the review process.
Commercial Engineering Software Marketing Resource
Serves as a knowledge artifact that raises ethical questions about competence, professional identity, and the limits of tool-assisted practice. Its claims about capability provide the factual predicate for ethical analysis of whether reliance on such tools satisfies professional standards.
Engineer A receives a solicitation in the mail
Simply sign and return this letter today
thanks to a revolutionary new CD-ROM - specifying, designing and costing out any construction project is as easy as pointing and clicking your mouse - no matter your design experience
Assessing the ethical implications of marketing claims directed at licensed professionals
Evaluating whether a commercial tool can substitute for professional experience
Identifying solicitations that may induce engineers to practice outside their competence
A commercial solicitation, advertisement, or promotional material directed at licensed engineers offering software, databases, or automated tools purporting to enable engineering services in areas outside the engineer's existing competence or experience.
Commercial Inducement Resistance Principle
Requires engineers to exercise independent judgment when evaluating commercial claims about the sufficiency of tools or products for professional practice, distinguishing legitimate productivity aids from substitutes for professional competence.
Evaluate vendor claims about tool capabilities against independent professional judgment
Recognize that profit-oriented solicitations are not a reliable guide to professional competence boundaries
Refuse to expand service offerings solely on the basis of software acquisition
An engineer accepting a vendor's claim that template-based specifications can replace engineering judgment in novel project types
An engineer ordering a CD-ROM design tool after receiving a solicitation claiming it eliminates the need for domain experience
An engineer subscribing to an AI design platform marketed as enabling practice in unfamiliar engineering disciplines
Requires engineers to evaluate vendor claims against their own honest self-assessment of competence, to treat marketing materials as inherently self-interested, and to apply professional skepticism before expanding service offerings based on tool acquisition.
Client expectations for comprehensive service delivery
Firm profitability and business development pressures
Engineers today cannot afford to pass up a single job that comes by - including construction projects that may be new or unfamiliar.
Simply sign and return this letter today and you'll be among the first engineers to see how this full-featured interactive library of standard design can help you work faster than ever and increase your firm's profits.
specifying, designing and costing out any construction project is as easy as pointing and clicking your mouse - no matter your design experience.
The integrity of professional practice requires that engineers, not vendors or commercial interests, determine the scope of services they are competent to offer. Allowing commercial solicitations to define competence boundaries undermines public trust and safety.
Professional virtue principle requiring engineers to critically evaluate and resist commercial solicitations, marketing materials, or vendor claims that encourage them to expand their practice into domains where they lack competence, particularly when those solicitations explicitly frame professional competence requirements as obstacles to profit. Engineers must not allow commercial incentives or vendor-supplied tools to override their professional judgment about the boundaries of their own expertise.
Commercial Solicitation Reliance Constraint
Consult professional ethics guidance before expanding service offerings
Critically evaluate commercial claims against professional competence standards
Decline solicitations that promise to substitute tools for education and experience
Engineer offers services without genuine competence, exposing clients and the public to risk of deficient work, and violates professional ethics codes governing competence and misrepresentation.
The Technology Substitution Constraint prohibits using a technological tool as a replacement for independent engineering judgment and requires that tool outputs be challenged and verified. The commercial solicitation reliance scenario is a variant of this concept, where the tool is being used not merely to assist but to substitute for domain competence entirely. The existing class captures the core prohibition; this case instantiates it in the specific context of a commercial CD-ROM marketed to engineers lacking domain experience.
Ethical and competence constraint prohibiting a licensed engineer from treating a commercial solicitation, advertisement, or marketing material as a sufficient basis for acquiring or claiming competence in an unfamiliar engineering domain, particularly when the solicitation explicitly frames professional experience requirements as obstacles to be bypassed by a commercial product.
[TechnologySubstitutionConstraint] Ethical constraint prohibiting an engineer from using a technological tool as a replacement or substitute for independent engineering judgment, requiring that the engineer's own expertise, critical evaluation, and professional standards govern all decisions and that tool outputs be challenged and verified before acceptance.
Commercial Solicitation Resistance Obligation
Evidence that the engineer evaluated the solicitation critically and did not expand service offerings beyond documented competence in response to commercial inducements
Engineer A orders the CD-ROM and begins to offer facilities design and construction services.
Now - - thanks to a revolutionary new CD-ROM - specifying, designing and costing out any construction project is as easy as pointing and clicking your mouse - no matter your design experience.
Professional discipline; public safety risk from incompetent services offered on the basis of commercial inducement rather than genuine competence
Duty of a licensed engineer to critically evaluate commercial solicitations, marketing materials, and product promotions that frame professional competence requirements as obstacles to profit or that promise to substitute a tool or product for genuine domain expertise, and to refrain from accepting such solicitations as justification for offering services outside the engineer's competence.
Evidence that the engineer's offered services fall within documented areas of education, training, and experience
Engineer A, a chemical engineer with no facilities design and construction experience, receives a solicitation in the mail
Professional discipline including license revocation; potential harm to public safety; civil liability for deficient work products
This is a direct instantiation of the canonical Competence Obligation, which requires engineers to perform services only in areas of competence per NSPE II.2. The case presents a clear violation of that obligation. The existing CADD Proficiency Competence Obligation and Technology Non-Substitution Obligation are related but address tool-specific competence rather than the threshold duty to refrain from offering out-of-domain services entirely.
Duty of a licensed engineer to refrain from offering or undertaking engineering services in technical domains outside the engineer's actual education, training, and experience, regardless of commercial solicitations, software tools, or other inducements that purport to substitute for genuine domain competence.
Open-textured standard requiring case-by-case assessment of what constitutes adequate competence for a given domain, and whether available tools can bridge a competence gap or merely mask it.
Decline to offer services in domains where the engineer lacks substantive training and experience
Disclose competence limitations to prospective clients before accepting engagements
Recognize that software tools do not confer professional competence
Seek collaboration with or referral to engineers who possess the requisite domain expertise
A chemical engineer using a CD-ROM design tool to offer facilities design services without relevant training
A structural engineer offering geotechnical design services after completing an online course
An electrical engineer offering civil highway design based solely on software-generated outputs
Requires engineers to assess their own competence before accepting engagements, to decline work outside their domain, and to resist commercial incentives that encourage overreach beyond established expertise.
Client demand for one-stop engineering services
Commercial pressure to expand service offerings
Employer directives to take on unfamiliar project types
never designed a highway before? No problem. Just point to the 'Highways' window and click.
Public safety and trust in the profession depend on engineers practicing only within domains where they can exercise genuine, substantive professional judgment rather than nominal approval of automated outputs.
The existing Competence Principle addresses balancing professional autonomy with recognition of limitations and need for collaboration. The concept extracted here is a more specific instantiation of that principle, focused on the prohibition against offering services outside one's domain and the inadequacy of software tools as a substitute for genuine competence. The existing class is the appropriate parent, but the case raises a distinct emphasis on domain-boundary overreach enabled by commercial tools that the existing class does not fully capture. Confidence is set at 0.75 as a variant rather than a direct match.
Professional principle prohibiting engineers from offering or undertaking engineering services in technical domains for which they lack the requisite education, training, or experience, regardless of the availability of software tools, templates, or other aids that may simulate competence. The use of automated design tools does not substitute for the foundational knowledge required to exercise independent professional judgment over the outputs of those tools.
[CompetencePrinciple] Balances professional autonomy with recognition of limitations and need for collaboration.
Whether the engineer identified the competence gap and took affirmative action to assign or request a qualified reviewer before approving the work
Engineers have an obligation to perform services within their area of competence. If Engineer B was not able to perform the necessary reviews of Engineer A's work, Engineer B should have provided this information to a supervisor who would have assigned an appropriate engineer to perform the review.
Not possessing adequate competency to perform a task is not in and of itself a violation of the NSPE Code, but the failure to recognize the lack of competency and take appropriate action to address the situation is a violation of the NSPE Code.
Professional discipline for approving work beyond competence; potential public harm from inadequate review
The canonical Competence Obligation covers the duty to practice within areas of competence. This class specializes that obligation by focusing on the affirmative duty to escalate when a competence gap is recognized, rather than simply declining to perform. The Mentorship Gap Competence Obligation from prior extractions addresses a related but distinct scenario. This is a variant of the canonical Competence Obligation with a specific escalation-action requirement.
Duty of an engineer who lacks sufficient competence to perform a required review or technical task to recognize that limitation and escalate the assignment to a supervisor or more qualified engineer, rather than proceeding with an inadequate review or approving work the engineer is not competent to evaluate.
Competence Misrepresentation Avoidance Obligation
Evidence that the engineer accurately represented qualifications and disclosed limitations to prospective clients before accepting engagements
Engineer A, a chemical engineer with no facilities design and construction experience
Professional discipline; civil liability; harm to clients who rely on misrepresented qualifications
Duty of a licensed engineer to refrain from representing to prospective clients or the public that the engineer is qualified to perform services in a technical domain in which the engineer lacks the requisite education, training, and experience, including by omitting disclosure of that lack of qualification when soliciting or accepting such work.
Must not represent capability to clients based solely on automated tool availability
Must not sign or seal work products in domains where competence is absent
Professional begins offering services outside their area of demonstrated competence
Professional holds out capability to clients without disclosing competence limitations
Professional relies on a commercial tool as a substitute for professional knowledge rather than as an augment to it
Duty to disclose limitations to prospective clients
Duty to obtain supervision or associate with competent professionals before proceeding
Duty to refrain from offering services beyond competence
Transforms the general competence principle into a concrete prohibition on holding out services and a disclosure obligation toward prospective clients who cannot independently assess the professional's actual capability.
Professional acquires sufficient education, training, or supervised experience in the domain
Professional discloses limitations and declines engagements beyond competence
Professional withdraws the offer of services in the domain
Outside Area of Competence captures the core competence boundary condition. However, that class describes a state in which a professional is already engaged and recognizes a boundary, whereas this case involves a professional affirmatively beginning to offer services in a domain where competence is absent, relying on a commercial tool as a substitute. The active misrepresentation and tool-substitution dimension is not captured by the existing class, so a new class is warranted while acknowledging the close relationship.
State in which a professional begins offering services in a domain where they lack the requisite education, training, or experience, relying instead on a commercial tool or shortcut that substitutes automated outputs for genuine professional competence, creating conditions in which the professional's representations of capability to prospective clients are false or misleading and in which work product carries elevated risk of harm.
[OutsideCompetence] Competence boundary preventing service provision
Principle requiring ongoing self-assessment of technical capability relative to assigned tasks, and affirmative escalation when a mismatch is identified, rather than passive acceptance of assignments beyond one's competence.
Assess own competence before accepting or performing assigned tasks
Ensure appropriately qualified engineers perform tasks requiring competence the assigned engineer lacks
Notify supervisors when assigned tasks exceed competence
BER case involving Engineer B who approved incomplete dam design drawings without apparent recognition of or response to the limits of the review competence required
Requires engineers to assess whether they possess the knowledge and skill to perform assigned tasks, to disclose limitations to supervisors when they do not, and to ensure that appropriately qualified personnel perform work that exceeds their competence.
Engineers have an obligation to perform services within their area of competence
If Engineer B was not able to perform the necessary reviews of Engineer A's work, Engineer B should have provided this information to a supervisor who would have assigned an appropriate engineer to perform the review
Professional integrity, protection of the public from work product that has not received genuinely competent review, and honest representation of one's professional capabilities.
The Competence Principle in the ontology balances professional autonomy with recognition of limitations and need for collaboration, which encompasses the self-assessment and escalation obligations described here. This is a variant that emphasizes the affirmative duty to recognize and act on competence limits rather than simply maintaining competence, but the parent class is the appropriate match. Confidence is 0.78 because the ontology class is broader and this individual instantiation has a specific emphasis on the recognition-and-escalation duty.
Professional principle requiring engineers to recognize the limits of their own competence and to take affirmative action when assigned tasks that exceed those limits, including notifying supervisors so that appropriately qualified personnel can be assigned. Lacking competence to perform a task is not itself a violation of professional standards, but failing to recognize that limitation and proceeding without remediation is a violation.
General professional engineering practice
Communicate competence concerns to the contractor or client
Fulfill professional reporting obligations regarding peer competence
Identify apparent competence deficiencies in another engineer's work
Engineer A had been unable to establish that Engineer B had any apparent subsequent training in foundation design, and Engineer A had reservations concerning the competence of Engineer B to design the structural footings and reported his concerns to the contractor
the Board decided that Engineer A had an ethical responsibility to question Engineer B's competency and report his concerns to the contractor
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to recognize when another engineer on the same project appears to lack the competence required to perform assigned technical work, and to report those concerns to the appropriate party such as the client, contractor, or responsible authority, in fulfillment of the professional obligation to protect public safety.
Engineer A had an ethical responsibility to question Engineer B's competency and report his concerns to the contractor
Engineer A had reservations concerning the competence of Engineer B to design the structural footings and reported his concerns to the contractor
A licensed professional engineering role in which the practitioner identifies and reports concerns about another engineer's lack of competence in a technical domain to the appropriate party, such as a contractor or client, fulfilling a professional obligation to protect public health and safety by ensuring that engineering work is performed only by those with adequate qualifications.
Documented communication to the responsible party identifying specific competence concerns about another engineer's assigned work
the Board decided that it would be unethical for Engineer B to perform the design of the structural footings as part of the facility and that Engineer A had an ethical responsibility to question Engineer B's competency and report his concerns to the contractor
Professional discipline; public safety risk from unchallenged incompetent design
Duty of a licensed engineer who has reasonable grounds to question whether another engineer on the same project possesses the competence required to perform assigned technical work to report those concerns to the responsible party, such as the client or contractor, so that the public safety risk created by out-of-competence practice can be addressed.
Disclose to the client which options fall outside the engineer's direct experience
Engage a co-advisor with complementary competence to cover all options
Limit the advisory scope to options within competence and explicitly state that limitation
Client receives analysis skewed by advisor's competence gaps, options outside advisor's experience are unfairly excluded or underrepresented
This maps to the existing Competence Constraint class as a variant applied specifically to the advisory context where uneven competence across options can distort the advice given. The existing class covers capability boundaries generally; this variant adds the advisory-distortion dimension. Matching as a variant with medium confidence.
Competence constraint limiting an engineer providing advisory services to presenting and evaluating only those options for which the engineer possesses sufficient technical competence to give objective analysis, and requiring disclosure when the engineer's qualifications are uneven across the options being evaluated, so that the client can assess whether the advisory analysis is complete and unbiased.
[CompetenceConstraint] Boundaries defined by agent capabilities and technical limitations (Hallamaa & Kalliokoski 2022)
General professional engineering practice across all specialties
Accurately represent qualifications to prospective clients
Decline to offer services outside areas of established competence
Identify domains in which the engineer lacks sufficient background to practice
Recognize that possession of a software tool does not confer domain competence
Competence Limit Recognition Capability covers recognizing the boundaries of one's own technical competence when assigned a task and taking appropriate action. This new capability is closely related but differs in emphasis: Competence Limit Recognition Capability is framed around a task assignment context where the engineer is asked to do something, whereas this capability concerns the proactive self-assessment required before offering services to the market. The holding-out and misrepresentation dimensions are not captured in the existing class. The match is a variant rather than identical, so medium confidence is appropriate.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to accurately assess the boundaries of their own technical competence before offering or undertaking engineering services in a given domain, including the ability to recognize when a lack of education, training, or experience in a specialty area disqualifies the engineer from holding out services in that area regardless of the availability of automated tools or reference libraries.
[CompetenceLimitRecognitionCapability] Capability to recognize the boundaries of one's own technical competence when assigned a professional task, to assess whether one possesses sufficient expertise to perform the task adequately, and to take appropriate action such as informing a supervisor or declining the assignment rather than proceeding with an inadequate review.
Deliverable Completeness Disclosure Principle
Whether the submitted drawings and specifications constitute a complete and buildable design conforming to applicable engineering standards at the time of submission
Engineer A was fully required to provide the complete design on the project.
Engineer A's bold assertion that the work was incomplete, but that this was due to time pressures and his expectation that Federal funds would be awarded to complete the work is wholly unconvincing.
It is clear that Engineer A had an obligation to provide a complete set of design drawings and specifications on the project in which Engineer A was engaged.
Professional discipline; potential fraud or misrepresentation findings; client and public harm from unbuildable or unsafe construction
Duty of an engineer retained to produce a complete set of design drawings and specifications for a project to deliver a fully complete and buildable design conforming to applicable engineering standards, and to refrain from submitting partial or incomplete documents under seal when the scope of engagement requires full design completion, regardless of time pressures or expectations that supplemental funding will remedy deficiencies.
Requires judgment about which options are sufficiently material to require inclusion and what level of comparative analysis is adequate given the client's decision-making needs and the complexity of the choice.
Disclose and justify any option excluded from analysis
Distinguish options the engineer can deliver from options the engineer cannot
Identify all approved or available project delivery methods
Provide comparative analysis of all material options
Advisory contexts where incomplete option sets lead clients to decisions they would not have made with full information
Cases where engineers omit viable alternatives from feasibility studies
Requires engineers to identify all options approved or available under the applicable constraints, include each in the comparative analysis unless there is a documented and disclosed reason for exclusion, and present the analysis in a form that enables the client to understand the tradeoffs.
Non-engineer clients depend on professional advisors to define the decision space accurately. Selective presentation of options distorts the client's ability to make an informed choice and transfers the engineer's judgment or interest into the client's decision without the client's awareness.
Professional principle requiring engineers who advise clients on selection among multiple available options to provide a reasonably complete and balanced analysis of all material options, not merely those options that favor the engineer's own interests or preferred outcome.
Decline client instructions to omit material information
Include all material findings in written reports regardless of client preference
Review reports for completeness before submission
Engineer L's identification of runoff risk is now 'fact.' Consistent with Code sections I.4, II.3.a, II.3.b, III.1.b, and III.3.a, Engineer L notified Client X of this risk.
The BER noted that Engineer A was obligated under Code section II.3.a to be objective and truthful in professional reports, statements, or testimony and include all relevant and pertinent information in such reports.
The key point of BER Case 07-6 is that information about the threat to the bird species is a 'fact' of the case.
Report misleads relying parties; public authority makes decisions on incomplete information; engineer violates objectivity and truthfulness obligations.
The Complete Reporting Constraint in the ontology captures this concept: the requirement that an engineer preparing a technical report include all relevant and pertinent information, prohibiting selective omission of material technical facts. The BER Case 07-6 and Engineer L facts are direct instantiations.
Ethical and professional constraint requiring that an engineer's report, analysis, or advisory product include all relevant and pertinent information, prohibiting selective omission of material technical facts regardless of client preference, adversarial context, or the nature of the proceeding in which the report will be used.
[CompleteReportingConstraint] Requirement that an engineer preparing a technical report include all relevant and pertinent information, prohibiting selective omission of material technical facts regardless of the adversarial or client-service context in which the report is prepared.
Open-textured obligation requiring judgment about what counts as relevant and pertinent, and how completeness is balanced against scope, but admitting no exception for adversarial convenience.
Disclose equipment failures that affected test results
Enable independent expert interpretation by providing complete records
Include all material test data in reports
Present facts that may favor the opposing party
NSPE Code requirement that engineers include all relevant and pertinent information in reports, statements, or testimony
Requires engineers to include material facts even when those facts complicate or contradict the preferred conclusion, to disclose equipment failures and anomalous conditions, and to present data that enables independent expert review.
the Code of Ethics which requires that engineers 'shall include all relevant and pertinent information in such report, statements or testimony.'
the report appears to serve no purpose except to impugn Engineer A, or to support the original testimony of the municipality's expert witness. As an engineering document the report is incomplete and does a disservice to Engineer B's client municipality by potentially misdirecting a conclusion.
the select language of the report precludes any interpretation that any or all 90 piles met the factor of safety requirement. The opportunity for expert engineering review and interpretation of the pile driving test was effectively denied by Engineer B's report.
Technical reports derive their professional authority from comprehensiveness; selective reporting corrupts the epistemic function of engineering documentation and undermines trust in the profession.
The existing Scope Limitation Disclosure Principle addresses disclosure of limitations on investigation scope. This principle is distinct: it governs the completeness of reporting once facts are in hand, requiring inclusion of all pertinent data rather than merely disclosing what was not examined. The Investigative Completeness Principle governs evidence-gathering diligence. Neither captures the affirmative duty to include all relevant technical facts in the report itself, which is the core concern here.
Professional principle requiring engineers to include all relevant and pertinent technical information in reports, statements, and testimony, without selective omission of facts that could alter the interpretation of findings or deny other parties the opportunity for expert review.
Conduct sufficient analysis to determine whether a concern has become a fact before treating it as triggering mandatory disclosure
Disclose concerns voluntarily even when not required, with appropriate qualification
Document the basis for classifying a finding as a concern versus a fact
Engineer L is concerned about increased risk over time, but has not developed their work to a point where they can assess risks of potential stormwater runoff resulting from the new development.
The BER's view is that, while it might be prudent for Engineer L to inform Client X of their concerns, such disclosure is not required under the Code.
Thus, Engineer L's 'concern' does not rise to the technical or moral level of 'fact,' and per Code section II.3.b, engineers may express publicly technical opinions that are founded upon knowledge of the facts.
Premature disclosure of unsubstantiated concerns may mislead clients and public authorities; failure to recognize when a concern has ripened into a fact may delay required disclosure.
The Concern Versus Fact Disclosure Constraint in the ontology directly captures this concept: a preliminary concern that has not been substantiated by sufficient analysis does not trigger the same mandatory disclosure obligations as a confirmed factual finding. The case text's distinction between Engineer L's early unquantified concern and the later confirmed risk finding is a direct application of that class.
Concern Versus Fact Disclosure Constraint
Ethical constraint establishing that mandatory public disclosure obligations attach only when an engineer's finding has reached the level of an established fact supported by sufficient technical analysis. A preliminary concern or suspicion that has not been substantiated does not trigger the same disclosure obligations as a confirmed factual finding, though prudent voluntary disclosure may be advisable.
[ConcernVersusFactDisclosureConstraint] Ethical constraint limiting an engineer's disclosure obligations to findings that have reached the level of established fact supported by technical analysis. A preliminary concern or suspicion that has not yet been substantiated by sufficient analysis does not trigger the same mandatory disclosure obligations as a confirmed factual finding, and an engineer is not required under professional ethics codes to disclose unsubstantiated concerns, though prudent disclosure may be advisable.
Concurrent Engineering Action Obligation
Evidence that engineers who jointly presented findings coordinated their escalation responses and that their regulatory submissions were consistent in technical content.
It is important to note that Engineers A and B have presented the findings and recommendations jointly and, as such, their actions should be in concert, although not identical.
Inconsistent or uncoordinated escalation actions by jointly presenting engineers may undermine the credibility and completeness of the safety report and reduce its effectiveness with regulatory authorities.
The Coordinated Escalation Obligation extracted from prior sections captures the duty of jointly presenting engineers to coordinate their escalation response. This class generalizes that concept for reuse across cases where multiple engineers must act in concert after a joint presentation is overruled.
Duty of two or more engineers who have jointly presented findings and recommendations to a client to coordinate and act in concert when escalating safety concerns to regulatory authorities, ensuring that their subsequent actions are consistent and mutually reinforcing, even if not identical in form.
Concurrent Escalation Coordination Capability
Public safety engineering with joint professional responsibility
Agree on form, content, and target of regulatory notifications
Coordinate post-override escalation steps with a co-presenting engineer
Ensure escalation actions are consistent and not contradictory
Capability of two or more engineers who have jointly presented professional findings to coordinate their escalation responses after a client override, ensuring that their actions are consistent, mutually reinforcing, and directed at the same authorities in a manner that accurately reflects their shared technical conclusions.
Open-textured principle requiring judgment about the degree of coordination required and the appropriate division of reporting responsibilities between co-presenting engineers whose joint work has been overruled.
Coordinate formal presentations to regulatory authorities
Jointly advise the client that the project will not be successful if safety measures are not adopted
Pursue further escalation in concert if formal presentations fail
BER Case No. 00-5 on public safety paramount obligation
BER Case No. 19-10 on obligation to pursue resolution through multiple channels
BER Case No. 89-7 on duty to report safety violations to appropriate authorities
Requires engineers who jointly presented overruled recommendations to coordinate formal presentations to regulatory authorities, to advise the client formally and in concert, and to pursue further escalation together if initial formal presentations fail to produce remediation.
When engineers present findings jointly, the professional credibility and ethical weight of those findings derives from their joint nature, and coordinated follow-through is necessary to honor that joint commitment to the public.
Professional principle requiring engineers who have jointly presented findings and recommendations to coordinate their safety reporting actions when those recommendations are overruled, proceeding in concert to notify clients, employers, and appropriate authorities, so that the force and credibility of the joint professional judgment is preserved and neither engineer's individual action is undermined by the silence of the other.
Anonymize or redact confidential information before inputting into any AI platform
Obtain explicit client consent before using any third-party platform to process client data
Review AI platform terms of service for data retention and sharing policies before use
Use only secure, enterprise-grade AI tools with appropriate data handling agreements when processing confidential client data
Engineer A gathered the relevant information provided by Client W and relied on the AI software to synthesize the information
Engineer A input the information gathered from Client W into the AI software
The AI drafting software was also open-sourced.
Breach of client confidentiality, potential legal liability, loss of client trust, exposure of proprietary or sensitive site data to unauthorized parties, and disciplinary action.
The Confidentiality Constraint class covers boundaries on information disclosure and privacy, which encompasses this scenario. However, the specific application to open-source AI platform data upload is a variant not explicitly addressed by the existing class. Matching as a variant of Confidentiality Constraint at medium confidence, while defining a more specific reusable subtype for AI platform contexts.
Confidentiality constraint prohibiting an engineer from uploading or transmitting confidential client data to open-source, publicly accessible, or third-party AI platforms or software systems where the data may be exposed, retained, or used outside the confidential professional relationship.
[ConfidentialityConstraint] Boundaries on information disclosure and privacy (Dennis et al. 2016)
Confidential Peer Review Agreement State
Confidentiality does not override duty to report confirmed public safety risks
Reviewer may not disclose findings to third parties beyond the scope of the agreement
Peer reviewer has signed a confidentiality agreement as a condition of the review engagement
Review is underway or completed under confidentiality terms
Obligation to discuss safety concerns with the reviewed engineer before escalating
Obligation to inform authorities if safety violations cannot be resolved despite confidentiality agreement
Obligation to protect confidential findings from unauthorized disclosure
Transforms general confidentiality principles into a structured duty that is defeasible when public safety is at risk, following the BER Case 96-8 pattern.
Confidentiality agreement is released or modified
Public safety obligation overrides confidentiality per applicable professional standards
Review engagement concludes and obligations are discharged
Engineer A contractually agreed not to disclose confidential information acquired in the review
Such confidentiality agreements encourage the firm being reviewed to cooperate fully, build trust, and support a collegial atmosphere
State in which a peer review is conducted under a contractual confidentiality agreement that restricts the reviewer from disclosing findings, creating a tension between confidentiality obligations and duties to report safety violations or inform the reviewed engineer.
The confidential peer reviewer is a specialization of the Professional Peer Role, distinguished by the contractual confidentiality constraint layered onto the standard peer review relationship. The core obligation structure remains collegial review with mentoring and assessment duties.
A professional engineering role in which the reviewer is bound by a contractual confidentiality agreement not to disclose information acquired during the peer review, while still retaining obligations to report safety violations to appropriate authorities if unresolved.
[ProfessionalPeerRole] Collegial relationship with mentoring and review obligations
Confidential Review Safety Disclosure Obligation
Documented attempt to resolve concerns with reviewed engineer followed by report to appropriate authority when resolution fails
Engineer A had an obligation to immediately discuss these issues with Engineer B in order to seek clarification and resolution.
In BER Case 96-8, Engineer A was a peer reviewer serving as part of an organized peer-review program. When selected as a reviewer for the program, Engineer A contractually agreed not to disclose confidential information acquired in the review.
if Engineers A and B were unable to successfully resolve Engineer A's concerns, Engineer A had an obligation to first advise Engineer B that Engineer A had an obligation to inform the appropriate authorities, and then to so inform the appropriate authorities.
Potential harm to public; professional discipline for failure to report; liability exposure
This is a specialization of the Reporting Obligation and Safety Obligation classes, distinguished by the condition that a confidentiality agreement is in place. It also maps closely to the Post-Termination Environmental Risk Reporting Obligation in structure, but applies to peer review contexts rather than post-termination scenarios. The safety-overrides-confidentiality logic makes it a distinct reusable type.
Duty of a peer reviewer bound by a contractual confidentiality agreement to nonetheless disclose safety code violations or public health risks to appropriate authorities when the reviewed engineer refuses to remedy the violations, notwithstanding the confidentiality agreement.
[ReportingObligation] Duty to report violations or unsafe conditions to appropriate authorities
Clarify scope of confidentiality agreement before commencing review
Negotiate confidentiality terms that preserve safety disclosure obligations
Seek legal guidance on limits of confidentiality when safety is implicated
When Owner reluctantly consents to notifying Engineer A, Engineer A objects and refused to consent to the peer review.
Breach of contractual confidentiality obligations to client if findings are disclosed beyond agreed scope; however, failure to disclose safety-critical findings may create separate ethical and safety violations.
This constraint maps directly to the existing Confidentiality Constraint class, which covers boundaries on information disclosure and privacy. The specific application involves the scope and limits of a confidentiality agreement governing peer review findings. It is a variant of the existing class rather than a new concept.
Confidentiality constraint arising when a peer review is conducted under a confidentiality agreement with the client, limiting the reviewer's ability to disclose findings to third parties including the reviewed engineer, while not eliminating overriding safety disclosure obligations.
Confidentiality Limit Recognition Capability
Professional engineering ethics, applicable across environmental, civil, and other engineering disciplines
Assess whether a prior engagement creates a confidentiality duty that would bar regulatory reporting
Conclude that confidentiality does not override the obligation to report substantial legal violations
Distinguish between protected client information and reportable violations of public law
Confidentiality Limits Public Law Obligation
Environmental Compliance Reporting Obligation
Engineer A performs wetland delineation services on the client's wetland site.
The installation of the fill material is a substantial violation of the federal and state laws and regulations.
Confidentiality Scope Reasoning Capability is defined as the capability to reason about the limits of confidentiality obligations, distinguishing between protecting the contents of a review and using confidentiality as a basis for procedurally improper conduct. The present capability is the same concept applied to the public law reporting context rather than a peer review context. The match is high-confidence because the core reasoning structure is identical: determining when confidentiality ends and a competing obligation begins.
Capability to recognize that professional confidentiality obligations owed to a client do not extend to concealing the client's violations of public law or regulation, including the ability to reason about the boundary between legitimate confidentiality and impermissible use of confidentiality as a shield against regulatory reporting obligations.
Evidence that the engineer did not allow confidentiality concerns to prevent reporting of a directly observed, substantial violation of law to the appropriate authority.
he drives by his client's property and notices that the client has installed a substantial amount of fill material on more than 1/2 an acre across a portion of the wetlands without any permits, variances, or permissions.
Invoking confidentiality to shield a client's ongoing statutory violation from regulatory authorities constitutes a misuse of the confidentiality obligation and may result in professional discipline.
The existing Client Instruction Limits Obligation addresses the duty to decline client instructions that would require violating professional ethics. The present class addresses the analogous situation where a confidentiality obligation, rather than a client instruction, is invoked to shield a statutory violation. The concept is related but distinct enough to warrant a separate class. The existing Confidentiality Obligation class in the ontology is too general. The closest match is Client Instruction Limits Obligation as a structural analog, but confidence is moderate because the mechanism differs.
Duty of an engineer to recognize that confidentiality obligations owed to a client do not extend to concealing the client's substantial violations of federal or state law that implicate public welfare or environmental protection, and that the duty to report such violations to appropriate authorities overrides any residual confidentiality interest in the information.
Confidentiality Public Violation Limit Constraint
Distinguish between confidential professional information and evidence of confirmed legal violations
Recognize that professional confidentiality does not protect client illegality
Report confirmed violations to regulatory authorities regardless of prior confidential relationship
Treating confidentiality as a shield for a client's illegal conduct exposes the engineer to professional discipline and complicity in ongoing harm to public resources.
The Confidentiality Safety Override Constraint addresses the scenario where a confidentiality obligation is overridden by a safety disclosure duty. The present constraint is a variant applied to the post-engagement context where the confidentiality relationship has ended and the violation is of environmental law rather than a safety code discovered during peer review. The concept is sufficiently similar to warrant matching to the existing class at medium confidence, though the post-engagement and environmental law dimensions are distinguishing features.
Confidentiality Safety Override Constraint
Constraint establishing that a confidentiality obligation owed to a client does not extend to concealing the client's confirmed violation of applicable federal or state law or regulation, particularly where the violation poses a risk to public health, safety, or the environment. The confidentiality duty is bounded by the engineer's overriding obligation to hold public welfare paramount and to comply with applicable law.
[ConfidentialitySafetyOverrideConstraint] Constraint arising when a peer reviewer operating under a contractual confidentiality agreement discovers safety code violations. The confidentiality obligation does not eliminate the reviewer's duty to first seek resolution with the reviewed engineer and then, if unresolved, to notify appropriate authorities. The safety disclosure obligation overrides the confidentiality restriction when public health, safety, and welfare are at risk.
Requires balancing the contractual and ethical duty to protect client-commissioned review information against the obligation to notify the reviewed engineer and to act on safety findings.
Decline engagements that require violating notification obligations as a condition of confidentiality
Distinguish between confidentiality of findings and concealment of the review's existence
Protect review findings from unauthorized third-party disclosure
Cases involving the tension between client-imposed confidentiality and professional notification obligations
NSPE BER Case 94-7 addressing confidentiality obligations of peer reviewers
Engineer B's contractual confidentiality obligation covers the contents and findings of the review but does not justify concealing the existence of the review from Engineer A, because that concealment would itself violate a separate professional obligation.
Clients have legitimate interests in controlling sensitive professional review processes, but those interests do not extend to requiring reviewers to conceal the existence of a review from the engineer whose work is being reviewed.
The principle is a variant of the existing Confidentiality Principle, which is described as requiring balance against public safety obligations and legal disclosure requirements. The peer review context adds a specific dimension involving notification obligations to the reviewed engineer, but the underlying principle is the same Confidentiality Principle already in the ontology.
Relational principle governing the obligations of a peer reviewer who has entered a contractual confidentiality agreement, requiring the reviewer to protect information obtained during the review from unauthorized disclosure while still fulfilling safety obligations.
Confirmed Environmental Law Violation State
Confidentiality obligations do not override reporting duties when environmental law is violated
Professional may not remain silent once a confirmed legal violation is identified
Remedial actions must comply with all applicable environmental laws and may require licensed engineer review
Professional has relevant expertise to recognize the violation
Professional identifies client conduct that constitutes a violation of environmental law or regulation
Violation is confirmed rather than speculative
Obligation to advise client that immediate remedial steps are required
Obligation to contact client and identify the violation directly
Obligation to monitor situation until remediation is confirmed
Obligation to report to appropriate authorities if client fails to act
Transforms the general duty to hold public safety paramount into a concrete sequential protocol: direct client notification, monitored remediation, and escalation to regulatory authorities upon client inaction.
Client completes remediation in full compliance with applicable environmental laws
Professional reports to appropriate regulatory authorities
Regulatory authority confirms compliance
Engineer A's actions appear to be obvious: contact the client and inquire directly about the actions the client has taken and point out the violations of the law and that immediate steps need to be taken to remedy the violation.
The facts in the present case indicate a violation of the federal and state laws and regulations.
The Confirmed Risk Without Adequate Safeguards State covers situations where a professional has confirmed a concrete public-safety or environmental risk and adequate safeguards are absent, which is the canonical activator for post-termination reporting obligations. The present state is a specific instantiation of that pattern applied to a confirmed environmental law violation. The match is medium because the existing class is framed around public-safety risk and safeguard absence, while the present state is specifically about legal violation and remediation obligation, but the ethical structure is the same.
Confirmed Risk Without Adequate Safeguards State
State in which a professional has identified that a client has committed a confirmed violation of applicable federal or state environmental laws or regulations, such as unpermitted wetland filling, creating an obligation to notify the client, demand immediate remediation, monitor the client's response, and report to appropriate authorities if adequate corrective action is not taken.
[ConfirmedRiskWithoutAdequateSafeguardsState] State in which a professional has confirmed the existence of a concrete public-safety or environmental risk and adequate safeguards are known to be absent. Typical activator for post-termination reporting obligations and for defeating faithful-agent confidentiality (NSPE BER Case 72 pattern).
Open-textured value requiring judgment about what interests are material enough to require disclosure and how disclosure should be made to preserve client trust and decision-making integrity.
Disclose financial or competitive interest in recommended options
Distinguish advisory role from service-provider role
Ensure client understands the basis and potential bias of any recommendation
Cases where engineers recommend delivery methods in which they hold a competitive advantage
NSPE BER Case 76-4 on engineer recommending own services
Requires engineers to identify any personal interest in the outcome of a recommendation, disclose that interest to the client before or alongside the recommendation, and ensure the client can make an informed independent judgment.
Clients, especially non-engineer clients, rely on professional advisors to provide unbiased guidance and cannot independently assess whether a recommendation serves the advisor's interests rather than their own.
Professional principle requiring engineers to disclose personal or financial interests that may bias their professional recommendations, particularly when the recommended course of action would benefit the recommending engineer directly.
Conflict of Interest Recognition Capability
Professional engineering advisory services, particularly where the advisor is also qualified to perform services under one or more of the options being evaluated
Identify personal stake in advisory outcomes
Recognize when advisory role intersects with potential service provider role
Capability to identify when a personal, financial, or competitive interest in the outcome of a professional recommendation creates a conflict with the duty to provide objective advice, and to recognize the obligation to disclose that interest to the client before or alongside the recommendation.
Consent-Independent Safety Reporting Constraint
Coordinate with co-engineers to act consistently and without waiting for client authorization
Document the basis for proceeding independently of client approval
Proceed with regulatory notification and formal presentation without seeking client consent
Engineer subordinates paramount public safety duty to client authority, confirmed public health risk goes unreported, engineer violates professional ethics code.
The Public Safety Paramount Constraint establishes that the duty to hold public safety paramount takes precedence over obligations to clients and cannot be overridden by client instructions. The present constraint is a specific application of that principle to the consent question in regulatory reporting, making it a variant. The Client Consent Independence Obligation extracted earlier captures the obligation side; this constraint captures the boundary that client consent cannot gate safety reporting. Medium-confidence variant match to the parent is appropriate.
Ethical constraint establishing that an engineer's duty to report a confirmed public health or safety risk to regulatory authorities does not require and cannot be conditioned on the consent or approval of the client or governing body whose decision created or perpetuated the risk. The engineer must proceed with required safety reporting regardless of whether the client consents, objects, or remains silent.
[PublicSafetyParamountConstraint] Inviolable ethical constraint establishing that an engineer's duty to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public takes precedence over obligations to clients, employers, and other parties. This constraint governs all professional decisions and cannot be overridden by client instructions, economic pressures, or contractual obligations.
Engineer A provides construction services in the community of City B
A licensed professional engineering role in which the practitioner is qualified to deliver construction-phase services under specific project delivery methods such as Progressive-Design-Build or Construction-Manager-at-Risk, bearing professional accountability for both technical and advisory outputs provided to clients.
Hi-Lo Construction declares that certain parts of the project are 'unbuildable' without major changes
it is pointed out by Engineer C, owner of Hi-Lo Construction, that much of the design detail is lacking in the drawings and specifications
Contractor Role in the ontology covers a party contracted to carry out construction work, which matches Hi-Lo Construction's position as the awarded low bidder. Engineer C as owner of the firm also brings engineering judgment to bear, but the primary role here is the contracting party identifying design deficiencies.
A contractor or construction firm that is awarded a construction contract and acts as a technical participant at pre-construction conferences, identifying design deficiencies or unbuildable elements in drawings and specifications provided by the design engineer.
[ContractorRole] Party contracted to carry out construction work.
Documented formal notification to client and design engineer of identified deficiencies at or before the pre-construction conference
it is pointed out by Engineer C, owner of Hi-Lo Construction, that much of the design detail is lacking in the drawings and specifications and that Hi-Lo Construction declares that certain parts of the project are 'unbuildable' without major changes
Proceeding with construction on deficient documents; potential public safety risk; professional discipline for failure to report known deficiencies
Observer Irregularity Reporting Obligation addresses the duty to document and report procedural irregularities during a test or investigation. The present obligation applies to a contractor-engineer who identifies design deficiencies in documents during pre-construction review rather than during a test. The underlying duty to report identified deficiencies to responsible parties is analogous but the role context and trigger conditions are sufficiently distinct to warrant a separate class.
Observer Irregularity Reporting Obligation
Duty of a licensed engineer who is also a contractor, upon identifying material deficiencies or unbuildable elements in design documents during bid review or pre-construction processes, to formally document and report those deficiencies to the client and design engineer so that the deficiencies can be remedied before construction proceeds.
[ObserverIrregularityReportingObligation] Duty of an engineer or geotechnical consultant retained to observe a test or investigation to document and report procedural irregularities, equipment failures, or methodological deviations that could affect the validity of the results, and to communicate these findings to the retaining party promptly.
Contradictory Evidence Disclosure Obligation
Report explicitly addresses known contradictory data or analytical results and explains why conclusions were reached despite them
Engineer B did not state anywhere in the report that these 19 piles, according to the pile driving records, had been driven to essential refusal and that, applying accepted wave equation calculations, the piles would have indicated a strength several multiples over the calculated load requirements.
Engineer B's report presented conclusions about pile inadequacy without acknowledging the existence of wave equation analysis that contradicted those conclusions.
Professional discipline; report may be discredited; potential liability for misleading findings
No existing obligation class in the ontology corresponds to this duty. This is a new class.
Duty of an engineer preparing a technical report or expert opinion to acknowledge and address evidence or accepted analytical methods that contradict or materially qualify the conclusions presented, rather than omitting such evidence from the report.
Contradictory Evidence Omission Constraint
Apply analytical methods consistently to all relevant data
Decline to issue conclusions that cannot be supported without omitting contrary evidence
Include all material contradictory evidence with explanation
Additionally, Engineer B did not report that the dynamic test equipment had failed.
Misleading tribunal or decision-maker, professional discipline, reputational harm, unjust outcome in dispute
No existing constraint class in the ontology captures the hard prohibition on omitting contradictory evidence from a technical report. The obligation-side Contradictory Evidence Disclosure Obligation is a duty; this is the corresponding inviolable boundary on conduct.
Prohibition on preparing a technical report or expert opinion that omits known, material evidence or accepted analytical results that contradict the report's conclusions, regardless of client preference or adversarial context.
Contradictory Evidence Recognition Capability
Technical reporting and expert opinion in geotechnical and structural engineering
Acknowledge contradictory evidence in technical reports
Apply accepted analytical methods such as wave equation analysis to cross-check findings
Assess the weight of competing lines of evidence
Recognize when available data conflicts with the primary conclusion
Engineer B was obligated to acknowledge in the report the wave equation analysis showing the 19 piles had driven to essential refusal.
No existing capability class covers the awareness competency of identifying and incorporating contradictory evidence or alternative accepted analytical methods into a technical report.
Ability to identify evidence or accepted analytical methods that contradict or qualify the primary conclusions of a technical report, and to incorporate that evidence into the analysis rather than omitting it.
Character-based obligation whose content varies with the severity of known defects, the legitimacy of the review process, and the degree of public risk involved, but which cannot be waived by personal discomfort or client-imposed pressure.
Acknowledge and address identified errors
Engage constructively with reviewer concerns
Provide access to design documents and records
Refrain from obstructing or limiting the review
NSPE BER Case 96-8 where peer reviewer discovered safety code violations and had obligation to seek resolution with original engineer
Requires the engineer under review to provide access to design documents, answer reviewer questions, explain design decisions, and engage constructively with identified concerns rather than refusing participation.
Each of those requirements strongly indicates that Engineer A should participate fully and cooperatively in Engineer B's peer review.
Engineers must take responsibility for their actions, must acknowledge their errors, must act in the best interests of their clients, and must at all times hold paramount the health, welfare, and safety of the public.
The Board concludes that it would be unethical for Engineer A to fail to cooperate.
The known design defects in the first tower simply makes each of those requirements more urgent.
Professional accountability and the recognition that engineers must accept responsibility for their work product and submit to legitimate oversight, especially when public safety is implicated.
Professional virtue principle requiring an engineer whose work is subject to a legitimate peer review to participate fully and cooperatively in that process, particularly when known errors in the work create risks to public safety.
Agree on the form, content, and target of regulatory notifications before submission
Document the coordination process and any agreed division of responsibilities
Ensure that individual actions by each engineer are consistent with the jointly presented findings
Share draft formal presentations between co-engineers for review and alignment
Inconsistent or contradictory professional positions undermine the credibility of safety findings, regulatory authorities receive a confused record, public health protection is weakened.
Ethical and procedural constraint arising when two or more engineers have jointly presented findings and recommendations to a client or governing body, requiring that their subsequent escalation and reporting actions be coordinated and consistent, though not necessarily identical, so that the professional record presented to regulatory authorities and other parties is coherent and mutually reinforcing rather than contradictory or fragmented.
Water treatment engineering and public water supply corrosion control
Assess lead leaching risk from aging distribution infrastructure
Evaluate corrosion risk from water source changes
Specify required treatment improvements before source transition
Public Health Risk Disclosure Obligation
Engineer B, a consulting engineer retained by the MWC charged with evaluating water treatment needs for the change in water source, provided a report to Engineer A recommending extensive capital investments and a three-year timeline for further evaluation of water quality, design, and construction of improvements.
The improvements are needed prior to the change in water source to ensure that sufficient corrosion control is provided so that old service pipes in the MWC service area don't leach lead at levels in excess of drinking water standards.
Technical capability to evaluate corrosion control requirements for a public water distribution system, including the ability to assess whether existing infrastructure such as old service pipes will leach contaminants such as lead at levels exceeding drinking water standards when water chemistry changes, and to specify the improvements required to prevent such leaching before a source change is implemented.
Cost Allocation Bias Prohibition Principle
Requires engineers to maintain the same standard of completeness and adequacy in their deliverables regardless of who will ultimately pay for deficiencies, recognizing that cost-shifting reasoning corrupts professional judgment.
Deliver complete and adequate drawings and specifications regardless of funding source
Refrain from rationalizing deficient work on the basis that a third-party funder will absorb the cost
Treat public grant funds with the same fiduciary care as client funds
Engineer delivers deficient specifications reasoning that change orders will be funded by a third party
Engineer submits incomplete dam design reasoning that federal grant funds will cover cost overruns, insulating the local client from financial harm
Engineers must evaluate the adequacy of their work product against objective professional standards, not against assumptions about who will pay if the work is deficient. The source of project funding does not alter the engineer's obligation to deliver complete and adequate work.
While much of the information was missing from the drawings and specifications, Engineer A was confident that sufficient federal funds (and not local funding) would cover any potential increased costs.
Professional standards of completeness and adequacy are not contingent on the identity of the party who bears remediation costs. Allowing cost-allocation assumptions to lower the standard of care undermines the integrity of the profession and misuses public funds.
Professional integrity principle prohibiting engineers from allowing assumptions about which party will bear the financial consequences of deficient work to influence the decision to submit incomplete or inadequate work product. An engineer may not rationalize delivering deficient deliverables on the basis that remediation costs will fall on a third-party funder rather than the client.
Evidence that the engineer's submission decisions were made on the basis of professional adequacy rather than assumptions about cost absorption by federal or other third-party funds
Professional discipline; breach of fiduciary duty to client; potential misuse of public funds
Duty of an engineer to make professional decisions, including decisions about the completeness and quality of deliverables, without regard to assumptions about which party will bear the financial consequences of deficiencies, and to refrain from rationalizing submission of incomplete work on the basis that anticipated funding sources will absorb resulting cost overruns.
Publicly funded engineering projects involving federal and local cost-sharing arrangements
Identify when cost-allocation assumptions are distorting professional judgment
Produce complete deliverables regardless of assumptions about who will bear cost overruns
Separate funding-source considerations from completeness and quality decisions
Deliverable Completeness Disclosure Obligation
Capability to recognize when assumptions about funding source allocation or cost responsibility are influencing professional decisions about deliverable completeness or quality, and to set aside those assumptions so that professional decisions are made on technical and ethical grounds rather than on anticipated financial benefit to the engineer.
Disclose the funding assumption to the client and obtain confirmation before relying on it
Produce a complete deliverable regardless of assumptions about cost allocation
Seek written client authorization if proceeding with a known incomplete product
Incomplete deliverables are submitted and approved on the false premise that downstream cost consequences are acceptable, exposing public agencies and taxpayers to unplanned expenditures and project failure.
Ethical constraint prohibiting an engineer from rationalizing the submission of an incomplete or potentially cost-escalating work product on the basis of an undisclosed assumption about how cost overruns will be funded, particularly when that assumption involves public funds the engineer does not control and has not verified. The engineer must make professional decisions about deliverable completeness independently of speculative funding assumptions.
Decline client instructions that require covert review
Notify the original engineer before commencing review
Violation of professional ethics, potential disciplinary action, undermining of collegial professional relationships, and invalidation of review process integrity.
This constraint is a specific ethical boundary on permissible review conduct derived from professional ethics codes. It is a variant of the general Ethical Constraint class, with the distinguishing feature being the prohibition on covert peer review. It also has partial overlap with Non-Deception (Constraint) from the ontology, since conducting a covert review involves a form of professional deception toward the reviewed engineer. The best parent match is Ethical Constraint as the broader category, with Non-Deception (Constraint) as a closely related provision.
Ethical constraint prohibiting a reviewing engineer from conducting a peer review of another engineer's work without first notifying and obtaining the knowledge of the engineer whose work is under review, as required by professional courtesy and ethics codes.
[EthicalConstraint] Professional ethical boundaries beyond legal requirements (Benzmüller et al. 2020)
Evidence that the reviewing engineer refused or objected to covert review instructions and insisted on proper notification
Violation of professional ethics code; potential disciplinary action; harm to the reviewed engineer's professional standing
This obligation is a specific instantiation of the broader Ethical Obligation class, operationalizing the duty to refuse client instructions that violate professional transparency and collegial norms. The existing Ethical Obligation class covers duties arising from professional codes and moral reasoning, which encompasses this refusal duty. Medium confidence because the existing class is more general.
Duty of a peer review engineer to decline instructions from a client or employer to conduct a review of another engineer's work without that engineer's knowledge, when such concealment would violate professional transparency norms.
[EthicalObligation] Obligations arising from ethical principles beyond legal requirements
Reviewing professional should insist on notifying the subject professional
Reviewing professional should not proceed under covert conditions
Client instructs reviewer to withhold engagement from subject professional
Peer review or evaluation is commissioned without notifying the professional whose work is under review
Obligation to object to or refuse covert review conditions
Professional courtesy notification obligation
Transparency duty toward peer professional
Transforms general professional courtesy and fairness principles into a concrete notification obligation before accepting or conducting a peer review engagement.
Reviewing professional declines the engagement
Subject professional is notified of the review
State in which a client or third party instructs a reviewing professional to evaluate another professional's work without the knowledge or consent of that professional, creating obligations of transparency and professional courtesy.
Collaborate with a qualified engineer in the relevant discipline
Decline engagements outside the engineer's demonstrated area of competence
Obtain additional education and supervised experience before expanding practice scope
Refer clients to engineers with appropriate domain expertise
Engineer performs work outside competence boundaries, risking deficient designs, public safety harm, license discipline, and civil liability.
The Scope of Practice (Constraint) from the canonical ontology directly addresses the boundaries of permissible professional practice established by ethics code provisions. This constraint is a specific instantiation of that concept applied to cross-discipline engineering practice. The Competence Constraint class also partially overlaps, but Scope of Practice more precisely captures the prohibition on offering services outside one's credentialed and experienced domain.
Regulatory and ethical constraint prohibiting a licensed professional engineer from offering or performing engineering services in a technical discipline or specialty area in which the engineer lacks the requisite education, training, and experience, regardless of licensure status in another discipline. The engineer's license in one field does not confer authority or competence to practice in materially different fields.
[Scope_of_Practice] Constraint established by ethics code provisions
Must not perform out-of-discipline design without demonstrated competence
Must not rely on general licensure as authorization to practice in an unfamiliar discipline
Engineer with credentials in one discipline accepts an engagement requiring a different discipline
No subsequent training, education, or supervised experience in the target discipline is demonstrated
Work product in the target discipline is produced or offered
Duty to practice only within areas of competency
Duty to retain or recommend specialists for out-of-discipline components
Obligation of other engineers to question and report competence concerns
Transforms the general competence principle into a discipline-specific prohibition, and activates a parallel obligation on observing engineers to report competence concerns to the responsible party.
Engineer declines the out-of-discipline work
Engineer obtains substantive training and experience in the target discipline
Engineer retains a qualified specialist for the out-of-discipline component
Engineer A, a chemical engineer, has no apparent substantive background or experience in the area of facilities design and construction
Engineer B's degree and background was in chemical engineering. Engineer A had been unable to establish that Engineer B had any apparent subsequent training in foundation design
all engineers are implored to exercise careful professional judgment and discretion and practice solely within his or her area(s) of competency
Outside Area of Competence is the closest canonical class and captures the core condition. The cross-discipline framing adds specificity about the licensed-in-one-discipline-practicing-in-another pattern, but the ethical condition is a variant of the existing class rather than a genuinely new concept. Medium confidence match.
State in which a licensed professional engineer, credentialed in one technical discipline, undertakes to perform engineering services in a materially different discipline for which they lack the requisite education, training, and experience, creating conditions in which the professional's general license does not confer competence to practice in the new discipline and in which the work product carries elevated risk of harm.
Engineer A generally agrees with Hi-Lo's characterization, but in his defense responds that he felt pressured to deliver the drawings and specifications on a specified date, but did not inform anyone as to their incompleteness
Engineer A's firm's impressive brochure and personal interview results in the award of a contract for the design, drawings, and specifications
Design Engineer exists in the previously extracted classes and covers the core obligation of producing original plans and specifications with professional accountability. Dam Design Engineer is a specialization by infrastructure type, warranting a medium-confidence match to that parent class.
A licensed professional engineering role in which the practitioner is retained to produce design drawings and specifications for a dam or similar hydraulic infrastructure project, bearing full professional accountability for the completeness, accuracy, and buildability of those documents regardless of schedule pressures or funding source.
[DesignEngineer] A professional engineering role responsible for creating original plans, specifications, and designs for a project, bearing primary accountability for the technical content of those documents.
Notify the client in writing that the deadline cannot be met without compromising completeness
Request a schedule extension before the deadline passes
Submit a partial deliverable with explicit written notice of what is missing
Client proceeds on false assumption that the deliverable is complete, leading to downstream reliance on deficient documents by approving engineers, contractors, and public agencies.
Ethical constraint requiring that an engineer who experiences time pressure sufficient to cause or contribute to the production of an incomplete or deficient work product must communicate that pressure and its effect on deliverable quality to the client before submitting the product, so that the client can decide whether to extend the deadline, accept the incomplete product with full knowledge, or seek alternative arrangements.
Professional engineering practice across infrastructure and design disciplines
Communicate schedule conflicts to clients before submission
Decline to submit incomplete work products under deadline pressure
Identify when a delivery schedule is incompatible with professional standards
Capability to recognize when externally imposed deadlines are incompatible with producing complete and professionally adequate work products, and to communicate that incompatibility to the client rather than submitting deficient work under seal to meet the deadline.
Evidence that the engineer communicated schedule constraints and their impact on deliverable completeness to the client before submitting sealed documents
Professional discipline; submission of sealed documents that do not meet professional standards; potential public safety risk
Duty of an engineer to refrain from submitting incomplete, deficient, or unbuildable work products under seal merely because of schedule pressure or a contractually specified delivery date, and to instead communicate to the client that additional time or scope is required to produce a complete and professionally adequate deliverable.
an engineer employed by a large defense industry firm documented and reported to his employer excessive costs and time delays by sub-contractors
the engineer did not have an ethical obligation to continue his efforts to secure a change in the policy after his employer rejected his reports
A professional engineering role in which the practitioner is employed by a large defense industry firm and bears responsibility for documenting and reporting contractor performance issues such as excessive costs and schedule delays to the employing organization, with an ethical right but not a mandatory duty to escalate concerns to external authorities when the matter does not involve public health or safety.
Delegation of preparation does not transfer the sealing engineer's professional accountability
Engineer may not seal documents over which they did not exercise genuine responsible charge
Documents are prepared by persons other than the sealing engineer
Engineer signs and seals the resulting documents
Sealing engineer claims direction and control over the preparers
Duty to ensure subordinates are competent to perform assigned tasks
Duty to exercise substantive direction and control, not merely nominal supervision
Duty to verify that delegated work meets professional standards before sealing
Transforms the principle of professional accountability into a concrete obligation to demonstrate active oversight when sealing documents prepared by others, distinguishing legitimate delegation from improper rubber-stamping.
Engineer withdraws from the project or responsible charge role
Sealing is completed and work is delivered
State in which a professional engineer signs and seals documents that were substantially prepared by subordinates or other personnel rather than by the engineer personally, where the engineer's authority to seal depends on having exercised genuine direction and control over the preparation process rather than merely reviewing a completed product.
Documented disclosure of known deficiencies to client and approving authority prior to or concurrent with submission of sealed documents
Professional discipline; potential liability for increased project costs; risk to public safety from reliance on deficient documents
The concept is a variant of Complete Technical Reporting Obligation and Report Completeness Obligation, but those address omissions within a report rather than the duty to disclose that a deliverable itself is materially incomplete at the time of submission. The present obligation is sufficiently distinct to warrant a separate class focused on the completeness of the deliverable artifact rather than the completeness of findings within a report.
Duty of an engineer to disclose to the client, approving authorities, and other relying parties any known material incompleteness, deficiency, or unbuildable element in drawings, specifications, or other deliverables before or at the time of submission, rather than concealing such deficiencies and allowing the submission to proceed as if complete.
[CompleteOptionsAdvisoryObligation] Duty of an engineer advising a client on selection among multiple available options to present all materially relevant options within the approved or applicable set, rather than selectively presenting only a subset, so that the client can make a fully informed decision.
Open-textured obligation requiring engineers to weigh schedule and contractual pressures against the duty to deliver complete and adequate work, and to communicate honestly when those pressures result in deficient output.
Disclose incompleteness of drawings or specifications to the client at the time of submission
Notify the approving authority of known deficiencies before or during the approval process
Refrain from submitting sealed documents that the engineer knows are materially deficient without contemporaneous disclosure
Engineer delivers specifications knowing they are unbuildable without major changes but does not flag this to any party
Engineer submits incomplete dam drawings on deadline without disclosing omissions to client or federal approving agency
Requires engineers to either complete deliverables to the required standard before submission or, when submission of incomplete work is unavoidable, to explicitly disclose the nature and extent of deficiencies to all affected parties at the time of submission.
Schedule pressure from client or employer
Professional trust and the integrity of the engineering deliverable depend on the recipient being able to rely on submitted work as complete and adequate, or on being informed when it is not.
Professional integrity principle requiring engineers to disclose known deficiencies, omissions, or incompleteness in drawings, specifications, or other deliverables at the time of submission, rather than submitting deficient work product while concealing its inadequacy from the client, the approving authority, and other affected parties.
Accompany consent provisions with confidentiality protections and opportunity to respond
Ensure all parties are aware of peer review provisions before contracting
Include peer review consent provisions in design-build bid and contract documents
Frequently that disclosure is accompanied by an agreement that the client will require the peer reviewer to keep the results of the peer review confidential or, at the very least, the original designer will be provided with an opportunity to explain (and defend) the design decisions
the possibility that the client will obtain a peer review is specified in design-build bid or contract documents to the effect that any party who bids or contracts with the client has, by participating, consented to the peer review
Failure to recognize pre-established consent may lead to unnecessary procedural disputes over notification and cooperation obligations that were already resolved by contract.
Constraint arising in design-build procurement contexts where bid or contract documents specify that any party who participates has, by participating, consented to peer review. This pre-established consent mechanism alters the default notification and consent requirements by incorporating them into the contractual framework at the outset.
Professional engineering document review and sealing practice
Assess whether a review is adequate to support responsible charge
Check and review engineering documents in sufficient detail before sealing
Determine when a review is insufficient to justify sealing
Identify deficiencies in documents prepared by subordinates
Full Responsibility Assumption Obligation
We concluded, based upon a review of authoritative sources that the terms 'direction' and 'control' have a meaning which, when combined, would suggest that an engineer would be required to perform all tasks related to the preparation of the drawings, plans, and specifications in order for the engineer to ethically affix his seal.
Were we to decide BER Case 86-2 today, we would conclude that the it was not unethical for the engineer in that instance to seal plans that were not personally prepared by him as long as those plans were checked and reviewed by the engineer in some detail.
Responsible Charge Verification Capability is defined as the capability to conduct a review of professional work products sufficiently thorough to support the exercise of responsible charge, including the ability to assess whether one's review is adequate before applying a professional seal. This is precisely the capability described in the case text regarding the obligation to check and review documents in some detail before sealing. The match is high confidence.
Responsible Charge Verification Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to conduct a sufficiently detailed check and review of engineering documents, plans, or specifications prepared by others before affixing a professional seal, including the ability to assess whether the review performed is adequate to support responsible charge and to refrain from sealing documents that have not been reviewed in sufficient detail.
[ResponsibleChargeVerificationCapability] Capability to conduct a review of professional work products that is sufficiently thorough to support the exercise of responsible charge, including the ability to assess whether one's review is adequate before applying a professional seal.
Allocate sufficient time for detailed review proportionate to document complexity
Decline to seal documents when adequate review time is unavailable
Establish a documented review protocol for all documents before sealing
In deciding that it was unethical for him to seal plans that had not been prepared by him, or which he had not checked and reviewed in detail, the Board read the language in Section II.2.b. quite literally.
We would conclude that it was not unethical for the engineer in that instance to seal plans that were not personally prepared by him as long as those plans were checked and reviewed by the engineer in some detail.
Sealing without detailed review means the engineer cannot take responsible charge, exposing the public to undetected errors and the engineer to disciplinary action.
Procedural and ethical constraint requiring that a professional engineer who seals engineering documents prepared by subordinates or technological systems must check and review those documents in some detail before affixing the seal, so that the seal reflects genuine professional oversight rather than nominal endorsement.
Evidence that the engineer reviewed the documents in sufficient detail to identify material errors or deficiencies before sealing
engineers must not affix their signatures to any plans or documents dealing with subject matter which they lack competence, nor to any plan or document not prepared under their direction and control.
Ethical violation under NSPE II.2.b; professional liability for deficiencies in sealed documents; potential license discipline
This obligation is a close match to the existing Responsible Charge Seal Obligation, which requires a licensed engineer to apply their seal only to work products they have personally reviewed with sufficient depth and competence. The present obligation adds the clarification that personal preparation is not required but detailed review is, which is a refinement of the same core duty rather than a distinct new concept.
Duty of a licensed engineer to check and review in some detail any engineering documents, plans, or specifications prepared by others before affixing the engineer's seal, so that the seal reflects genuine professional oversight rather than mere administrative approval, even when the engineer did not personally prepare the documents.
[ResponsibleChargeSealObligation] Duty of a licensed engineer exercising responsible charge to apply their professional seal only to work products they have personally reviewed with sufficient depth and competence to take genuine professional responsibility for the content, and not to seal work generated by tools or processes they do not adequately understand or have not adequately verified.
Engineer A was a principal in an environmental engineering firm and was 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
XYZ Corporation was advised by a State Pollution Control Authority
Developer Client is a specialization of Client Role representing a private development entity commissioning engineering services. It is closely related to the previously extracted Private Development Client but is generalized here to cover developer clients in environmental and land-use contexts more broadly.
A private developer or development entity that commissions professional engineering or environmental analysis services for a proposed development project, acting as the primary client and decision-maker but lacking professional engineering licensure, and whose development interests may conflict with the engineer's obligations to disclose environmental risks to public authorities.
[ClientRole] Party that commissions the project work. This is the occupational archetype. The duty relationship is carried separately by :ProviderClientRole.
Evaluate any credentialing or competence-building mechanism against the standard of formal engineering education and supervised practice
Reject commercial offerings that frame professional experience requirements as obstacles rather than prerequisites
Seek peer or board review of proposed competence claims before offering services in a new domain
The Board considers such activities completely contrary to the basic ethical principles established in the Code of Ethics.
The direct mail product described under the facts is not unlike mail order certifications offered by so called 'diploma mills' whereby individuals 'self certify' their competency based upon a perfunctory review process that rarely involves comprehensive study, examination, or practice.
Engineer acquires and represents a credential or competence claim that lacks substantive basis, deceiving clients and the public and degrading professional standards.
Ethical constraint establishing that a licensed engineer may not rely on perfunctory, non-rigorous, or commercially motivated credentialing mechanisms as a basis for representing professional competence, because such mechanisms are functionally equivalent to diploma mill certifications and do not satisfy the profession's standards for demonstrated knowledge and experience.
Professional must not dismiss records without stated technical justification
Professional must not issue conclusions as definitive when they rest on unresolved record disputes
Construction or installation records exist
One or more parties contest the accuracy or reliability of those records
Professional conclusions depend on acceptance or rejection of the records
Duty to disclose that records are disputed when relying on or dismissing them
Duty to present the dispute as a material uncertainty in professional conclusions
Duty to seek independent verification of disputed records
Transforms general objectivity principles into specific obligations to disclose record disputes and seek verification before issuing conclusions that depend on the acceptance or rejection of contested records.
Records are independently verified or refuted
Engineer A's on-site representatives were available to testify as to the accuracy of the pile driving records
We just did not believe the driving records
State in which the accuracy or reliability of construction or installation records is contested between parties, creating a condition in which professional conclusions that rely on or dismiss those records carry heightened obligations of transparency, disclosure of the dispute, and independent verification before issuing findings.
Drinking Water Quality Standard Resource
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and state drinking water regulatory agencies
Establishes binding minimum safety thresholds for public drinking water that engineers must satisfy when designing or recommending changes to water supply systems, grounding the professional duty to protect public health.
old service pipes in the MWC service area don't leach lead at levels in excess of drinking water standards
Public health protection in water engineering
Federal or state regulations and technical standards specifying maximum contaminant levels and treatment requirements for public drinking water supplies, including lead and copper rules governing corrosion control in distribution systems to prevent leaching from service pipes.
Documented verification that corrosion control and other required improvements are in place and effective before the water source change is implemented
Public health harm from lead exposure; professional discipline; regulatory sanctions; potential legal liability
This is a domain-specific instantiation of the existing Safety Obligation class, applied to public water supply infrastructure. The core duty to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public is already captured by the Safety Obligation and the broader Public Welfare Paramountcy Principle. No genuinely new class is required.
Duty of an engineer responsible for or advising on a public water supply system to ensure that any change to the water source or treatment process does not result in drinking water that fails to meet applicable health-based standards, including standards for lead and other contaminants leached from distribution infrastructure, before the change is implemented.
[SafetyObligation] Duty to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public (NSPE I.1)
Professional must not allow administrative loyalty to suppress required safety disclosures
Professional must not certify compliance with standards that have not been met
Organization makes a decision contrary to the professional's technical recommendation
Professional holds both an administrative leadership role and a technical advisory role within the same organization
Professional must implement or oversee a decision they recommended against
Duty to avoid using administrative authority to suppress technical dissent
Duty to clearly communicate technical objections through appropriate channels
Duty to consider whether continued dual role is ethically sustainable
Transforms the general conflict of interest principle into a concrete obligation to manage the structural tension between organizational loyalty and independent professional judgment, with public safety as the paramount consideration.
Both Engineer A and Engineer B met with the MWC at a meeting sparsely attended by the public and recommended that the change in water source be substantially delayed
Engineer A is a professional engineer who serves as the superintendent and chief engineer for the Metropolitan Water Commission (MWC).
State in which a professional simultaneously holds an internal administrative or managerial role within an organization and an independent technical advisory role for that same organization, creating a structural tension between the duty to carry out organizational decisions and the duty to provide objective professional advice that may conflict with those decisions.
Document professional safety recommendations independently of administrative decisions
Escalate safety concerns through engineering channels even when administrative channels are blocked
Maintain clear separation between administrative and engineering functions
Suppression of safety findings, public health harm, professional discipline, loss of licensure
The dual role situation creates a structural conflict of interest between Engineer A's administrative loyalty to the MWC and independent professional engineering judgment. The existing Conflict of Interest Avoidance constraint captures the core concept, but the specific manifestation involving simultaneous internal administrative and engineering roles is a variant that adds the dimension of role-based suppression of safety judgment. Matching as a variant at medium confidence.
Ethical and professional constraint arising when an engineer simultaneously holds an internal administrative or managerial role within an organization and a professional engineering role advising that same organization, requiring the engineer to ensure that the administrative role does not suppress or subordinate the independent professional safety judgment the engineering role demands. The engineer must act on safety findings regardless of organizational pressure arising from the dual role.
As an engineer and a contractor presumably, Engineer C had the necessary background and experience to carefully evaluate the engineering drawings
Engineer C's actions in bidding on an unbuildable contract is also very troubling
A licensed professional engineering role in which the practitioner is also the owner or principal of a construction firm, bids on and is awarded a construction contract, and bears professional obligations both as an engineer to evaluate the adequacy of design documents before bidding and as a contractor to perform the work, such that the practitioner cannot disclaim engineering judgment when assessing the completeness of drawings and specifications.
Engineer Qualification and Experience Resource
Engineering firms and licensed professionals
Provides evidentiary grounding for claims of competence and grounds the professional obligation to represent qualifications honestly and completely.
Engineer A provided a summary of the firm's experience with Progressive-Design-Build projects and references from past projects
This type of qualification and experience documentation fits within the existing Reference Material class as supporting documentation for professional practice. No more specific existing class covers firm experience summaries and project references.
Documentation of a professional engineer's or firm's qualifications, past project experience, and client references relevant to a specific service type, submitted to support a recommendation or proposal.
[ReferenceMaterial] Supporting documentation for professional practice
Engineering Competence Guidance Resource
Professional engineering societies and licensing boards
Grounds the duty to practice within competence by providing authoritative statements of what constitutes adequate qualification for engineering services, bridging the abstract principle of competence to concrete practice decisions.
Assessing the adequacy of software or tool-based substitutes for professional experience
Determining ethical obligations when solicited to expand practice beyond current competence
Evaluating whether an engineer is qualified to offer a new category of services
The CADD Competency Guidance Resource class addresses professional guidance on the requisite background, education, and training engineers must have when using technical tools, and the distinction between using tools as aids versus substitutes for professional judgment. This case involves an analogous situation where a CD-ROM software product is being used as a substitute for genuine facilities design experience. The concept is a close variant but broader than CADD specifically, covering any tool-based competence substitution. A medium confidence match is appropriate.
Professional guidance addressing the requirement that engineers practice only within their areas of competence, including the obligation to undertake services only when qualified by education or experience, and the prohibition against using tools or products as substitutes for genuine professional competence.
[CADDCompetencyGuidanceResource] Professional guidance addressing the requisite background, education, training, and limitations engineers must understand when using Computer Aided Drafting and Design systems in professional practice, including the distinction between using such tools as aids versus substitutes for professional judgment.
Engineering Design Deliverable Standard Resource
Professional engineering societies and standard contracting practice
Establishes the minimum professional standard for what constitutes an acceptable set of engineering drawings and specifications, grounding the duty to deliver complete and buildable documents.
certain parts of the project are unbuildable without major changes
much of the design detail is lacking in the drawings and specifications
Professional accountability for deliverable quality
Professional norms and contractual expectations governing the completeness, accuracy, and adequacy of engineering drawings and specifications delivered under a design contract, including the obligation to disclose known deficiencies before submission.
State professional engineering licensing boards and state legislatures
Establishes the legal threshold for professional accountability when an engineer seals a document, grounding the duty of responsible charge in enforceable state law.
submitted the draft report to Client W for review, including language to clearly identify that the supplied report was a draft, but applied their seal consistent with state law.
Determining conditions for responsible charge
State laws governing professional engineering seals are legal frameworks constraining professional practice, matching the Legal Resource class in the ontology. No more specific existing class covers engineering seal statutes.
State law or regulatory provision governing the conditions under which a licensed professional engineer may apply their professional seal to engineering documents, including requirements for responsible charge, review, and accuracy of sealed work.
[LegalResource] Legal framework constraining professional practice
Documented report to the appropriate federal or state environmental authority describing the observed violation, made within a reasonable time after discovery.
Engineer A is an environmental engineer.
Failure to report a known, substantial environmental law violation by a former client may result in professional discipline and ongoing harm to protected environmental resources.
The existing Post-Termination Environmental Risk Reporting Obligation is the closest match, covering the duty to report environmental risks to a pollution-control authority after termination of the client relationship. This class adds the dimension of specialized environmental engineering knowledge as the basis for recognizing and reporting the violation, but the core reporting duty is the same. Treated as a variant of the existing class.
Post-Termination Environmental Risk Reporting Obligation
Duty of an engineer with specialized knowledge of environmental law and regulation who discovers a substantial violation of those laws to report the violation to the appropriate federal or state regulatory authority, drawing on that specialized knowledge to recognize the severity and legal significance of the observed conduct.
[PostTermEnvRiskReportingObligation] Duty of an engineer to report environmental risks to a pollution-control authority after termination of the client relationship when the risk rises to a public-safety concern (NSPE Code §I.1, §II.1.a, §II.1.c). Derived from the paramount public-welfare principle.
Engineer A was a principal in an environmental engineering firm and was requested by a developer client to prepare an analysis of a piece of property adjacent to a wetlands area
Engineer Doe to perform consulting engineering services and submit a detailed report
Environmental Consulting Engineer is a specialization of Engineer Role with a specific focus on environmental analysis and reporting obligations. The existing Environmental Engineer class from prior extractions is close but that class emphasizes contaminant analysis and groundwater monitoring infrastructure design, whereas this role centers on environmental impact analysis and disclosure obligations in a consulting context. Matching to the parent Engineer Role at medium confidence.
A professional engineering role in which the practitioner is engaged by a client to perform environmental analysis, prepare technical reports on environmental conditions or risks, and provide findings to clients and public authorities, bearing professional obligations of objectivity, completeness, and truthful disclosure of all relevant facts in written reports.
[EngineerRole] A professional role involving engineering practice and responsibilities. Occupational archetype head for all engineer specializations and extracted engineer-role leaves.
Engineer Doe had an obligation to report his findings to the Pollution Control Authority
Engineer Doe verbally reported to XYZ that their discharge will lower the water quality in the receiving body of water below standards
they hired Engineer Doe to perform consulting engineering services and submit a detailed report
A licensed professional engineering role in which the practitioner is retained by a manufacturing or industrial client to perform consulting engineering services related to environmental discharge, prepare detailed technical reports on discharge impacts relative to water quality standards, and bear professional obligations to report findings truthfully to regulatory authorities even when the client instructs suppression of the written report.
Open-textured value requiring interpretation of what constitutes a reportable violation, what threshold of severity triggers disclosure obligations, and how the engineer's prior service relationship affects those obligations.
Assess whether observed conduct constitutes a violation of federal or state environmental law
Disclose the violation to appropriate regulatory authorities when public welfare requires it
Evaluate whether the violation poses ongoing or irreversible harm to protected resources
Refrain from assisting the client in concealing or perpetuating the violation
Engineer discovers unpermitted wetland fill by former client and must determine disclosure obligations
Environmental engineer observes illegal discharge by client during site visit for unrelated services
Requires environmental engineers to assess whether observed client conduct violates applicable law, evaluate the severity and ongoing nature of the violation, and determine whether disclosure to regulatory authorities is required to protect public welfare.
Client confidentiality obligations arising from the prior service relationship
the client has installed a substantial amount of fill material on more than 1/2 an acre across a portion of the wetlands without any permits, variances, or permissions
Environmental laws protecting wetlands and public resources exist to safeguard ecosystems and the public interest; engineers with specialized knowledge who observe violations are positioned to prevent ongoing harm.
Domain-specific principle requiring engineers engaged in environmental practice to recognize, and take appropriate action upon, client conduct that constitutes a substantial violation of federal or state environmental laws and regulations, even when that conduct is discovered incidentally after the engineer's contracted services have concluded.
[Case 8] Domain-specific principle requiring engineers engaged in environmental practice to recognize, and take appropriate action upon, client conduct that constitutes a substantial violation of applicable environmental laws and regulations, even when the client resists compliance or defers remediation.
Environmental Risk Quantification Obligation
Documented evidence that the engineer completed or documented the status of risk quantification work before suspending the engagement, or communicated the unquantified risk with appropriate caveats.
But before Engineer L can quantify the increased risk, Client X encounters unexpected financial setbacks and requests that Engineer L suspend work identified in the original contract.
Part of Engineer L's scope of work for Client X includes ensuring that stormwater from the new development will not impact this primary drinking water source for the community.
Failure to quantify identified risks before suspension leaves the client and public without the information needed to make protective decisions, potentially allowing preventable harm to occur.
Duty of an engineer whose scope of work includes environmental protection to conduct sufficient analysis to quantify or adequately characterize identified environmental risks before suspending or concluding work, so that the client and relevant authorities have actionable information about the nature and magnitude of the risk.
Environmental Violation Reporting Constraint
Act promptly given the ongoing nature of environmental harm from unpermitted fill
Document the observed violation with sufficient specificity to enable regulatory response
Report the violation to the appropriate federal agency such as the Army Corps of Engineers and the relevant state environmental agency
Failure to report allows ongoing destruction of protected environmental resources, exposes the engineer to professional discipline, and violates the paramount duty to protect public welfare.
Regulatory and ethical constraint requiring an engineer with specialized knowledge of environmental law and regulation who observes or discovers a confirmed violation of federal or state environmental statutes to report that violation to the appropriate regulatory authority. The engineer's specialized competence creates a heightened duty to act because the engineer can recognize the significance of the violation and the harm it causes to protected resources.
Document all equipment failures contemporaneously during testing
Include equipment failure disclosures in the body of the report
Qualify conclusions that depend on data collected with failed equipment
The geotechnical consultant testified and showed that dynamic test equipment had failed during the test.
Misleading report, invalid conclusions, professional discipline, unjust dispute outcomes
No existing constraint class in the ontology addresses the specific requirement to disclose equipment failures in a technical report. This is a distinct procedural constraint not captured by the broader scope limitation or contradictory evidence classes.
Requirement that an engineer preparing a technical report disclose any equipment failures or malfunctions that occurred during testing or data collection and that could affect the validity or interpretation of the reported results.
Error Acknowledgment Cooperation Obligation
Evidence that the engineer provided access to design documents, responded to reviewer inquiries, and did not obstruct the review process
Under the facts, the Board concludes that it would be unethical for Engineer A to fail to cooperate.
Finding of unethical conduct; potential disciplinary action; risk to public safety from uncorrected errors
This obligation is a contextual extension of the Error Acknowledgment class, adding the cooperation-with-corrective-process dimension that the base class does not fully capture. It is a medium-confidence match to the existing class, with the cooperation element as the distinguishing qualifier.
Duty of an engineer to acknowledge errors in their prior work and to cooperate with corrective processes, including peer review, rather than obstructing those processes to protect personal or reputational interests.
Apply analytical methods consistently regardless of outcome
Decline engagement if client demands biased conclusions
Disclose all material evidence including evidence adverse to the retaining client
Engineer B did not state anywhere in the report that these 19 piles, according to the pile driving records, had been driven to essential refusal.
Engineer B's concluding report stated that approximately 19 of the 90 piles did not meet the safety factor required by the design calculations.
Misleading tribunal, professional discipline, loss of credibility, unjust dispute outcome
No existing constraint class in the ontology captures the hard ethical prohibition on expert bias. The obligation-side Expert Witness Neutrality Obligation is a duty; this is the inviolable boundary on permissible expert conduct.
Prohibition on an engineer retained as an expert witness or technical investigator orienting findings toward a client's litigation position, requiring objective presentation of all material evidence regardless of adversarial context.
Report and testimony present all material evidence, including evidence unfavorable to the retaining party, and apply methods consistently
Professional discipline; testimony may be excluded or discredited; potential sanctions by court
Duty of an engineer retained as an expert witness or technical investigator in litigation to present findings objectively, apply analytical methods consistently, and not omit material evidence that contradicts the retaining party's position.
Retained professional engineers acting as expert witnesses
Provides authoritative technical findings and professional opinions that ground factual determinations in disputes, establishing the evidentiary basis on which legal and ethical judgments are made.
A formal written report prepared by a retained expert witness for use in litigation, mediation, or dispute resolution, presenting technical findings, opinions, and conclusions on matters within the expert's professional competence. Such reports carry professional accountability obligations and serve as primary evidentiary knowledge sources in legal and quasi-legal proceedings.
Expertise-Calibrated Disclosure Capability
Professional engineering contexts where the engineer's level of domain expertise in the relevant technical area determines the appropriate threshold and form of disclosure
Assess one's own level of domain expertise relative to the technical issue at hand
Calibrate disclosure urgency and formality to the strength of the evidentiary basis
Determine whether expertise is sufficient to treat an observation as a confirmed finding
Distinguish between situations requiring immediate disclosure and those requiring further verification
Expertise-Calibrated Disclosure Obligation
Speculative Finding Exclusion Obligation
Because Engineer A had domain expertise in wetland delineation and environmental law, Engineer A was obligated to disclose the observed wetland fill
In contrast, the facts in the present case indicate a violation of the federal and state laws and regulations.
the engineer in BER Case No. 89-7 did not have any particular expertise in the technical areas (mechanical, electrical) involved in the matter at issue. Taken together, it would be reasonable for an engineer under those circumstances to act in a deliberate and cautious manner before taking any action.
Concern Versus Fact Threshold Capability addresses calibrating disclosure obligations based on whether a concern has been substantiated. The expertise-calibrated disclosure concept is related but adds a distinct dimension: the engineer's own level of domain expertise modulates the threshold at which an observation becomes a reportable fact. This is a variant of the existing class rather than an identical match, because the existing class focuses on the evidentiary status of the finding while this capability focuses on how the engineer's expertise level affects that determination.
Concern Versus Fact Threshold Capability
Capability to calibrate the form, urgency, and content of professional disclosures about potential violations or risks according to the depth of the engineer's domain expertise in the relevant technical area, recognizing that greater expertise reduces the threshold for treating an observation as an established fact warranting disclosure and that lesser expertise requires more caution before making formal assertions.
[ConcernVersusFactThresholdCapability] Capability to distinguish between a preliminary professional concern that has not yet been substantiated by technical analysis and a finding that rises to the level of a demonstrable fact, and to calibrate disclosure obligations accordingly so that neither premature disclosure of unsubstantiated concerns nor suppression of confirmed findings occurs.
Disclosure content and form are consistent with the engineer's documented expertise in the relevant discipline and with the evidentiary basis for the concern.
Engineer A's evaluation was based upon general surmise and speculation about the cause of the structural failure of the wall, based entirely upon a visual inspection without anything more. In addition, as in BER Case No. 89-7, there was nothing noted in the facts to indicate that Engineer A had expertise in the specific discipline involved.
In addition, the engineer in BER Case No. 89-7 did not have any particular expertise in the technical areas (mechanical, electrical) involved in the matter at issue.
Those two cases involved a different set of factors that created a reasonable basis for an engineer to take a more measured approach to the situation.
Failure to calibrate disclosures to expertise level may result in either under-disclosure of known violations by domain experts or over-disclosure of speculative findings by non-experts, both of which breach professional standards.
This obligation overlaps substantially with the Concern Versus Fact Disclosure Threshold Obligation, which addresses the distinction between preliminary concerns and established facts as the trigger for mandatory disclosure. The expertise-calibration dimension adds a further nuance not fully captured by that class, but the core concept of calibrating disclosure to the evidentiary and competence basis is closely related, warranting a medium-confidence match.
Concern Versus Fact Disclosure Threshold Obligation
Duty of an engineer to calibrate the form, content, and urgency of disclosures about potential violations or risks to the engineer's actual level of expertise in the relevant technical discipline, disclosing with greater directness and specificity when the engineer has domain expertise, and with greater caution and qualification when the engineer lacks expertise in the specific discipline involved.
[ConcernVersusFactDisclosureThresholdObligation] Duty of an engineer to distinguish between a preliminary concern that has not yet been substantiated by technical analysis and a finding that constitutes a technical fact, and to recognize that mandatory disclosure obligations under Code section II.3.b are triggered only when the engineer's assessment rises to the level of fact rather than unverified concern, while acknowledging that prudent voluntary disclosure of concerns may nonetheless be appropriate.
Expertise Calibrated Disclosure Constraint
Assess own domain expertise before characterizing a finding as speculative versus confirmed
Contact client promptly when specialized knowledge confirms a violation
In BER Case No. 89-7, for example, the facts revealed that the client had confided in the engineer and may have relied upon the engineer to maintain the information in confidence. In addition, the engineer in BER Case No. 89-7 did not have any particular expertise in the technical areas (mechanical, electrical) involved in the matter at issue.
Similarly, in BER Case No. 97-13, the engineer's evaluation was based upon general surmise and speculation about the cause of the structural failure of the wall, based entirely upon a visual inspection without anything more. In addition, as in BER Case No. 89-7, there was nothing noted in the facts to indicate that Engineer A had expertise in the specific discipline involved.
Failure to disclose a confirmed violation that the engineer was competent to recognize, resulting in ongoing environmental harm and regulatory non-compliance.
The existing Concern Versus Fact Disclosure Constraint captures the core idea that only findings reaching the level of established fact trigger mandatory disclosure, while preliminary concerns do not. The present constraint adds the dimension that domain expertise determines whether an observation constitutes a confirmed fact or mere speculation, which is a variant of the same concept rather than a wholly new class. Medium confidence match because the expertise-calibration angle is a meaningful elaboration but the parent class is the closest existing match.
Constraint requiring that an engineer's duty to disclose a potential violation or risk to public health, safety, or the environment is calibrated to the engineer's actual domain expertise. When an engineer possesses specialized competence in the relevant technical or regulatory area, an observation that would constitute mere speculation for a generalist rises to the level of a confirmed finding that triggers mandatory disclosure obligations. The engineer may not treat a confirmed violation as speculative simply because disclosure is inconvenient.
Fact-Based Disclosure Threshold Principle
The boundary between a preliminary concern and a technical fact is inherently judgment-dependent and context-sensitive, requiring engineers to assess the state of their own analysis and the degree of confidence warranted by available evidence before characterizing findings as facts requiring mandatory disclosure.
Assess the technical basis of concerns before treating them as facts requiring mandatory disclosure
Consider prudential disclosure of preliminary concerns even when not strictly required
Disclose confirmed technical findings to clients and relevant authorities
BER Case 07-6: information about threat to bird species constituted a fact requiring written disclosure in a public report
BER Case 99-8: incomplete drawings and specifications constituted facts requiring disclosure
Present case: Engineer L's initial concern about stormwater risk did not rise to the level of fact during the first project phase, but identification of runoff risk during the second phase did constitute fact triggering disclosure obligation
Requires engineers to assess the technical basis of their concerns before characterizing them as facts, to disclose confirmed findings promptly, and to exercise judgment about whether prudential disclosure of preliminary concerns is appropriate even when not required.
Engineer L is concerned about increased risk over time, but has not developed their work to a point where they can assess risks of potential stormwater runoff resulting from the new development. Thus, Engineer L's concern does not rise to the technical or moral level of fact.
Engineer L's identification of runoff risk is now fact.
The key point of BER Case 07-6 is that information about the threat to the bird species is a fact of the case.
per Code section II.3.b, engineers may express publicly technical opinions that are founded upon knowledge of the facts
Professional credibility and public trust depend on engineers distinguishing between verified findings and preliminary concerns, avoiding both premature alarm and suppression of confirmed risks.
Professional integrity principle establishing that an engineer's obligation to disclose concerns about project risks to clients, authorities, or the public is triggered when those concerns have reached the level of established technical fact, not merely preliminary concern or unverified suspicion. Below the threshold of fact, disclosure may be prudent but is not ethically required; at or above that threshold, disclosure becomes a professional obligation.
Investigation record documents contacts made with on-site personnel, contractors, and other witnesses; gaps in outreach are explained.
Engineer B's failure to inquire from the contractor, workers or others on the job is a failure of fact gathering diligence.
It is clear that Engineer B may be criticized for his failure to communicate with Engineer A's on-site representative.
Conclusions rest on incomplete factual foundation; investigation fails professional standard of diligence; findings may be professionally indefensible.
This is a variant of the existing Investigative Completeness Obligation. The existing class covers pursuing all reasonable lines of inquiry and consulting available witnesses and records. This individual instantiation emphasizes the specific sub-duty to contact on-site workers and contractors, which is a concrete application of the same parent obligation rather than a genuinely new concept. Confidence is medium because the existing class already covers witness consultation but does not foreground the contractor and worker outreach dimension as explicitly.
Duty of an engineer conducting a technical investigation to make reasonable efforts to gather all available facts, including consulting contractors, workers, on-site personnel, and other witnesses who have direct knowledge of the work under investigation, rather than limiting inquiry to sources favorable to the retaining party.
Failure to Consult Available Sources State
Professional must not dismiss available records without stated technical justification
Professional must not issue conclusions without reasonable investigation of available sources
Knowledgeable parties or records are available and accessible
Professional declines to consult those sources
Professional is conducting a review or investigation
The unconsulted sources would be material to the professional's conclusions
Duty to consult available knowledgeable parties
Duty to seek out material information before issuing conclusions
Transforms the general duty of objectivity and thoroughness into a specific obligation to actively seek out and consider available material information before issuing professional conclusions.
Professional consults the available sources
Report is supplemented with findings from those sources
At no time during the development of Engineer B's report did Engineer B talk to any representative of Engineer A, even though Engineer A's on-site representatives were available to testify as to the accuracy of the pile driving records.
No effort was made by Engineer B to inquire from contractors, workers, or others on the job to verify or refute his theories about why the 19 piles met driving refusal prior to predicted depth.
State in which a professional conducting a review or investigation declines to consult available witnesses, records, or knowledgeable parties whose input would be material to the accuracy and completeness of the professional's conclusions, creating a condition of avoidable epistemic incompleteness and a breach of the duty of due diligence.
Professional engineering client service and ethical boundary judgment
Articulate the professional basis for refusing client instructions that compromise public safety obligations
Identify when client instructions to proceed without protective measures exceed the limits of professional loyalty
Serve the client's legitimate development interests while refusing to omit material safety findings
Client Boundary Judgment Capability is defined as the ability to distinguish between serving a client's legitimate interests and complying with requests that would require omitting material technical evidence or compromising professional integrity, and to act accordingly. This maps closely to the faithful agent boundary capability required in this case. The match is high confidence.
Capability to distinguish between serving a client's legitimate interests and complying with client instructions that would require omitting material safety findings, continuing work without required safeguards, or otherwise compromising professional integrity, and to act accordingly by refusing instructions that cross that boundary while continuing to serve legitimate client interests.
[ClientBoundaryJudgmentCapability] Ability to distinguish between serving a client's legitimate interests and complying with requests that would require omitting material technical evidence or compromising professional integrity, and to act accordingly.
Decline client instructions that require crossing the faithful agent boundary
Disclose the boundary to clients at the outset of engagements
Serve client interests within the boundaries set by public safety obligations
The BER noted an engineer's obligation is to act for each client or employer as a faithful agent or trustee.
The present case illustrates a conflict between Fundamental Canon I.1, the engineer's obligation to hold paramount the safety, health and welfare of the public; and Canon I.4, the engineer's obligation to act for each employer or client as a faithful agent or trustee.
Under Fundamental Canon I.4, Engineer L has an affirmative obligation to act as the client's faithful agent or trustee. When asked in good faith to stop the design work, in the absence of facts to the contrary, there is no reason for Engineer L not to respect the client's request.
Engineer violates paramount public safety duty while nominally fulfilling client service role; public exposed to unmitigated risk; professional ethics violation.
The Client Advocacy Boundary Constraint in the ontology captures the concept of a boundary on client service obligations, specifically the prohibition on crossing from legitimate client advocacy into suppression of material technical evidence. The faithful agent boundary concept in this case is a close variant: the faithful agent duty is bounded by the public safety paramount obligation. The match is at medium-high confidence because the ontology class is framed around expert or advocacy contexts while this case frames it as a general faithful agent limit.
Ethical constraint establishing that an engineer's duty to act as a faithful agent or trustee for a client is bounded by the paramount obligation to protect public health, safety, and welfare. The faithful agent duty does not extend to following client instructions that require omitting material safety findings, continuing work on projects with unmitigated public risks, or otherwise subordinating public welfare to client interests.
[ClientAdvocacyBoundaryConstraint] Prohibition on an engineer acting as a retained expert or agent crossing from legitimate advocacy of a client's position into suppression or omission of material technical evidence, marking the boundary between permissible client service and professional misconduct.
Faithful Agent Boundary Judgment Capability
Professional engineering practice across client engagement contexts
Articulate the professional basis for refusing client instructions that exceed ethical limits
Balance the faithful agent duty against the paramount public safety duty
Continue serving legitimate client interests while refusing instructions that compromise public safety
Identify when client instructions cross the boundary from legitimate direction to impermissible pressure
in the absence of facts to the contrary, there is no reason for Engineer L not to respect the client's request
The ontology contains Client Boundary Judgment Capability, defined as the ability to distinguish between serving a client's legitimate interests and complying with requests that would require omitting material technical evidence or compromising professional integrity. This maps directly to the faithful agent versus public safety tension analyzed throughout the case. It also appears in the prior-sections list as Faithful Agent Boundary Capability matched to this ontology class.
Capability to distinguish between serving a client's legitimate interests and complying with requests that would require omitting material technical evidence or compromising professional integrity, and to act accordingly.
Expert reports and testimony are complete, accurate, and do not omit material evidence regardless of its effect on the retaining party's position
Engineer B's duty as the municipality's retained expert did not extend to omitting material technical evidence from the report or declining to consult available witnesses.
Engineer B, retained by the municipality in litigation against Engineer A, produced a report that relied exclusively on depth-of-penetration analysis while omitting wave equation results and pile driving record data that contradicted the report's conclusions.
Professional discipline; potential liability; findings discredited
Duty of an engineer acting as agent or retained expert for a client to serve the client's legitimate interests while refusing to omit material technical evidence, misrepresent findings, or act in ways that violate professional ethics, even when the client's litigation position would benefit from such omissions.
[Case 8] Duty of an engineer acting as agent or retained expert for a client to serve the client's legitimate interests while refusing to omit material technical evidence, misrepresent findings, or act in ways that violate professional ethics, even when the client's position would benefit from such omissions.
The scope of faithful agency is context-dependent and requires interpretation of what constitutes a legitimate client interest versus an instruction that crosses ethical limits. The principle gains meaning through cases that define its outer boundaries.
Follow client instructions when no ethical obligation compels otherwise
Refuse client instructions that require suppression of safety-relevant findings
Respect client requests to suspend work in the absence of known safety facts
BER Case 76-4: Engineer Doe's duty as faithful agent to XYZ Corporation did not extend to suppressing findings about water quality degradation
BER Case 84-5: Engineer A's duty to client did not justify continuing a project after refusing safety measures
Present case: Engineer L's duty to Client X did not require continuing work without protective stormwater measures
Requires engineers to follow client directions within ethical limits, respect client requests to pause or redirect work when no safety facts compel otherwise, and treat client information with appropriate discretion, while refusing instructions that require suppression of safety findings or creation of unmitigated public risk.
Canon I.4, Engineer L has an affirmative obligation to act as the client's faithful agent or trustee.
When asked in good faith to stop the design work, in the absence of facts to the contrary, there is no reason for Engineer L not to respect the client's request.
Within this environmental framework, the present case illustrates a conflict between Fundamental Canon I.1, the engineer's obligation to hold paramount the safety, health and welfare of the public; and Canon I.4, the engineer's obligation to act for each employer or client as a faithful agent or trustee.
Professional relationships require trust and loyalty to function, and clients must be able to rely on engineers to advance their interests competently and honestly. However, this relational trust cannot be weaponized against the public.
The faithful agent or trustee duty is a specific engineering-context expression of the Loyalty principle in the ontology. The existing Loyalty class covers the general concept of professional loyalty to clients and employers. The present principle adds the engineering-specific framing of Canon I.4 and the explicit subordination to public welfare, making it a variant rather than an exact match.
Relational principle establishing that an engineer owes a duty of loyalty to each client or employer, acting as a faithful agent or trustee in advancing the client's legitimate interests. This duty is a genuine professional obligation but is subordinate to the engineer's paramount duty to public welfare and does not authorize compliance with client instructions that suppress safety-relevant findings or create unmitigated public risk.
A licensed professional engineering role within a federal funding agency in which the practitioner reviews, approves, and seals engineering drawings and specifications submitted by a design engineer as a condition of federal project funding, bearing professional accountability for the adequacy of that approval.
Federal Grant Project Requirement Resource
Establishes the regulatory and procedural framework within which federally funded engineering projects must operate, including approval authority and funding constraints.
approved by Engineer B of the engineering staff of the federal agency funding the project
Cost overrun and funding adequacy determinations
Federal agency requirements and conditions attached to grant-funded public infrastructure projects, including review and approval procedures for engineering documents and constraints on the use of federal funds.
Federal Wetland Protection Regulation Resource
Federal regulatory agencies including the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Establishes the legal floor defining what constitutes a violation and grounds the engineer's professional obligation to respond when a violation is observed
installation of the fill material is a substantial violation of the federal and state laws and regulations
The existing Environmental Protection Regulation Resource class covers local, state, or jurisdictional regulations for safeguarding public water sources and controlling stormwater runoff. Federal wetland fill prohibition regulations are a closely related but distinct category covering a broader federal statutory framework. Matching as a variant with medium confidence, as the existing class does not explicitly address federal wetland fill permitting statutes such as Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.
Environmental Protection Regulation Resource
Federal statutes and implementing regulations governing the protection of wetland areas, including prohibitions on the placement of fill material in jurisdictional wetlands without required permits, variances, or authorizations. These regulations establish binding legal obligations on property owners and inform the professional duties of engineers who perform services on regulated wetland sites.
[EnvironmentalProtectionRegulationResource] Local, state, or jurisdictional regulations specifying mandatory environmental protection requirements, including standards for safeguarding public water sources and controlling stormwater runoff impacts on natural water bodies.
Original field notes are retained intact and unaltered; any supplemental annotations are clearly dated and distinguished from original entries.
Engineer A stated that he would retain the information from his engineering notes but not include it in the final report, as requested.
However, under no circumstance would it be appropriate for Engineer A to alter his field notes.
Alteration or destruction of field notes constitutes a breach of professional integrity and may obstruct future investigations or corrective actions that depend on accurate contemporaneous records.
Duty of an engineer to preserve and retain field notes, engineering notes, and other contemporaneous records of observations made during professional services, even when those observations are not included in a formal report, and to refrain from altering those notes.
Formal Authority Notification Required State
Formal presentation must be made regardless of client consent
Informal or verbal contact with authorities does not satisfy the formal notification obligation
Client or governing body has overruled the engineer's safety recommendations
Engineer has confirmed a public safety risk
Informal or preliminary contact with authorities has occurred but formal presentation has not yet been made
Duty to advise client formally that the project will not be successful if safety is not addressed
Duty to further pursue the matter if formal presentations fail to produce corrective action
Duty to present facts, findings, and recommendations formally in writing to regulatory agencies
Transforms the general duty to report safety concerns into a specific procedural obligation requiring formal written communication to authorities, distinguishing mere contact from a complete formal presentation of professional findings.
Engineer withdraws from engagement after completing notification duties
Formal written presentation of findings and recommendations has been delivered to all appropriate authorities
It appears that the state regulatory agency has been contacted; however, there should be a formal presentation of the facts, findings, and recommendations.
The formal presentations satisfy Engineer A's and Engineer B's duty to report.
this advisement should proceed in a formal manner
State in which a professional engineer has identified a public safety risk, has had recommendations overruled by a client or governing body, and is now obligated to make a formal written presentation of findings and recommendations to one or more regulatory or governmental authorities, as distinguished from informal or verbal communication, in order to satisfy the duty to report under applicable professional codes.
Requires judgment about what constitutes a sufficiently formal presentation in a given regulatory context, and about which authorities are appropriate recipients of the formal presentation.
Ensure the formal presentation is sufficient to enable the authority to act
Identify and contact all appropriate regulatory authorities
Prepare a formal written presentation of facts, findings, and recommendations
BER Case No. 19-10 requiring Engineer A to contact supervisors, fire marshals, or agencies with jurisdiction in writing
BER Case No. 89-7 establishing that failure to report safety violations to appropriate public authorities is unethical
Requires engineers to prepare and deliver a formal written presentation of facts, findings, and recommendations to the state regulatory agency or other appropriate authority, going beyond any prior informal contact.
Again, as with the state regulatory agency, this advisement should proceed in a formal manner.
Informal contact with authorities may fail to trigger regulatory action or create an adequate record; the public interest requires that safety concerns be communicated in a way that compels attention and preserves accountability.
Professional principle requiring engineers whose safety recommendations have been overruled to present their findings, facts, and recommendations to appropriate regulatory or governmental authorities in a formal manner, not merely through informal contact, so that the presentation creates a clear record and gives the authority sufficient information to act. Informal prior contact with an authority does not satisfy this obligation; a structured formal presentation is required.
Coordinate with co-engineers to ensure formal presentations are consistent and mutually reinforcing
Document all prior informal contacts and supplement them with formal written submissions
Prepare a formal written report of findings and recommendations for submission to the regulatory authority
Regulatory authorities lack the complete factual record needed to act, public health risk persists without adequate official response, engineer fails to meet professional ethics obligations.
The Verbal Only Report Constraint addresses the prohibition on treating verbal or informal communication as a substitute for a written report submitted to a public authority. The present constraint is a variant that applies specifically to regulatory escalation after a client override, requiring formal written presentation rather than informal contact. The core concept is the same but the context is escalation rather than initial reporting, so a medium-confidence variant match is appropriate.
Procedural and ethical constraint requiring that when an engineer has identified a public health or safety risk and has had professional recommendations overruled by a client or governing body, any notification to regulatory authorities must take the form of a formal written presentation of facts, findings, and recommendations, rather than informal contact or verbal communication alone. Informal prior contact with a regulatory agency does not satisfy this obligation.
[VerbalOnlyReportConstraint] Ethical and procedural constraint prohibiting an engineer from treating a verbal communication of a material technical finding as a substitute for including that finding in a written report submitted to a public authority or other relying party. The finding must appear in the written record so that the public authority receives complete and accurate information.
Formal Project Failure Notification Obligation
Documented written communication to the client stating that the project will not achieve safe outcomes without implementation of the recommended measures.
If project success is defined as 'the public will not be endangered at all,' then Engineers A and B should advise their client that they believe the project will not be successful.
Failure to formally advise the client of predicted project failure deprives the client of a documented professional judgment and may leave the engineer without a record of having fulfilled the notification duty.
The existing Project Success Notification Obligation captures the general duty to advise a client when a project will not be successful. This class adds the specific requirement that the notification be formal and documented, which is a meaningful variant warranting a distinct class label while still being closely related to the existing concept.
Duty of an engineer to advise a client formally, in writing, that the project will not be successful as defined by public safety outcomes, when the client has overruled safety recommendations whose implementation is necessary to prevent public harm, so that the client has a documented formal notice of the engineer's professional judgment before proceeding.
[ProjectSuccessNotificationObligation] Duty of an engineer to advise a client or employer when, in the engineer's professional judgment, a project will not be successful, including when success is threatened by the absence of safety measures the client has declined to implement, so that the client has the opportunity to reconsider before the engineer is placed in a position of ethical conflict.
Formal Regulatory Presentation Capability
Public health and safety engineering with regulatory interface
Distinguish between informal contact and a formal regulatory presentation
Organize facts, findings, and recommendations in a format suitable for regulatory review
Prepare a formal written or oral presentation of technical findings for a regulatory agency
Engineers A B Formal Regulatory Presentation
Formal Regulatory Presentation Obligation
Regulatory Authority Presentation Obligation
Engineers A and B are required to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public, and as this duty is a fundamental canon of the NSPE Code of Ethics, the consent of the MWC is not required.
there should be a formal presentation of the facts, findings, and recommendations
Safety Disclosure Escalation Capability covers recognizing when internal resolution has failed and escalating to regulatory authorities. The present capability is more specific in requiring the ability to prepare and deliver a formal structured presentation to a regulatory body, which is a distinct communicative and procedural competency beyond merely deciding to escalate. It is a variant warranting medium-confidence match.
Capability to prepare and deliver a formal, structured presentation of professional facts, findings, and recommendations to a state or regulatory authority, as distinguished from an informal contact or preliminary notification, including the ability to determine when formality is required and to organize technical content in a manner appropriate for a regulatory audience.
[SafetyDisclosureEscalationCapability] Capability to recognize when internal resolution of a safety concern has failed and to escalate disclosure to appropriate regulatory authorities, including the ability to sequence escalation steps correctly by first advising the responsible engineer before notifying authorities.
Documented evidence of a formal written or in-person presentation of technical findings and recommendations to the appropriate regulatory authority.
Failure to formally present findings leaves the regulatory authority without a complete record and may result in continued endangerment of public health and safety.
The existing class captures the duty to report to regulatory authorities when a client overrides safety recommendations, but this obligation adds the specific requirement that the report take the form of a formal presentation rather than informal contact, making it a meaningful variant rather than an exact match.
Duty of an engineer whose professional recommendations have been overruled by a client or governing body to make a formal presentation of facts, findings, and recommendations to the appropriate state or federal regulatory authority, rather than relying on informal prior contact, so that the authority has a complete and documented basis for exercising its oversight function.
Decline to provide free engineering services when a paid engagement is anticipated
Disclose the conflict and withdraw from the advisory role before providing any services
Provide only informal referrals to publicly available resources rather than substantive engineering analysis
by providing only a partial, comparative engineering evaluation with no analysis and a recommendation to Engineer A's benefit, the conduct constituted both incomplete and self-serving information and the extension of free services. Both aspects of the conduct were unethical in the view of the BER.
not offer any gift or other valuable consideration in order to secure work
Unfair competitive advantage, corruption of client decision-making, violation of professional ethics codes prohibiting gifts or consideration to secure work.
Ethical constraint prohibiting an engineer from extending free or donated professional services to a prospective client as a mechanism to position for or secure subsequent paid work, because such conduct constitutes an improper gift or valuable consideration offered in exchange for future engagement.
Evidence that the engineer acknowledged and accepted professional responsibility for the sealed documents and did not attempt to attribute deficiencies to subordinates or tools
In either case, we are not of the view that an engineer must personally prepare the drawings, plans and other documents involved.
Ethical violation under NSPE II.2.b; professional liability; potential license discipline if the engineer attempts to disclaim responsibility for sealed documents
The existing Responsible Charge Verification Obligation covers the duty to conduct comprehensive verification before sealing. The present obligation emphasizes the assumption of full professional responsibility as a condition of sealing, which is a related but distinct emphasis on accountability rather than verification process. Matched as a variant at medium confidence.
Duty of a licensed engineer who seals documents prepared by others under the engineer's responsible charge to assume full professional responsibility for the work product, including accountability for any errors, deficiencies, or failures in those documents, as a condition of exercising the sealing authority.
Public infrastructure project delivery advisory services involving federally or agency-restricted funding sources
Communicate funding constraints accurately to non-engineer clients
Identify funding-agency-approved delivery methods
Recognize funding-imposed restrictions such as entity separation requirements
Funding Constraint Disclosure Obligation
City B's City Administrator asked Engineer A for a recommendation on project delivery methods for their upcoming wastewater system improvements project using a specific funding source
Under the proposed funding source, there are four approved project delivery methods
if Construction Manager at Risk is selected by the owner, City B, the funding agency requires the Construction Manager at Risk firm and the Engineer of Record be two distinct entities
Capability to identify, interpret, and communicate constraints imposed by a specific funding source on available project delivery or procurement options, including the ability to recognize when funding rules restrict the option set or impose conditions on particular delivery methods.
Advisory work product identifies and accurately describes all funding-source constraints applicable to each delivery method option
Additionally, if Construction Manager at Risk is selected by the owner, City B, the funding agency requires the Construction Manager at Risk firm and the Engineer of Record be two distinct entities.
Client selects a delivery method without understanding funding constraints, leading to compliance failures or loss of funding
Duty of an engineer advising a client on project delivery or procurement options under a specific funding source to accurately and completely disclose all constraints, requirements, and conditions imposed by that funding source that affect the available options, including any requirements that restrict how certain delivery methods may be structured.
Assess skin friction and end-bearing contributions to pile capacity
Evaluate pile set-up strength gain over time
Interpret pile driving records and blow count data
Perform wave equation analysis on pile driving data
Applying accepted wave equation calculations, the piles would have indicated a strength several multiples over the calculated load requirements.
Engineer B's concluding report stated that approximately 19 of the 90 piles did not meet the safety factor required by the design calculations. This opinion was based upon the fact that the nineteen piles did not reach sufficient depth to develop the full strength when applying skin friction resistance value to the square footage of pile penetration.
The increase in set up strength with time was confirmed.
No existing capability class covers technical geotechnical engineering competency including pile capacity analysis and wave equation methods.
Technical competency in geotechnical engineering methods including pile capacity analysis, wave equation calculations, skin friction assessment, and interpretation of pile driving records.
Geotechnical Investigation Report Resource
Licensed geotechnical engineering firms retained for subsurface investigation
Grounds foundation design decisions in documented subsurface data and professional geotechnical judgment, providing the technical basis for design parameters such as anticipated pile set-up strength.
Engineer A testified that the geotechnical firm's report expected that the piles would gain sufficient additional strength within 30 days to meet driving resistance requirements.
A formal report produced by a geotechnical engineering firm documenting subsurface investigation findings, soil properties, and design recommendations for foundation systems. Such reports provide the technical basis for pile design parameters including expected strength gain over time and serve as primary reference documents throughout construction and dispute resolution.
Retained geotechnical engineering consultants and testing firms
Provides empirical grounding for assessments of foundation design adequacy and serves as a primary evidentiary artifact in professional and legal disputes over structural performance.
A formal engineering report documenting the results of geotechnical field testing, such as pile load tests or dynamic testing, including methodology, equipment performance, and conclusions about soil or foundation behavior. Such reports serve as technical evidence in disputes and as professional knowledge sources grounding design adequacy determinations.
Contact client first upon discovering a confirmed violation
Report to authorities only if client fails to take adequate steps
Set a reasonable timeframe for client remediation
for Engineer A to have reported this information to a public authority under the circumstances as outlined in the facts, before determining whether corrective action is taken, would have been an overreaction and could easily have risked jeopardizing the professional reputations of his client and the public agency.
Either premature regulatory escalation that damages client interests unnecessarily, or failure to escalate when the client does not remediate, leaving the public harm unaddressed.
Ethical and procedural constraint establishing that an engineer who discovers a client's confirmed violation of law or regulation must follow a graduated sequence of responses: first contacting the client directly, then monitoring remediation, and only then escalating to regulatory authorities if the client fails to act. The engineer may not skip directly to regulatory reporting without first giving the client an opportunity to remedy the violation, nor may the engineer stop at client contact without following through to verify compliance.
Requires judgment about where a given situation falls on a spectrum from mere speculation to established fact, and what level of response that position on the spectrum demands.
Avoid premature public disclosure that could harm parties without adequate basis
Begin response at the level of client notification
Escalate to regulatory authorities only when client fails to act or threat is immediate
NSPE BER Case 97-13 holding that reporting to public authority before determining whether corrective action is taken would have been an overreaction when the engineer's basis was mere visual speculation
NSPE BER current case distinguishing situations of established legal violation from situations of mere surmise and requiring direct client contact as the first step
Requires engineers to assess the certainty and severity of a concern, begin with the least disruptive adequate response, and escalate only when prior steps have failed or the severity of the threat demands immediate action.
Engineer A's actions appear to be obvious--contact the client and inquire directly about the actions the client has taken and point out the violations of the law and that immediate steps need to be taken to remedy the violation.
Professional responsibility requires neither reckless inaction nor disproportionate escalation; the engineer's response must match the evidentiary and legal weight of the situation to protect both public interests and the legitimate interests of clients and colleagues.
Professional principle requiring engineers to calibrate the urgency and directness of their response to a discovered violation or risk in proportion to the certainty, severity, and legal clarity of the threat, proceeding through escalating steps from client contact to regulatory reporting rather than immediately invoking the most drastic available response.
Gratuitous Services Conflict Recognition Capability
Professional engineering practice, particularly advisory and pre-construction service contexts
Decline to provide free services that function as a solicitation vehicle
Identify when a free advisory service creates a competitive advantage for subsequent paid work
Recognize that the client's awareness of the donation is irrelevant to the ethical violation
Gratuitous Services Solicitation Prohibition Obligation
It is not clear whether City Administrator knowingly solicited a donation of services.
by providing only a partial, comparative engineering evaluation with no analysis and a recommendation to Engineer A's benefit, the conduct constituted both incomplete and self-serving information and the extension of free services. Both aspects of the conduct were unethical
Capability to recognize when providing free or donated professional services to a prospective client creates an ethical conflict by positioning the provider to benefit from subsequent paid work, and to identify this arrangement as a prohibited form of solicitation regardless of whether the client knowingly solicited the donation.
Gratuitous Services Prohibition Principle
The boundary between informal collegial assistance and a service offer intended to secure work requires contextual judgment, with the engineer's interest in subsequent work serving as a key indicator of improper motive.
Decline to provide partial analysis that favors own interests
Disclose interest in subsequent work before providing any advisory services
Refer clients to neutral resources when informal advice is sought
BER present case where Engineer A provided free advisory memo recommending a delivery method under which Engineer A was qualified to provide subsequent paid services
Engineers who are asked for informal advice must either refer the client to neutral resources or provide genuinely complete and unbiased analysis; they may not provide partial, self-serving analysis as a free service designed to position themselves for subsequent engagement.
Both aspects of the conduct were unethical in the view of the BER
by providing only a partial, comparative engineering evaluation with no analysis and a recommendation to Engineer A's benefit, the conduct constituted both incomplete and self-serving information (as in 95-5 and 99-8) and the extension of free services
Competitive fairness and client trust require that engineers be selected on merit rather than through the extension of gratuitous services that create obligation or bias in the client.
Professional principle prohibiting engineers from offering free or donated professional services as a means of securing subsequent paid work, recognizing that such offers constitute a form of valuable consideration extended to influence a client's selection of the engineer for future engagements.
Evidence that free services were not provided as a vehicle to position for or solicit subsequent paid work
Engineer A could have referred City Administrator to resources (whether library, free, or subscription) that provided complete analyses of the various methodologies. That would be a completely ethical informal response
by providing only a partial, comparative engineering evaluation with no analysis and a recommendation to Engineer A's benefit, the conduct constituted both incomplete and self-serving information and the extension of free services
Professional discipline; findings of unethical conduct; potential disqualification from the subsequent engagement
Duty of an engineer to refrain from offering free or donated professional services as a means of securing subsequent paid work, recognizing that the provision of complimentary engineering services to position for a follow-on engagement violates the prohibition on offering valuable consideration to secure work.
Must not affix signature or seal to AI-generated documents reviewed only at a high level
Must not submit design documents with undetected safety or dimensional errors
AI tool used to generate technical plans or documents
Errors or omissions remain undetected in the work product
Professional performs only high-level or cursory review of AI output
Duty to conduct experience-based quality assurance review
Duty to correct identified deficiencies before submission
Duty to refrain from sealing or signing documents not under proper direction and control
Transforms the responsible charge and public safety principles into a concrete obligation to apply at least the same level of scrutiny to AI-generated work as to human-generated work, including critical engagement with outputs rather than passive acceptance.
All errors and omissions identified and corrected
Comprehensive verification process completed
Responsible charge obligations fully satisfied
Engineer A elected to only conduct a high-level review and adjusted certain elements to align with site-specific conditions.
When Client W reviewed the design documents, they found misaligned dimensions and key safety features (including those necessary for compliance with local regulations) were omitted.
State in which a professional has performed only a superficial or high-level review of AI-generated technical work product rather than the comprehensive verification required for responsible charge, leaving errors, omissions, or safety deficiencies undetected and creating elevated risk of regulatory noncompliance and public harm.
Incomplete Deliverable Disclosure Capability
Professional engineering practice involving sealed design documents submitted to public agencies
Disclose known deficiencies to clients and approving authorities
Recognize material incompleteness in professional deliverables
Refrain from submitting incomplete work without disclosure
Engineer A Deliverable Completeness Disclosure
While much of the information was missing from the drawings and specifications
did not inform anyone as to their incompleteness
Incomplete Analysis Disclosure Capability addresses recognizing when a professional analysis has been suspended or left incomplete and disclosing that status to the client. The present capability is closely analogous but applies to design deliverables rather than analytical reports, and involves active concealment at submission rather than suspension of work. The match is a variant of the same concept at medium confidence.
Incomplete Analysis Disclosure Capability
Capability to recognize when a professional deliverable such as drawings or specifications is materially incomplete, and to proactively disclose that incompleteness to the client, approving authorities, and other relying parties before or at the time of submission, rather than concealing the deficiency.
[IncompleteAnalysisDisclosureCapability] Capability to recognize when a professional analysis has been suspended or left incomplete and to disclose the status and significance of unfinished findings to the client, including the ability to communicate identified but unquantified risks rather than remaining silent about them during a work suspension.
Incomplete Deliverable Disclosure Constraint
Delay submission until the product meets professional standards
Disclose known deficiencies in a written transmittal accompanying the submission
Notify the client and request a schedule extension before the deadline
Client and approving authorities rely on a deficient product, leading to unbuildable contracts, cost overruns, and potential public safety risks.
Ethical constraint requiring that an engineer who submits a work product known to be materially incomplete must disclose that incompleteness to the client, approving authorities, and other relying parties before or at the time of submission, so that those parties can make informed decisions about whether to accept, approve, or act upon the deliverable.
Professional must not allow project to proceed to bid or construction on an incomplete deliverable without disclosure
Professional must not misrepresent completeness of sealed documents
Incompleteness is not disclosed to client or approving authority at time of submission
Professional submits drawings, specifications, or other deliverable known to be incomplete
Duty to correct deficiencies before project proceeds
Duty to disclose incompleteness to client and approving authority
Duty to notify affected parties of potential cost and schedule impacts
Transforms general honesty and completeness principles into concrete obligations to disclose known deficiencies in sealed professional documents before those documents are relied upon by contractors, agencies, or funding bodies.
Corrected and complete deliverable is submitted
Deficiencies are disclosed and acknowledged by all affected parties
Project is cancelled or scope is formally revised
Deficient Work Product Submitted State captures the concept of a submitted work product containing errors, omissions, or deficiencies failing professional standards. The present state is a variant that emphasizes the professional's contemporaneous knowledge of incompleteness and the deliberate non-disclosure, which adds a distinct epistemic and honesty dimension not fully captured by the existing class. A medium-confidence match is appropriate; the new class is warranted to capture the non-disclosure element.
State in which a professional has delivered a work product that is known by the professional to be materially incomplete, lacking design detail or information necessary for the work to be constructed or implemented, and in which the professional has not disclosed the incompleteness to the client, approving authority, or other affected parties at the time of delivery.
[DeficientWorkProductSubmittedState] State in which a professional has submitted a work product to a client that contains errors, omissions, or deficiencies that fail to meet professional or regulatory standards, creating obligations to correct the deficiencies, notify affected parties, and assess whether safety or compliance risks have been introduced.
Professional must not issue conclusions based on selectively presented data
Professional must not omit findings that contradict the primary conclusion
Expert or reviewing professional submits a report
Omitted findings would materially affect the conclusions presented
Report omits material findings known to the professional
Duty to disclose equipment failures or test anomalies
Duty to present complete and objective findings
Duty to report contradictory data that bears on conclusions
Transforms general honesty and objectivity principles into specific obligations to disclose all material technical findings, including those that undercut the professional's own conclusions.
Report withdrawn and replaced with complete analysis
Supplemental report issued correcting omissions
Engineer B did not report that the dynamic test equipment had failed
The previously extracted class Incomplete Professional Report State captures the concept of a professional report that omits material information, selectively presents data, or fails to investigate relevant factors. This case instantiates that class: Engineer B's report omitted the pile driving refusal data and the equipment failure, both of which were material to the conclusions.
State in which a professional retained as an expert or reviewer has produced a report that omits material technical findings, contradictory data, or equipment failures that would be necessary for the report to present a complete and accurate professional opinion, creating obligations of completeness, objectivity, and truthfulness in professional communications.
[IncompleteProfessionalReportState] State in which a professional has produced or submitted a report or analysis that omits material information, selectively presents data, or fails to investigate relevant factors, resulting in a misleading or incomplete professional work product that violates duties of objectivity, completeness, and truthfulness.
An independent geotechnical consultant was retained by Engineer A to observe the test
In the opinion of Engineer A's geotechnical consultant, this would have broken the pile bond and undervalued the skin friction value
A professional engineering or geotechnical consulting role in which the practitioner is retained by one party to observe and monitor testing or construction activities conducted by another party, report on procedural irregularities or equipment failures, and provide independent technical testimony on the validity of test conditions and results.
The boundary between permissible tool use and misrepresentation of authorship is context-dependent and evolving, requiring engineers to interpret what honest representation of AI-assisted work demands in their professional context.
Acknowledge limitations of AI-generated content in professional submittals
Avoid presenting AI-generated text as independently authored professional writing
Disclose AI authorship of report sections to clients
Client observing that a report reads as if written by two different authors due to inconsistent AI and human writing styles
Engineer making minor wording adjustments to AI text and presenting the work as independently authored
Engineer submitting AI-drafted report without indicating AI contribution
Requires engineers to disclose AI contributions to work products, to distinguish between AI-generated and independently authored content where material, and to avoid presenting AI-generated text as original professional writing.
Client perception of professional capability
Competitive norms around tool disclosure
Professional work products carry an implicit representation that they reflect the engineer's own analysis and judgment. Concealing AI authorship misleads clients and the public about the nature and reliability of the work.
Intellectual Honesty exists in the ontology as a general principle. The AI authorship context is a specific and emergent variant that the existing class does not fully address, particularly the novel question of whether presenting AI-generated text without disclosure constitutes a failure of intellectual honesty. The match is a variant rather than a direct match, warranting a new class that specializes the existing principle for AI authorship contexts.
Integrity principle requiring engineers to accurately represent the authorship and intellectual origin of professional work products, including disclosure when substantial portions of a work were generated by AI tools or other non-engineer sources, so that recipients can assess the work's provenance.
Documentation showing that available records, witnesses, and data sources were consulted before conclusions were drawn
Professional discipline; findings may be discredited; potential liability for negligent investigation
No existing obligation class in the ontology corresponds to this duty. The ontology list is empty, so this is a new class.
Duty of an engineer retained to investigate or evaluate technical work to pursue all reasonable lines of inquiry, consult available witnesses and records, and avoid reaching conclusions based on incomplete or selectively gathered evidence.
Open-textured standard requiring judgment about what sources of evidence are reasonably available and material to the conclusions being drawn.
Consult available on-site personnel before finalizing conclusions
Disclose in the report any material sources that were not consulted and why
Review existing field records relevant to the technical question
Engineer B's failure to consult Engineer A's on-site representatives or review pile driving records before concluding 19 piles were deficient
Requires investigators to identify available witnesses and records, make reasonable efforts to obtain them, and disclose when material sources were not consulted.
Professional conclusions that affect legal rights, public safety, and professional reputations must rest on a reasonably complete evidentiary foundation.
Professional principle requiring engineers retained to investigate or evaluate technical work to pursue all reasonably available sources of evidence, including field records, on-site personnel, contractors, and workers, before reaching and reporting conclusions. An investigation that ignores available corroborating or contradicting evidence is professionally deficient regardless of the scope of work as contractually defined.
Technical investigations in civil and geotechnical engineering contexts
Consult available witnesses and on-site representatives
Identify and pursue alternative explanations for observed data
Review historical records relevant to the investigation
Verify or refute working hypotheses through independent inquiry
No existing capability class covers the competency of pursuing all reasonable lines of inquiry in a technical investigation, including witness consultation and record review.
Ability to identify and pursue all reasonable lines of inquiry in a technical investigation, including consulting witnesses, reviewing records, and following up on anomalies before reaching conclusions.
Decline engagement if scope prevents adequate investigation
Disclose scope limitations explicitly in the report
Seek scope expansion when material evidence falls outside defined boundaries
We didn't look at the pile driving records because it was not in our scope of work.
Incomplete findings, misleading conclusions, professional discipline, litigation exposure
No existing constraint class in the ontology addresses the tension between a contractually defined scope of work and the professional duty to pursue material evidence. This is a distinct constraint type from the obligation-side Scope Limitation Disclosure Obligation already extracted.
Limitation on the breadth of an investigation arising from a contractually defined scope of work, which may restrict but does not excuse omission of material evidence bearing on professional conclusions.
Actions need not be identical but must be coordinated
Neither professional may unilaterally abandon the shared obligation without satisfying their individual duties
A client or governing body has received and acted upon the joint presentation
The joint presentation creates shared accountability for follow-through on those findings
Two or more professionals have jointly presented findings or recommendations
Duty of each professional to act in concert with co-presenting colleagues on follow-up obligations
Duty to coordinate formal presentations to authorities
Individual accountability for each professional's own role-specific actions within the shared obligation
Transforms individual professional duties into a coordinated shared obligation structure, requiring that professionals who have jointly committed to findings act in concert on follow-up even though their specific actions may differ.
Both professionals have individually satisfied their reporting and notification obligations
The professional relationship between the co-presenting engineers concludes
The underlying safety concern is resolved
Engineers A and B have presented the findings and recommendations jointly and, as such, their actions should be in concert, although not identical.
It is important to note that Engineers A and B have presented the findings and recommendations jointly
State in which two or more professionals have jointly presented findings and recommendations to a client or governing body, creating a condition in which their subsequent ethical obligations are shared and must be pursued in concert, even though the specific actions each professional takes may differ based on their individual roles and relationships.
Joint Recommendation Coordination Capability
Professional engineering practice in multi-engineer advisory contexts
Coordinate technical findings between co-presenting engineers
Document shared professional conclusions for subsequent escalation
Present unified recommendations to a governing body
Joint Recommendation Documentation Obligation
Both Engineer A and Engineer B met with the MWC at a meeting sparsely attended by the public and recommended that the change in water source be substantially delayed until improvements could be completed.
Capability of two or more engineers who have independently reached convergent professional conclusions to coordinate the presentation of those conclusions to a client or governing body as a unified recommendation, ensuring that the joint presentation accurately reflects the shared technical basis, that neither engineer's findings are misrepresented, and that the coordinated position is documented so that subsequent escalation steps can be taken jointly if the recommendation is overridden.
Written record of joint recommendations including technical findings, required improvements, and timeline submitted to the client before or at the time of the client decision
Engineer B, a consulting engineer retained by the MWC charged with evaluating water treatment needs for the change in water source, provided a report to Engineer A recommending extensive capital investments and a three-year timeline.
Loss of evidentiary basis for regulatory escalation; weakened professional accountability record
The joint documentation duty is a contextual variant of the existing Complete Technical Reporting Obligation, applied to the specific situation where two engineers jointly present findings and the documentation serves as the evidentiary basis for potential regulatory escalation. The core concept of complete and documented reporting is already captured.
Duty of engineers who jointly develop and present professional recommendations to a client or governing body to ensure that those recommendations, including the technical basis, timeline requirements, and safety rationale, are documented in writing so that the record is available for regulatory escalation if the client overrides the recommendations.
[CompleteTechnicalReportingObligation] Duty of an engineer preparing a technical report to include all relevant and pertinent technical information, including facts that may complicate or contradict the primary conclusions, so that the report supports informed review and interpretation by others.
Concealment or obstruction of review is prohibited
Non-cooperation with peer review is ethically impermissible when known defects are present
Design defects in prior work have been identified and confirmed
The professional responsible for the defective design is aware of or informed of the defects
Heightened obligation to cooperate with peer review
Obligation to acknowledge errors and take responsibility
Obligation to act in the client's best interests by supporting corrective review
Transforms baseline professional responsibility into urgent duties of transparency, cooperation, and correction when prior work is known to be defective.
Defects are corrected to applicable standards
Design is replaced or withdrawn from use
State in which a professional is aware of confirmed defects in an existing design, elevating the urgency of safety obligations, cooperation duties, and corrective action requirements beyond what would apply in a routine review context.
the municipality retained Engineer B to supervise the driving of several test piles
A licensed professional engineering role in which the practitioner is retained by one party in a legal or mediation proceeding to conduct independent technical investigations, prepare findings reports, and provide expert testimony or written opinions on engineering matters in dispute, bearing professional obligations of objectivity, completeness, and honest disclosure of all material facts including those that may be unfavorable to the retaining party.
Requires balancing the legitimate role of advocacy in adversarial proceedings against the engineer's independent professional obligation to render technically honest opinions.
Apply all relevant analytical methods, not only those supporting the retaining party's position
Decline to omit material technical findings because they are unhelpful to the retaining party
Disclose evidence that contradicts the conclusions being offered
Engineer B's selective reliance on one analytical method while omitting wave equation results that contradicted the conclusion favoring the retaining municipality
Requires expert engineers to consider and disclose all material evidence, apply all relevant analytical methods, and present conclusions that reflect the full technical picture rather than only the evidence supporting the retaining party.
Courts, mediators, and opposing parties rely on expert engineers to provide technically honest analysis. Advocacy-shaped expert opinions corrupt the fact-finding process and undermine public trust in the profession.
Professional principle requiring engineers retained as expert witnesses or technical investigators in litigation or mediation to render opinions based solely on technical analysis and available evidence, without shaping findings to favor the retaining party's legal position. The engineer's duty to provide objective technical analysis is not displaced by the adversarial context of the engagement.
Engineer A responds to an RFP from a small local public agency to build a new dam
The local public agency does not have the in-house technical resources to review the drawings and specifications
Municipal Client from the previously extracted classes covers a government or municipal entity that commissions professional engineering services and lacks professional engineering licensure. Local Public Agency Client is a close specialization of that concept, warranting a medium-confidence match.
A small local government or public agency that commissions professional engineering services for a publicly funded infrastructure project, acting as the primary client and decision-maker but lacking in-house technical resources to review or evaluate the engineering work product delivered.
[MunicipalClient] A government or municipal entity that commissions professional engineering or construction services for public infrastructure projects, acting as the primary client and decision-maker but without professional engineering licensure.
XYZ Corporation was advised by a State Pollution Control Authority of a need to apply for a permit to discharge manufacturing waste
XYZ Corporation would present data to show their discharge meets minimum standards
XYZ instructed Engineer Doe not to complete a written report and paid Engineer Doe the agreed upon fee
A private manufacturing corporation that commissions professional engineering consulting services related to environmental discharge or compliance matters, acting as the primary client but whose instructions to suppress or withhold technical findings may conflict with the engineer's public welfare obligations.
Engineer A had relied on guidance and quality assurance reviews by their mentor and supervisor, Engineer B, to refine report drafts
Engineer B recently retired and was no longer available to Engineer A in a work capacity
Mentor Engineer is a specialization of Professional Peer Role. The ontology lists Professional Peer Role as covering collegial relationships with mentoring and review obligations, which directly describes Engineer B's function. A distinct leaf class is warranted because the mentoring and supervisory quality-assurance dimension is more specific than generic peer review.
A senior professional engineering role in which the practitioner provides guidance, quality assurance review, and technical mentorship to a less experienced engineer, shaping that engineer's professional development and serving as a check on technical work product.
Should not proceed with work requiring mentorship support without establishing an alternative
Should not represent work quality as equivalent to prior mentored work without adequate substitute review
Mentor or supervisor retires, resigns, or otherwise becomes unavailable
Professional had previously depended on that mentor for review or guidance
Obligation to disclose competence limitations to clients if work quality may be affected
Obligation to identify alternative quality assurance mechanisms
Obligation to seek additional support before undertaking work that previously required mentorship
Transforms general competence obligations into specific duties to secure alternative quality assurance before undertaking work previously dependent on mentorship.
A replacement mentor or supervisor is identified
Alternative quality assurance arrangement is established
Professional develops independent competence in the affected area
State in which a professional has lost access to a previously relied-upon mentor or supervisor whose guidance was integral to quality assurance and competence support, creating a gap in the professional's support structure and potentially affecting the quality and reliability of their work product.
The obligation to secure alternative oversight is contextually defined by the complexity of the work, the engineer's experience level, and the availability of substitute review mechanisms.
Decline work scope that exceeds independent competence without substitute review
Identify quality assurance gaps created by loss of mentor or supervisor
Seek alternative peer review when primary oversight is unavailable
Engineer accepting project scope beyond their independent competence without arranging substitute oversight
Engineer proceeding without mentor review by substituting AI tools without equivalent verification
Junior engineer failing to seek peer review after supervisor departure
Requires engineers to identify when loss of mentorship creates a competence or quality gap, to seek alternative peer review or supervision, and to decline or restructure work scope when adequate oversight cannot be arranged.
Client expectations and contractual commitments
Faced with the need to deliver both the report and the engineering design documents without the review by and mentorship from Engineer B, Engineer A opted to use open-sourced artificial intelligence (AI) software
Previously, Engineer A had relied on guidance and quality assurance reviews by their mentor and supervisor, Engineer B, to refine report drafts. But Engineer B recently retired and was no longer available to Engineer A in a work capacity.
Professional quality assurance depends on review structures that catch errors individual practitioners may miss. When those structures are disrupted, the engineer bears responsibility for maintaining equivalent safeguards.
Professional virtue principle requiring engineers to maintain the quality and integrity of their work when supervisory or mentorship relationships are disrupted, by seeking alternative review mechanisms rather than proceeding without adequate oversight.
Professional engineering practice in contexts where mentorship or supervisory review has been a component of quality assurance
Evaluate alternative review and oversight mechanisms
Identify quality assurance gaps created by mentor unavailability
Implement substitute quality assurance processes
Recognize limits of one's own competence without mentorship support
Engineer A is known for their strong technical expertise but is, personally, less confident in their technical writing. Previously, Engineer A had relied on guidance and quality assurance reviews by their mentor and supervisor, Engineer B, to refine report drafts. But Engineer B recently retired and was no longer available to Engineer A in a work capacity.
Capability to recognize when the loss of a mentor or supervisor creates a quality assurance gap in one's professional practice, and to identify and implement adequate alternative mechanisms to maintain professional competence and output quality.
Evidence that the engineer identified and implemented a quality assurance process adequate to substitute for lost mentorship oversight
Submission of deficient work products; public safety risk; professional discipline for practicing beyond competence
This obligation is a contextual specialization of the existing Competence Obligation, addressing the specific situation where a quality assurance mentor becomes unavailable. The existing class covers the general duty to practice within competence but does not address the specific duty to maintain quality assurance processes when supervisory support is lost. A new class is warranted to capture this distinct scenario type.
Duty of an engineer who loses access to a mentor or supervisor providing quality assurance review to identify and implement alternative means of ensuring the quality and accuracy of their professional work products before submission, rather than substituting unverified automated tools for the lost oversight function.
Test protocols document how original conditions were replicated and identify any deviations with justification
Driving conditions were not duplicated in driving the test piles in that a vibratory hammer was used for the test piles and not used in the original driving.
The geotechnical consultant testified and showed that dynamic test equipment had failed during the test and that the test piles were not driven to the same depth of penetration that apparently was required for the plug to form in the original piles.
Test results may be invalidated; professional discipline; findings may be excluded from proceedings
Duty of an engineer conducting tests or investigations intended to replicate prior work to reproduce the original conditions as closely as reasonably practicable, and to disclose any deviations that could affect the comparability or validity of results.
Requires technical judgment about which conditions are material to the outcome being measured and how deviations should affect the confidence and scope of reported conclusions.
Disclose all material deviations from original conditions in the test report
Document the conditions of the original work before designing comparison tests
Qualify conclusions to reflect the effect of condition differences on result validity
Failure to drive test piles to the same depth of penetration as original piles
Pre-record hammer drops that broke pile bond before blow count recording began
Use of a vibratory hammer in test pile driving when the original piles were not driven with a vibratory hammer
Requires engineers to document original conditions before designing tests, replicate material conditions in the test protocol, disclose deviations in the report, and qualify conclusions where deviations may have affected results.
After the 30 day set up, the driving hammer was dropped several times to start the hammer before the record of blow counts commenced. In the opinion of Engineer A's geotechnical consultant, this would have broken the pile bond and undervalued the skin friction value reported by Engineer B's tests.
The test piles were not driven to the same depth of penetration that apparently was required for the plug to form in the original piles.
Technical conclusions about whether original work met standards are only valid if the test conditions are sufficiently similar to the original conditions to support comparison.
Professional principle requiring engineers conducting tests or investigations to replicate, as closely as reasonably practicable, the conditions of the original work being evaluated, and to disclose and account for any material deviations from those conditions when reporting results. Conclusions drawn from tests conducted under materially different conditions must be qualified to reflect those differences.
Disclose all deviations and their potential effect on results
Document original conditions before designing the test program
Replicate hammer type, penetration depth, and setup procedures
After the 30 day set up, the driving hammer was dropped several times to start the hammer before the record of blow counts commenced.
Invalid test comparisons, misleading conclusions, professional discipline, unjust dispute outcomes
No existing constraint class in the ontology addresses the procedural requirement to replicate original test conditions. The obligation-side Methodological Consistency Obligation is a duty; this is the bounding constraint on permissible test design.
Requirement that an engineer conducting tests intended to replicate prior work reproduce the original conditions as closely as practicable, and disclose any deviations that could affect the validity of comparisons drawn between the test results and the original work.
Municipal Infrastructure Design Engineer
Engineer A was retained by a municipality to design a dock on a supporting foundation of 90 piles
A licensed professional engineering role in which the practitioner is retained by a municipality to design infrastructure elements such as docks, foundations, or similar civil works, bearing primary professional accountability for the technical adequacy of the design and the accuracy of supporting engineering judgments.
National Society of Professional Engineers
Provides a precise, authoritative rule that directly governs engineer conduct in a defined situation, bridging the general code to specific fact patterns.
Professional Obligation III.7.a. is very clear: 'Engineers in private practice shall not review the work of another engineer for the same client, except with the knowledge of such engineer, or unless the connection of such engineer with the work has been terminated.'
A numbered provision of the NSPE Code is a citable artifact within the Professional Code category. It is a subtype of Professional Code rather than a genuinely new class.
A numbered, individually citable provision within the NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers, such as a specific Professional Obligation or Fundamental Canon, that states a binding rule of professional conduct.
[ProfessionalCode] Distillations of collective experience that guide and justify actions
Engineer cannot invoke mandatory safety reporting frameworks
Engineer may disclose but is not required to do so
Professional misconduct or substandard work is identified
The identified issue does not involve a direct threat to public health or safety
The issue relates to financial waste, unsatisfactory plans, or contractual deficiency
Discretionary right to disclose as matter of personal conscience
No mandatory whistleblowing obligation under the NSPE Code
Potential employment risk if disclosure is pursued
Transforms the general duty of honesty and public welfare into a discretionary right rather than a mandatory obligation, because the absence of a public safety nexus removes the override condition that would compel disclosure.
A public safety dimension is identified, elevating the state
The professional decides to disclose or not disclose
the case did not involve a danger to the public health or safety, but related to a claim of unsatisfactory plans and the unjustified expenditure of public funds
the ethical duty or right of the engineer becomes a matter of personal conscience
the issue does not allege a danger to public health or safety, but is premised upon a claim of unsatisfactory plans and the unjustified expenditure of public funds
State in which a professional's conduct involves potential ethical violations related to public funds, unsatisfactory plans, or contractual performance, but the conduct does not rise to the level of a danger to public health or safety, placing the matter in an intermediate ethical zone where disclosure obligations are discretionary rather than mandatory and the engineer's duty to act becomes a matter of personal conscience rather than a code-mandated requirement.
Clearly distinguish whether the concern involves public safety before determining disclosure obligations
Document the basis for concluding no safety nexus exists
Fulfill affirmative obligations of plan completeness and non-deception regardless of safety nexus
The Board noted that the case did not involve a danger to the public health or safety, but related to a claim of unsatisfactory plans and the unjustified expenditure of public funds
the Board indicated that it could dismiss the case on the narrow ground that the NSPE Code does not apply to a claim not involving public health and safety, but that was too narrow a reading of the ethical duties of engineers
Reduced mandatory disclosure obligation; engineer retains discretion over external reporting but remains bound by affirmative obligations of completeness and non-deception
The concept that disclosure obligations are reduced but not eliminated when no safety nexus exists is a form of defeasible constraint, where the default disclosure rule is relaxed under the specified condition of no public safety danger. However, the specific application to the safety-nexus threshold for mandatory reporting is not captured by any existing named class, making this a variant of Defeasible Constraint rather than a precise match.
Constraint arising when an engineer's ethical violation involves unsatisfactory professional work or unjustified expenditure of public funds but does not involve a danger to public health or safety. In such cases, the mandatory disclosure and escalation obligations that attach to safety-threatening conduct do not apply with the same force, and the engineer's duty to report beyond the immediate professional relationship is reduced to a matter of conscience rather than ethical requirement.
[DefeasibleConstraint] Constraints that admit justified exceptions under specified conditions (Ganascia 2007)
City Administrator is not a licensed professional engineer
City B's City Administrator asked Engineer A for a recommendation
The City Administrator functions as the client-side representative receiving professional engineering advice. This is a specialization of the Client Role, with the distinguishing attribute of lacking engineering licensure, which is ethically significant because it increases the engineer's duty of candor and completeness.
A municipal or organizational administrator who lacks professional engineering licensure and relies on licensed engineers for technical recommendations, acting as the client-side decision-maker and primary recipient of professional engineering advice.
Non-Engineer Client Communication Capability
Engineering advisory services provided to municipal administrators or other non-engineer clients making procurement or delivery method decisions
Ensure completeness of information provided to non-technical decision-makers
Present technical options in accessible terms
Recognize client's reliance on advisor due to lack of licensure
City B's City Administrator asked Engineer A for a recommendation on project delivery methods
Capability to communicate technical engineering analysis and recommendations to a non-engineer client in a manner that enables informed decision-making, including the ability to recognize when the client lacks the technical background to evaluate omissions or biases in the advice received.
Professional engineering ethics across civil and geotechnical practice
Apply professional codes of ethics to novel situations
Distinguish permissible advocacy from prohibited omission or misrepresentation
Identify which professional obligations apply to a given engagement
Recognize when conduct departs from applicable ethical standards
Engineer B said: 'We didn't look at the pile driving records because it was not in our scope of work.'
Engineer B was obligated to present findings objectively, apply analytical methods consistently, and not omit material evidence contradicting the main conclusion.
No existing capability class covers the norm management competency of recognizing and applying professional ethical obligations in engineering practice.
Ability to recognize applicable professional ethical norms and standards in a given situation, including duties of completeness, neutrality, and disclosure that govern professional engineering practice.
Objective Completeness in Public Reports Principle
The principle requires engineers to exercise judgment about what constitutes relevant and pertinent information in a given report context, and to resist client pressure to omit inconvenient findings. The standard of completeness is context-dependent and requires assessment of what a reasonable reviewer of the report would need to know.
Document in writing any material concerns communicated only verbally to clients
Include all relevant and pertinent information in reports submitted to public authorities
Refuse client instructions to omit material facts from public reports
BER Case 04-8: violations of federal and state laws required disclosure in report
BER Case 07-6: Engineer A was required to include information about threat to bird species in written report submitted to public authority, even though it was only verbally mentioned to client
BER Case 99-8: incomplete drawings and specifications required disclosure
Requires engineers to include all material findings in written reports submitted to public authorities, to document verbally communicated concerns in writing when those concerns are material to the subject of a public report, and to resist client instructions to omit relevant information.
Engineer A was obligated under Code section II.3.a to be objective and truthful in professional reports, statements, or testimony and include all relevant and pertinent information in such reports.
The BER concluded that it was unethical for Engineer A to not include the information about the threat to the bird species in a written report that will be submitted to a public authority.
Public authorities and affected communities rely on professional reports to make decisions affecting public welfare. Selective omission of material facts from such reports corrupts the decision-making process and violates the public trust that justifies professional licensure.
The Report Completeness Principle already in the ontology captures the core obligation to include all relevant and pertinent information in reports and prohibit selective omission. The present principle adds the specific context of reports submitted to public authorities, but the underlying concept is the same. This is a close match to the existing class.
Professional integrity principle requiring engineers to be objective and truthful in professional reports, statements, and testimony submitted to public authorities, and to include all relevant and pertinent information in such reports. Engineers may not omit material facts from public reports even when those facts are inconvenient to the client's interests or when the client has not explicitly requested their inclusion.
[ReportCompletenessPrinciple] Professional integrity principle requiring engineers to include all relevant and pertinent information in reports, analyses, and professional communications, prohibiting selective omission of data that would materially alter the conclusions or recommendations presented.
Expert witness and litigation support roles in engineering
Apply analytical methods consistently across all data
Avoid selective presentation of evidence favoring one party
Identify and report findings that cut against the retaining party's position
Maintain neutrality when retained as an expert witness or technical investigator
No existing capability class covers the competency of impartial, balanced technical reporting with consistent application of analytical methods in an expert witness context.
Ability to present technical findings in a balanced and impartial manner, applying analytical methods consistently and refraining from selective omission of evidence that contradicts the primary conclusion.
Observed Violation Disclosure Obligation
Evidence that the engineer communicated the observed violation to the appropriate regulatory body after confirming the observation constituted an established fact rather than a preliminary concern.
Failure to disclose a directly observed, fact-level violation of law that harms public welfare may result in professional discipline and ongoing environmental harm.
The existing Concern Versus Fact Disclosure Threshold Obligation addresses the distinction between a preliminary concern and an established technical fact as the trigger for mandatory disclosure under Code section II.3.b. This case presents the fact-level side of that threshold: Engineer A directly observes the violation, placing it at the level of established fact. The present class is a variant that focuses on the affirmative disclosure duty once the fact threshold is crossed, rather than the threshold determination itself. The existing class is the closest match but this obligation emphasizes the resulting duty rather than the threshold analysis.
Duty of an engineer who directly observes a client's violation of applicable law or regulation during or after a professional engagement to disclose that violation to the appropriate authority, where the observation rises to the level of established fact rather than suspicion or preliminary concern, and where the violation implicates public welfare or environmental protection.
Options Completeness Assessment Capability
Engineering advisory services involving selection among multiple regulated or funding-constrained project delivery methods
Assess which options are foreclosed by regulatory or funding constraints
Enumerate all funding-agency-approved delivery methods
Capability to identify and present all materially relevant options available to a client under applicable constraints, including the ability to recognize when omitting options from an advisory analysis would deprive the client of information needed for an informed decision.
A licensed professional engineering role in which the practitioner offers or undertakes engineering services in a technical domain or project type outside their established education, training, and experience, thereby creating a risk of incompetent practice and potential harm to the public.
Professional engineering ethics in public health and safety contexts
Identify the appropriate regulatory authority for escalation
Prepare and deliver a formal presentation of facts and findings to regulators
Recognize when a client override creates a reportable public safety condition
Engineer A Post-Override Regulatory Reporting
Engineer B Post-Override Regulatory Reporting
Engineers A B Post-Override Regulatory Escalation
Safety Disclosure Escalation Capability covers recognition of when internal resolution has failed and escalation to regulatory authorities is required. The present capability is a variant that specifically addresses the scenario where a client or governing body override, rather than internal failure, triggers the escalation obligation. The existing class is the closest match but does not fully capture the override-specific trigger or the judgment about when an override rises to the level requiring regulatory escalation. Matching as a variant with medium confidence.
Capability to recognize when a client or governing body has overridden a professional engineering recommendation in a manner that creates a public health or safety risk, and to judge that the override triggers an obligation to escalate the matter to an appropriate regulatory authority, including the ability to identify the correct authority, determine the appropriate form and content of the escalation, and act on that judgment even when doing so is adverse to the client relationship.
Client consent is not required before notifying authorities when public safety is at stake
Notification must be formal and documented rather than merely verbal
Client or governing body explicitly rejects engineer's safety findings or recommendations
Engineer believes the overruled judgment relates to a condition endangering life or property
Engineer's professional judgment is subordinated to an organizational decision
Duty to advise client that project will not be successful if safety is not addressed
Duty to further pursue the matter if formal presentations fail
Duty to make formal written presentation of findings and recommendations
Duty to notify all appropriate authorities
Duty to notify employer or client of danger
Transforms the general duty to hold public safety paramount into a concrete obligation to escalate findings through formal channels independent of client authorization, and to continue pursuing resolution even after initial formal presentations.
Appropriate authorities intervene and impose corrective action
Client or governing body adopts the engineer's recommendations
If Engineers A and B believe life or property is endangered, Section II.1.a. provides that not only shall the employer or client be notified, but also all other appropriate authorities.
The engineering judgments of Engineer A and Engineer B were overruled by the MWC.
The existing class captures the core concept of a client overriding a safety recommendation, but the present state adds the dimension of a formal governing body vote, joint professional presentation, and the escalating obligation to pursue formal written presentations to multiple authorities when the override persists. The existing class is a close match but the present state emphasizes the post-override escalation duty more specifically. Matching at medium-high confidence as a variant.
State in which a professional engineer's technical findings and safety recommendations have been formally rejected or overruled by a client, employer, or governing body, creating a condition in which the engineer's professional judgment is subordinated to an organizational decision that the engineer believes endangers life or property, triggering escalating obligations to notify authorities and pursue resolution through formal channels.
Professional must not omit methodologies or alternatives that would disadvantage the professional's preferred recommendation
Professional must not present partial analysis as if it were complete
Omitted options or information would be material to the client's decision
Professional provides comparative analysis covering only a subset of relevant options or methodologies
The partial analysis favors an outcome beneficial to the professional
Duty to avoid self-serving omissions in professional communications
Duty to disclose limitations in the scope of analysis provided
Duty to provide complete and unbiased professional advice
Transforms the general duty of objectivity and completeness into a specific obligation to disclose the scope limitations of any analysis provided and to refrain from presenting partial evaluations as comprehensive professional advice.
Client referred to comprehensive independent resources
Complete analysis provided to the client
Professional discloses the limitation and supplements the analysis
Engineer A could have provided a complete analysis of the four methodologies, with all the pros and cons
by providing only a partial, comparative engineering evaluation with no analysis and a recommendation to Engineer A's benefit
the conduct constituted both incomplete and self-serving information
State in which a professional provides an analysis or evaluation that is incomplete in scope, omitting methodologies, alternatives, or considerations that would be material to the recipient's decision, and where the omission serves or appears to serve the professional's own interests rather than the client's informational needs.
Requires contextual balancing between the legitimate interests served by confidentiality in peer review and the non-waivable obligations of public safety disclosure and collegial notification.
Advise client of limits of confidentiality before signing
Disclose safety violations despite confidentiality agreement
Notify original engineer of review as precondition
NSPE BER Case 96-8 where contractual confidentiality did not override obligation to report safety code violations to authorities
Requires that peer review confidentiality agreements be drafted to permit safety disclosures and collegial notifications, and that reviewers understand these limits before accepting confidentiality obligations.
In BER Case 96-8, Engineer A contractually agreed not to disclose confidential information acquired in the review... Engineer A had an obligation to immediately discuss these issues with Engineer B in order to seek clarification and resolution.
Recognition that confidentiality in professional review serves trust and cooperation, but cannot be used as an instrument to suppress safety concerns or circumvent professional obligations.
The existing Confidentiality Principle states it must be balanced against public safety obligations and legal disclosure requirements, which is precisely the balancing function this principle performs in the peer review context. The prior extraction also includes Confidentiality of Professional Review as a case-level individual. This class is a variant of the existing Confidentiality Principle applied to the peer review setting, warranting a match at the variant confidence level rather than a new class.
Relational principle governing the design and enforcement of confidentiality agreements in peer review contexts, recognizing that such agreements serve legitimate purposes of encouraging cooperation and trust but must be structured to preserve safety reporting obligations and collegial notification rights.
Peer Review Confidentiality Scope Obligation
Review of confidentiality agreement terms against actions taken; verification that notification to reviewed engineer was not suppressed
Engineer B's confidentiality obligation to the Owner covered the contents and findings of the peer review but did not extend to concealing the existence of the review
Breach of contract if confidentiality is violated beyond its proper scope; ethical violation if confidentiality is used to suppress required notifications
This is a bounded specialization of the Confidentiality Obligation, distinguished by the specific limit that confidentiality in peer review contexts does not override the collegial notification requirement of NSPE III.7.a. It is a defeasible variant with a defined scope boundary.
Duty of a peer reviewer operating under a confidentiality agreement to protect the contents and findings of the review, while recognizing that the confidentiality obligation does not extend to concealing the existence of the review from the engineer whose work is being reviewed.
Owner must decide whether to compel, abandon, or escalate the review
Reviewing professional must weigh proceeding against the subject professional's objection
Subject professional explicitly refuses consent to the review proceeding
Subject professional is notified of peer review
Obligation to assess whether public safety or quality concerns override the refusal
Obligation to consider whether prior design errors create a duty to proceed regardless of consent
Obligation to determine whether consent is ethically required before proceeding
Transforms the general principle of professional respect into a concrete tension between respecting a peer's objection and fulfilling a duty to the public and client when prior errors are known.
Reviewing professional or owner resolves the dispute through a third party or authority
Subject professional withdraws objection and consents
Engineer A objects and refused to consent to the peer review
State in which the professional whose work is subject to peer review has been notified of the review but actively refuses to consent to it, creating a contested review context with unresolved professional and ethical obligations.
Peer Review Consent Sufficiency Constraint
Distinguish clearly between notification obligations and consent requirements
Document the notification and the reviewed engineer's response
Proceed with review after notification even if consent is withheld
While Professional Obligation III.7.a. does not require the consent of the engineer whose work is being reviewed, it will likely be a fruitless exercise to attempt to conduct a peer review without Engineer A's cooperation
Confusion between the mandatory notification requirement and the non-mandatory consent requirement, potentially leading to improper blocking of legitimate peer reviews or to unnecessary abandonment of safety-critical review processes.
Procedural constraint establishing that while notification of the engineer whose work is under review is mandatory before a peer review commences, the formal consent of that engineer is not required by professional ethics codes. The review may proceed without consent once notification has been given, though lack of cooperation may limit the review's practical effectiveness.
Professional engineering peer review and quality assurance practice
Engage constructively with review findings
Respond to reviewer questions and requests
Support rather than obstruct quality assurance processes
Professional Accountability Cooperation Obligation
Technical and interpersonal capability to participate constructively in a peer review of one's own work, including providing access to relevant documentation, responding to reviewer inquiries, and engaging collegially with the review process.
Acknowledge prior errors and support corrective processes
Provide full documentation and access to the reviewing engineer
it will likely be a fruitless exercise to attempt to conduct a peer review without Engineer A's cooperation
Obstruction of safety-critical quality assurance, potential harm to public health and welfare, professional ethics violation, and possible disciplinary action.
This is a variant of the general Ethical Constraint class. It is more specific than the base class but does not map precisely to any of the already-extracted constraint classes, which address notification, covert review prohibition, client instruction override, safety review consent, and confidential review scope. The cooperation duty under known-defect conditions is a distinct ethical boundary not yet captured.
Ethical constraint requiring that a design engineer whose work is subject to a legitimately initiated peer review must cooperate fully with that review, particularly when known errors in prior work elevate public safety concerns. Refusal to cooperate constitutes an ethical violation because engineers must take responsibility for their actions, acknowledge errors, act in client interests, and hold public safety paramount.
Evidence of active participation, provision of design documents, and responsiveness to reviewer inquiries
Finding of unethical conduct; potential loss of client relationship; risk to public safety
Duty of a design engineer to cooperate fully with a legitimate peer review of their work when the review has been properly initiated with their knowledge, particularly when prior errors in their work have been identified and public safety may be at risk.
Non-cooperation is ethically impermissible when known design defects are present
Owner must choose between proceeding under difficult conditions, abandoning the review, or replacing the original engineer
Engineer whose work is under review refuses to cooperate with the reviewing engineer
Peer review is properly initiated with required notification given
Obligation on the non-cooperating engineer to act in the client's best interests
Obligation to hold public health, safety, and welfare paramount
Obligation to take responsibility for one's own design decisions
Transforms general professional responsibility principles into a concrete duty to cooperate, especially when known defects elevate public safety concerns.
Engineer agrees to cooperate with the peer review
Owner proceeds without the engineer or without the peer review
If Engineer A refused to consent and cooperate, Owner would be then face with three options
State in which the engineer whose work is subject to a peer review declines to participate or cooperate with the review process, creating conditions under which the review may be impeded or rendered ineffective and triggering ethical obligations on the non-cooperating party.
Owner decides to obtain a peer review of the plans and design of Engineer A for the second tower and retains Engineer B
Owner instructs Engineer B to conduct the peer review
A professional engineering role engaged to independently evaluate and assess the plans, designs, or work product of another engineer, typically to identify errors, omissions, or deficiencies before or during construction.
Documented notification to the reviewed engineer prior to commencement of peer review
Violation of NSPE III.7.a; potential disciplinary action; invalidation of review process
This obligation is a specific mandatory instantiation of the collegial duty toward professional peers, grounded in NSPE III.7.a. The prior extraction captured a related concept as Peer Review Notification Obligation, and this class generalizes that concept into a reusable canonical form tied directly to the code provision.
Duty of an engineer conducting a peer review to ensure that the engineer whose work is being reviewed has knowledge of the review before it commences, as required by NSPE III.7.a, unless the reviewed engineer's connection with the work has been terminated.
[CollegialObligation] Duties toward professional peers including respect, fairness, and credit for work
Document notification attempts and responses
Provide written notification to the original engineer prior to review
Refuse client instructions that conflict with notification requirements
Breach of professional ethics, violation of NSPE Code provisions, potential disciplinary consequences, and compromise of the legitimacy of the review process.
This constraint maps well to the existing Procedural Constraint class, which covers requirements for following specific processes or protocols. The notification requirement before commencing peer review is a defined procedural step mandated by professional ethics codes, specifically NSPE Code III.7.a. It is a variant of Procedural Constraint with the distinguishing feature of the pre-review notification step.
Procedural constraint requiring that an engineer whose work is subject to peer review must be notified before the review commences, establishing a mandatory step in the peer review process that cannot be bypassed by client instruction.
[ProceduralConstraint] Requirements for following specific processes or protocols (Furbach et al. 2014)
Documented evidence that the original engineer was notified prior to commencement of peer review
Breach of collegial duty; potential disciplinary action; invalidation of review process integrity
This is a specialization of the existing Collegial Obligation class, adding the specific context of peer review notification. The existing class covers duties toward professional peers including respect and fairness, which encompasses the duty to notify a peer before reviewing their work. Confidence is medium because the existing class is more general.
Duty of a peer review engineer to notify the original design engineer before commencing an independent review of that engineer's work, ensuring the reviewed party has knowledge of and opportunity to respond to the review process.
Professional engineering societies and ethics boards
Grounds the duty to notify the original engineer before conducting a peer review and establishes acceptable peer review procedures within the profession.
Quality assurance on engineering designs
Peer review practice standards are a subtype of professional codes in that they distill collective professional experience into guidance for conduct. No more specific existing class covers peer review procedural norms, so matching to the Professional Code parent at medium confidence.
Professional norms and documented guidance governing the conduct of engineering peer reviews, including notification requirements, scope, and the rights and obligations of reviewing and reviewed engineers.
Professional engineering practice and peer review procedures
Assess whether review conditions meet professional standards
Decline improperly structured review assignments
Identify when peer review notification is required
Peer review protocol knowledge is a technical competency specific to professional engineering roles, fitting Professional Competence as defined by Kong et al. 2020 and Stenseke 2024. However, the procedural and ethical dimensions of peer review notification go beyond generic professional competence, warranting a more specific class. Matched as a variant at medium confidence.
Technical and procedural knowledge of the standards governing independent peer review in professional engineering, including notification requirements, scope boundaries, and the conditions under which review is ethically permissible.
[ProfessionalCompetence] Technical competencies specific to professional roles and activities (Kong et al. 2020, Stenseke 2024)
Persistent Safety Pursuit Obligation State
Gravity of danger is a factor in determining how far the pursuit obligation extends
Satisfaction of initial reporting duty does not extinguish the obligation to pursue further when formal presentations fail
Formal presentations have failed to produce corrective action or change in client plans
Professional has made formal written presentations to client and appropriate authorities
The gravity of the danger is sufficient to require continued pursuit
The underlying public safety risk remains unmitigated
Duty to continue advocacy for public safety even after initial reporting obligations are technically satisfied
Duty to further pursue the matter beyond initial formal presentations
Duty to identify and engage additional authorities or channels
Transforms the general duty to hold public safety paramount into a continuing and escalating obligation that survives initial formal reporting, requiring the professional to pursue additional remedies when those reports fail to produce corrective action.
Client or governing body adopts corrective measures
Engineer withdraws from the project after exhausting available escalation options
Regulatory authority intervenes and imposes compliance
Engineers A and B have an obligation to further pursue the matter.
in the event that these formal presentations fail to sway the MWC to change its plans, given the gravity of the danger to public health and safety, Engineers A and B have an obligation to further pursue the matter
State in which a professional engineer has made formal presentations to a client and to regulatory authorities regarding a confirmed public safety risk, those presentations have not produced corrective action, and the professional is therefore obligated to continue pursuing resolution through additional channels or escalation, given the gravity of the danger to public health and safety.
On-site construction records maintained by contractors and resident engineers
Provides primary field data grounding assessments of pile capacity and design compliance, enabling engineers and reviewers to evaluate whether construction met design intent.
One expert testified that the pile driving records indicated that many of the piles did not, at the time of initial driving, meet driving resistance sufficient to satisfy the load carrying requirements of the design calculations.
A contemporaneous field record documenting blow counts, penetration depth, and driving resistance data collected during pile installation. These records serve as primary technical evidence for evaluating whether driven piles achieved design load-carrying capacity and are used in post-construction review, dispute resolution, and engineering analysis.
XYZ Corporation was advised by a State Pollution Control Authority of a need to apply for a permit to discharge manufacturing waste into a receiving body of water
the BER concluded that Doe had an obligation to report his findings to the Pollution Control Authority
the Pollution Control Authority would be holding a public hearing
The Pollution Control Authority is a government oversight body with code-enforcement and permitting functions, matching the Regulatory Authority Role definition directly.
A government regulatory body responsible for overseeing environmental discharge standards, issuing permits, and holding public hearings on matters affecting water quality and environmental compliance. Engineers who identify violations or risks have an obligation to report findings to this authority when client interests conflict with public welfare.
[RegulatoryAuthorityRole] Code-enforcement officials, inspectors, boards, and government agencies acting in an oversight capacity. No IFC equivalent (IFC has no regulator role).
Requires interpretation of whether the temporal gap between service completion and discovery of the violation affects the engineer's duty, and how the engineer's specialized knowledge creates responsibilities that persist beyond the engagement.
Evaluate the severity and ongoing nature of discovered violations
Recognize that professional obligations to the public persist after an engagement concludes
Report substantial ongoing violations of environmental law to appropriate authorities when public welfare requires it
Engineer who completed site assessment discovers client has since implemented prohibited disposal practices
Engineer who completed wetland delineation later observes unpermitted fill and must determine whether prior engagement creates or limits reporting duty
Requires engineers to evaluate whether discovered post-engagement client conduct causes ongoing harm, whether the engineer's specialized knowledge uniquely positions them to recognize and report the harm, and whether disclosure to authorities is required to prevent continuation of the violation.
Client confidentiality obligations from the prior engagement
A few months after Engineer A completes the services, he drives by his client's property and notices that the client has installed a substantial amount of fill material
Professional responsibility derives from specialized knowledge and the public trust placed in licensed engineers, not solely from the existence of an active contractual relationship. Knowledge of ongoing illegal harm to public resources carries ethical weight independent of engagement status.
Professional principle establishing that an engineer's disclosure obligations to regulatory authorities or the public are not extinguished by the conclusion of the contractual engagement, and that conduct by a former client that constitutes a substantial violation of law and poses ongoing harm to public resources may trigger an affirmative obligation to report, notwithstanding the absence of a current service relationship.
Consult applicable professional ethics codes and legal counsel regarding reporting obligations
Document the observation and the basis for concluding a violation has occurred before reporting
Report the confirmed violation to the appropriate federal and state regulatory authorities promptly upon discovery
A few months after Engineer A completes the services, he drives by his client's property and notices that the client has installed a substantial amount of fill material on more than 1/2 an acre across a portion of the wetlands without any permits, variances, or permissions.
Failure to report allows ongoing environmental harm, exposes the engineer to professional discipline, and undermines the public interest the engineer is obligated to protect.
Ethical and legal constraint requiring an engineer who discovers, after the conclusion of a professional engagement, that a former client has committed a confirmed violation of applicable law or regulation to report that violation to the appropriate regulatory authority, notwithstanding the absence of an ongoing professional relationship. The termination of the engagement does not extinguish the engineer's duty to hold public welfare paramount when a confirmed violation poses a risk to public health, safety, or the environment.
Post-Engagement Violation Detection Capability
Environmental engineering, wetland regulation, and post-engagement professional responsibility
Assess whether observed conditions constitute a substantial violation
Connect observed site conditions to prior professional knowledge of the site
Recognize unpermitted fill activity as a legal violation
Post-Engagement Violation Reporting Obligation
Ethical Perception covers the capability to recognize ethically salient features and dynamically assess environment. The post-engagement incidental observation of a violation is a variant of that general perceptual capability applied in a specific post-engagement context. The existing class is the closest match but does not fully capture the post-engagement and domain-specific legal recognition dimension, so this is treated as a variant warranting a new specialized class.
Capability to recognize, after the conclusion of a professional engagement, that a former client has committed a violation of applicable law or regulation related to the subject matter of the prior engagement, including the ability to identify the legal significance of observed conditions encountered incidentally rather than through active monitoring.
[EthicalPerception] Capability to recognize ethically salient features and dynamically assess environment (Anderson et al. 2006, Berreby et al. 2017)
Post-Engagement Violation Discovery State
Professional may not ignore a substantial known violation simply because the engagement has ended
Professional must not certify or endorse the altered site condition without disclosing the violation
Professional independently observes or learns of client conduct constituting a violation
Professional's engagement with client has formally concluded
Violation relates to the subject matter of the prior professional engagement
Duty to avoid using prior professional work to facilitate or conceal the violation
Duty to evaluate whether post-engagement reporting obligations are triggered
Obligation to assess whether the violation creates a public safety or environmental risk
Transforms the general principle that professional obligations do not automatically terminate with a contract into a concrete duty to evaluate reporting and disclosure obligations when a post-engagement discovery reveals client misconduct related to the prior engagement.
Professional determines no reporting obligation applies and documents that determination
Professional reports violation to appropriate authority
State in which a professional, after completing services for a client, independently discovers that the client has taken actions on the subject site or matter that constitute a legal or regulatory violation, creating an obligation to evaluate whether post-engagement duties, including reporting to authorities, apply even though the professional's contractual relationship has concluded.
Documented evidence that the engineer reported the observed violation to the appropriate federal or state environmental or pollution control authority within a reasonable time after discovery.
Failure to report a known substantial environmental violation may constitute complicity in ongoing harm to public welfare and may expose the engineer to professional discipline.
The existing Post-Termination Environmental Risk Reporting Obligation covers the duty to report environmental risks to a pollution-control authority after termination of the client relationship when the risk rises to a public-safety concern. This case instantiates that class: Engineer A's engagement has concluded and the discovered violation is a substantial breach of federal and state law. The present class is a close variant emphasizing the active violation of law rather than a prospective risk, but the core concept is the same and the existing class is the correct match.
Duty of an engineer who discovers, after the conclusion of a professional engagement, that a former client has committed a substantial violation of federal or state environmental law on a site the engineer previously worked on, to report that violation to the appropriate regulatory authority, placing the paramount duty to public welfare above any residual loyalty to the former client.
Post-Formal-Presentation Persistence Principle
Open-textured principle requiring judgment about what additional channels are available and appropriate, and about when the gravity of the danger is sufficient to trigger the obligation to persist beyond formal presentations.
Continue pursuit of remediation in proportion to the gravity of the danger
Identify additional escalation channels when formal presentations fail
Not treat completion of formal presentations as discharge of all professional responsibility
BER Case No. 19-10 requiring Engineer A to continue pursuing resolution by working with client and contacting supervisors, fire marshals, or any other agency with jurisdiction
BER Case No. 89-7 establishing that engineers could have taken other steps beyond the structural report
Requires engineers to identify additional channels for escalation when formal presentations fail, including contacting additional regulatory bodies, professional societies, or other authorities with jurisdiction, calibrated to the severity of the identified risk.
However, in the event that these formal presentations fail to sway the MWC to change its plans, given the gravity of the danger to public health and safety, Engineers A and B have an obligation to further pursue the matter.
The public cannot protect itself from engineering decisions it does not know about; when formal channels fail, the engineer remains the last line of defense and cannot treat procedural compliance as a substitute for actual protection of the public.
Professional principle establishing that when formal presentations to clients and regulatory authorities fail to produce remediation of a serious public health or safety risk, engineers have an obligation to further pursue the matter through additional available channels, and may not treat the completion of formal presentations as the end of their professional responsibility. The gravity of the danger determines the extent of the obligation to persist.
Coordinate with co-engineers to pursue additional channels consistently
Document all escalation steps and their outcomes
Escalate to higher levels within the regulatory hierarchy if initial contacts are unresponsive
Identify and engage additional regulatory or governmental authorities with jurisdiction
Confirmed public health risk persists without adequate professional advocacy, engineer abandons paramount safety duty after initial steps, public remains endangered.
The Regulatory Escalation Constraint requires an engineer whose client has overridden a safety recommendation to report the risk to appropriate regulatory authorities. The present constraint extends that concept to require continued pursuit beyond the initial formal presentation if that presentation fails to produce a change in the client's plans. It is a variant that adds the persistence dimension to the escalation obligation. Medium-confidence variant match is appropriate.
Ethical constraint requiring that an engineer who has made formal presentations to a client and to regulatory authorities regarding a confirmed public health or safety risk, and whose recommendations have not been adopted, must continue to pursue resolution through additional available channels rather than treating the formal presentations as the end of the professional obligation. The gravity of the danger determines the extent of the continuing pursuit required.
[RegulatoryEscalationConstraint] Safety and ethical constraint requiring an engineer who has identified a confirmed risk to public health or safety, and whose client has overridden the engineer's recommendation to address that risk, to report the risk to the appropriate regulatory or pollution control authority when the client's override creates a condition that endangers public welfare and cannot be resolved within the professional relationship.
Post-Presentation Persistence Capability
Public safety engineering with multi-step regulatory escalation
Assess whether formal presentations have resolved the public safety risk
Continue pursuing resolution through available means after initial escalation
Identify additional channels for escalation when formal presentations fail
Engineers A B Post-Presentation Persistence
Post-Presentation Persistence Obligation
Capability to recognize that a formal presentation to a client and to regulatory authorities does not exhaust the professional obligation when a serious public health or safety risk remains unaddressed, and to identify and pursue additional available channels or escalation steps beyond the initial formal presentation.
Evidence that the engineer pursued additional escalation steps or channels after formal presentations failed to change the client's course of action.
Abandonment of the matter after failed formal presentations leaves the public exposed to identified health and safety risks without further professional advocacy.
Duty of an engineer who has made formal presentations to a client and to regulatory authorities regarding a public health or safety risk, and whose presentations have failed to produce a change in the client's plans, to further pursue the matter through additional available channels, given the gravity of the danger to public health and safety.
Precedent Modification Reasoning Capability
Professional engineering ethics adjudication and precedent management
Articulate a reasoned basis for departing from or refining prior decisions
Assess whether a prior ruling is consistent with current professional practice
Distinguish clarification from reversal in ethical precedent
Identify factual or normative grounds for modifying a prior ruling
For that reason, we think the Board's conclusion in BER Case 86-2 should be modified to reflect actual practices which exist within engineering and not impose a impossible standard upon practice.
We do not believe this represents a reversal of the Board's decision in BER Case 86-2, but rather a clarification, particularly for those who were troubled by the Board's discussion and conclusion in that case.
Precedent Analogical Reasoning Capability addresses identifying prior rulings, analyzing factual distinctions, and reasoning from those distinctions to determine whether the precedent applies. Precedent Modification Reasoning Capability is a related but distinct concept: it concerns the ability to reason about when and how a prior ruling should be modified or clarified rather than simply applied or distinguished. The match is medium confidence as a variant of the existing class, with the modification and clarification dimension being the distinguishing feature.
Precedent Analogical Reasoning Capability
Capability to identify when a prior ethical ruling or precedent should be modified or clarified in light of new information, changed professional practices, or demonstrated inconsistency with prevailing norms, and to articulate a reasoned basis for the modification that distinguishes it from a reversal while preserving doctrinal continuity.
[PrecedentAnalogicalReasoningCapability] Capability to identify prior professional ethics rulings or case precedents that are factually similar to a current situation, to analyze the factual distinctions between the precedent and the current case, and to reason from those distinctions to determine whether the precedent's conclusion applies, is modified, or is inapplicable in the current context.
Environmental and stormwater engineering risk communication
Communicate a preliminary risk concern to a client without overstating or understating the level of certainty
Distinguish between concerns that are too speculative to disclose and those that warrant preliminary notification
Recognize when a preliminary stormwater risk concern is sufficiently developed to require client notification
But before Engineer L can quantify the increased risk, Client X encounters unexpected financial setbacks and requests that Engineer L suspend work.
During the preliminary design phase, Engineer L becomes concerned that the risk of impact to the community drinking water source will potentially increase, as the likelihood of heavy stormwater flows will increase over time.
Concern Versus Fact Threshold Capability is defined as the capability to distinguish between a preliminary professional concern that has not yet been substantiated by technical analysis and a finding that rises to the level of a demonstrable fact, and to calibrate disclosure obligations accordingly so that neither premature disclosure of unsubstantiated concerns nor suppression of confirmed findings occurs. This maps to the capability required for Engineer L to determine whether the preliminary stormwater risk concern warranted disclosure at the time of suspension. The match is medium-high confidence because the existing class captures the core calibration judgment, though the present case emphasizes the disclosure side rather than the suppression side.
Capability to recognize when a preliminary professional concern about a risk to public health or safety, even before it has been fully quantified, is sufficiently developed to warrant disclosure to the client, and to communicate that concern in a manner that is appropriately calibrated to the level of certainty available at the time.
Professional must not certify the transition as safe without adequate safeguards
Professional must not remain silent when public health is at imminent risk
Authority votes to change supply source before required improvements are complete
Corrosion control or treatment capacity is insufficient for the new source
Professional engineers have identified that improvements are necessary prior to transition
Duty to assess whether continued participation is ethically permissible
Duty to notify regulatory authorities of public health risk
Transforms the general duty to protect public health and safety into a concrete obligation to object, document, and report when a utility proceeds with a supply change that creates foreseeable lead leaching risk in the distribution system.
Regulatory authority halts the transition
Required treatment improvements are completed and validated
the MWC voted to proceed simultaneously with the accelerated evaluation and design of needed water treatment improvements and the change in water source
State in which a water or utility authority proceeds with a change in supply source before required treatment infrastructure, corrosion control measures, or quality safeguards have been designed, evaluated, or constructed, creating an active public health risk because the new source may deliver water through distribution infrastructure that is incompatible with the new source chemistry.
the prime consultant, which has overall responsibility for the project, was in a far better position than Engineer A to understand the interrelationships between various elements of the projects
Prime Consultant Engineer is a specialization of Consultant Role with added coordination and integration responsibilities over sub-consultants. It is not identical to the generic Consultant Role but maps to it as a parent.
A professional engineering role in which the practitioner or firm holds overall responsibility for a project as the primary contracted consultant, coordinates sub-consultants, and bears accountability for integrating technical findings from all sub-consultants into a coherent project-level evaluation and response.
[ConsultantRole] Professional engaged for expert advice on a specific aspect of a project. Engineering consultants are classified under EngineerRole. This head covers non-engineering advisory roles.
Client X encounters unexpected financial setbacks and requests that Engineer L suspend work
Client X insists on proceeding without added safeguards
Client Role exists in the ontology as the party that commissions project work. Private Development Client is a specialization of Client Role distinguished by its private commercial nature and the tension between financial constraints and public safety obligations. Matching to Client Role as parent with medium confidence.
A private commercial entity that commissions professional engineering services for a development project, acting as the primary client and decision-maker but lacking professional engineering licensure, and whose financial and business interests may conflict with the engineer's professional obligations to protect public welfare.
Open-textured value requiring judgment about when a risk is sufficiently identified to trigger disclosure, and to whom disclosure must be made beyond the immediate client.
Disclose identified risks to the client at the time of identification, not deferred to a later phase
Escalate to appropriate authorities when client declines to act on disclosed risks affecting third parties
BER Case 76-4 where an engineer failed to disclose pollution risk to a regulatory authority
Engineer L case where work suspension did not relieve the obligation to communicate identified drinking water risks
Requires engineers to communicate identified risks to clients at the time of identification, regardless of project status, and to escalate to regulatory authorities or the public when client action is insufficient to protect third parties.
Engineer L becomes concerned that the risk of impact to the community drinking water source will potentially increase, as the likelihood of heavy stormwater flows will increase over time
Engineer L does not mention to Client X the potential increased risk of impact to the community drinking water source
Engineers possess specialized knowledge that affected parties lack; withholding identified risks deprives those parties of the ability to protect themselves or seek alternative measures.
Professional principle requiring engineers to disclose known or reasonably anticipated risks to affected parties, including clients and the public, as soon as those risks are identified, without waiting for the risks to materialize or for a convenient moment in the project lifecycle. The obligation to disclose is not suspended by project interruptions, financial pressures, or client reluctance.
Procedural Irregularity Reporting Capability
Geotechnical observation and testing in foundation engineering
Assess the potential effect of irregularities on test validity
Identify procedural deviations from standard or agreed methods
Observe and document equipment failures during testing
Report irregularities to the retaining party and in formal findings
The geotechnical consultant testified and showed that dynamic test equipment had failed during the test and that the test piles were not driven to the same depth of penetration.
No existing capability class addresses the competency of observing, documenting, and reporting procedural irregularities during a supervised test or investigation.
Ability to observe, document, and report procedural irregularities or equipment failures encountered during a test or investigation, including deviations from standard practice that may affect the validity of results.
Procedural Irregularity Reporting Constraint
Include irregularity documentation in the observer report
Maintain contemporaneous field notes of all observed irregularities
Raise irregularities with the supervising engineer at the time of occurrence
Invalid test record, misleading findings, professional discipline, unjust dispute outcomes
No existing constraint class in the ontology addresses the procedural requirement for an observer to document and report irregularities. This is the bounding constraint corresponding to the obligation-side Observer Irregularity Reporting Obligation.
Requirement that an engineer or observer retained to witness a test or investigation document and report all procedural irregularities observed, regardless of which party the irregularities may favor or disfavor.
Professional Accountability Acceptance Capability
Professional engineering practice involving design error discovery and quality assurance
Acknowledge prior errors without evasion
Consent to independent review of prior work
Cooperate fully with peer review processes
Prioritize public safety over personal professional interest
Capability to recognize that professional responsibility for prior errors requires active cooperation with corrective and quality assurance processes, including peer review, and to act accordingly rather than obstructing such processes.
Evidence that the design engineer cooperated with or at minimum did not obstruct the peer review process
Several significant design errors are discovered in the plans and design of Engineer A.
Failure of professional accountability; potential disciplinary action; obstruction of safety-motivated oversight
Duty of a design engineer to cooperate with legitimate quality assurance and review processes, including peer review, particularly when prior errors in their work have been identified, as an expression of professional accountability.
The principle requires interpretation of the scope and depth of accountability that attaches to the act of sealing, and how that accountability differs depending on whether the engineer personally prepared the work or supervised its preparation.
Accept personal responsibility for all sealed documents
Ensure adequate basis exists for sealing, whether through personal preparation or substantive supervision
Respond to challenges to sealed work products
Engineer A bears full accountability for CADD documents personally prepared and sealed
Engineer B bears full accountability for CADD documents sealed after directing and controlling the work of others
Requires engineers to understand that sealing a document is not a ministerial act but an acceptance of professional responsibility, and to ensure they have the basis to stand behind every document they seal.
Efficiency pressures in document production
The professional seal is a public representation that the engineer accepts personal responsibility for the work, protecting the public who rely on the documents.
The existing ontology class 'Professional Accountability' is defined as a professional virtue principle requiring engineers to accept responsibility for their work product and to submit to legitimate oversight and review processes. This matches the accountability dimension of sealing engineering documents, where the act of signing and sealing constitutes a public acceptance of professional responsibility. The concept is the same; no new class is needed.
Professional virtue principle requiring engineers to accept responsibility for their work product and to submit to legitimate oversight and review processes, particularly when the engineer's seal is affixed to documents, making the engineer personally accountable for the technical adequacy and accuracy of those documents.
[ProfessionalAccountability] Professional virtue principle requiring engineers to accept responsibility for their work product and to submit to legitimate oversight and review processes, particularly when errors in that work product have been identified.
Requires ongoing self-assessment and acceptance of external validation mechanisms as legitimate checks on whether competence standards are being met in practice.
Accept peer review as a legitimate competence-verification mechanism
Acknowledge when prior work contained significant deficiencies
Correct identified errors in existing designs
NSPE BER cases involving engineers who produced deficient designs and the profession's response
NSPE Code Section II.2 requiring engineers to perform services only in areas of their competence
The discovery of significant errors in the first tower plans provides grounds for peer review of the second tower plans as a competence-verification mechanism, and Engineer A's resistance to that review conflicts with the accountability dimension of professional competence.
Owner decides to obtain a peer review of the plans and design of Engineer A for the second tower
Public safety depends on engineers producing technically sound work, and the discovery of significant errors in completed designs raises legitimate questions about whether competence standards were met.
Direct match to the existing Professional Competence class in the ontology. The case raises this principle through the discovery of significant design errors in the first tower, which motivates the peer review of the second tower as a mechanism for verifying that competence standards are being met.
Professional virtue principle requiring engineers to maintain and demonstrate the technical knowledge and skill necessary to produce work that meets applicable standards, and to acknowledge the limits of their competence.
Character-based principle that shapes how engineers respond when client instructions or self-interest conflict with professional obligations, requiring internal moral consistency rather than mere rule compliance.
Accept peer review as a legitimate professional process
Place professional obligations above personal reputational concerns
Resist client pressure to conduct covert review
NSPE BER cases involving engineers who refused client instructions that would compromise professional standards
Oakley and Cocking virtue ethics framework applied to engineering professional character
Requires Engineer B to insist on notifying Engineer A despite client pressure to proceed covertly, and requires Engineer A to accept legitimate oversight rather than obstruct it for self-protective reasons.
Professional trustworthiness depends on engineers acting from internalized values rather than external compulsion, so that their conduct is reliable even when oversight is absent.
Professional virtue principle requiring engineers to maintain consistency between their ethical obligations and their conduct, refusing to allow client pressure, personal interest, or collegial discomfort to cause them to act contrary to their professional duties.
Requires contextual judgment about what information must be disclosed to whom, and at what stage of a professional process, to preserve trust and fairness in collegial relationships.
Decline to conduct covert review of a colleague's work
Inform the original engineer of the scope and purpose of the review
Notify the original engineer before commencing peer review
NSPE BER Case 94-7 on notification obligations when reviewing another engineer's work
NSPE Code Section III.8 requiring engineers to notify the other party when asked to review another engineer's work
Requires the reviewing engineer to notify the original design engineer before or at the outset of a peer review, and requires the client to permit such notification as a condition of the engagement.
Engineers whose work is subject to review have a legitimate professional interest in knowing that review is occurring, so they may respond, correct errors, or provide context.
The principle maps closely to the existing Transparency class in the ontology. The case instantiates transparency as the obligation to disclose to Engineer A that a peer review is being conducted, which is a direct application of the Transparency principle governing openness in professional conduct.
Relational principle requiring engineers to conduct professional activities openly and without concealment from affected colleagues, particularly when those activities involve evaluating or overseeing another engineer's work.
A professional engineering role in which the practitioner provides advisory recommendations to a client on the selection of project delivery methods for a capital project, bearing professional obligations of objectivity, completeness, and avoidance of self-interest in the advice rendered.
Project Delivery Method Guidance Resource
Funding agencies, government programs, or regulatory bodies administering infrastructure financing
Establishes the bounded set of permissible delivery options an engineer must consider and disclose when advising an owner, grounding the duty of completeness and objectivity in professional recommendations.
Official documentation or regulatory guidance specifying approved project delivery methods available under a particular funding source or program, including conditions and constraints attached to each method such as entity separation requirements.
Owner is developing a site with two mirror-image towers
Project Owner maps directly to Owner Role in the ontology, which is defined as the party that owns the asset, project, or building. High confidence match.
A party that owns or is developing an asset and commissions professional engineering and construction services for that asset, acting as the primary client and decision-maker for the project.
[OwnerRole] Party that owns the asset, project, or building.
Engineer A abandoned the ethical duty and proceeded to work on the project
Engineer A did notify the client of the need to hire a full-time, on-site project representative
Engineer A recommended the client hire a full-time, on-site project representative for the project because of the potentially dangerous nature of implementing the design during the construction phase
A licensed professional engineering role in which the practitioner recommends specific safety measures or personnel to a client as a condition of project success, notifies the client when omission of those measures creates unacceptable risk, and bears an obligation not to continue work when the client refuses to implement the identified safeguards, because proceeding would subordinate public safety to the client's economic concerns.
Professional engineering project advisory in stormwater and environmental contexts
Advise the client that the project as currently scoped will not meet regulatory or public safety requirements
Assess whether proceeding without recommended protective measures constitutes a compliant or successful project outcome
Communicate the professional judgment that proceeding without safeguards is not a viable path to project success
local environmental standards require steps to safeguard public water sources
Project Success Assessment Capability is defined as the capability to evaluate whether a project can be completed successfully in terms of safety, structural adequacy, and public welfare, and to advise the client or employer when the engineer's professional judgment is that the project will not be successful without specific measures, including the ability to define success beyond mere economic or structural completion. This matches the capability required for Engineer L's obligation to advise Client X that proceeding without protective measures would not constitute a compliant or successful project. The match is high confidence.
Capability to evaluate whether a project can be completed successfully in terms of safety, regulatory compliance, and public welfare, and to advise the client or employer when the engineer's professional judgment is that the project will not be successful without specific measures, including the ability to define success beyond mere economic or structural completion.
[ProjectSuccessAssessmentCapability] Capability to evaluate whether a project can be completed successfully in terms of safety, structural adequacy, and public welfare, and to advise the client or employer when the engineer's professional judgment is that the project will not be successful without specific measures, including the ability to define success beyond mere economic or structural completion.
The concept of project success requires interpretation across technical, economic, and safety dimensions. The principle requires engineers to exercise judgment about when a project has crossed the threshold of likely failure or unacceptable risk, and to communicate that judgment clearly to clients even when unwelcome.
Define project success to include safety outcomes, not only structural and economic outcomes
Document notifications to clients about project viability concerns
Notify clients when project success is threatened by identified deficiencies or refused protective measures
BER Case 84-5: Engineer A was required to notify client that project would not be successful without a full-time on-site safety representative during construction
Present case: Engineer L was required to notify Client X that the project would not be successful without implementation of protective stormwater measures
Requires engineers to communicate clearly when identified deficiencies or client refusals to implement protective measures will result in project failure or unsafe conditions, and to document that communication.
Code section III.1.b requires that engineers advise their clients or employers when they believe a project will be unsuccessful.
Engineer L notified Client X of this risk.
section III.1.b. clearly requires the engineer to inform a client when the engineer believes that a project will not be successful. The term successful includes not merely the structural and economic success of a project but also the success of the project from a safety standpoint.
Clients rely on engineers for honest professional assessments of project viability and risk. Withholding a judgment that a project will fail or create safety risks deprives the client of information needed to make informed decisions and exposes the public to preventable harm.
Professional principle requiring engineers to advise clients or employers when, in the engineer's professional judgment, a project will not be successful, where success encompasses not only structural and economic outcomes but also safety outcomes. This obligation applies when the engineer has identified conditions or deficiencies that, if unaddressed, will result in project failure or unsafe outcomes.
Protective Measure Recommendation Capability
Stormwater management and environmental engineering
Assess adequacy of proposed protective measures against identified risk
Communicate the technical basis for protective measure recommendations
Identify safeguards required by local environmental standards
Recommend specific stormwater protective measures to client
Protective Measure Recommendation Obligation
Capability to identify and recommend specific protective measures commensurate with an identified risk to public health or safety, including the ability to specify what safeguards are technically appropriate and to communicate those recommendations clearly to a client even when the client is reluctant to invest in them.
Documented evidence that the engineer provided specific protective measure recommendations to the client in writing, with reference to applicable regulatory requirements.
Failure to recommend protective measures leaves the client without professional guidance needed to protect public welfare and may expose the engineer to liability for resulting harm.
This obligation is a variant of the existing Safety Obligation, specialized to the duty to affirmatively recommend protective measures rather than merely identify risks. The existing Safety Obligation covers the general duty to hold paramount public safety, but does not specifically address the affirmative duty to recommend concrete protective measures to the client. A new class is warranted to capture this action-specific dimension.
Duty of an engineer who identifies a risk to public health or safety to recommend specific protective measures to the client that are commensurate with the identified risk, including measures required by applicable local, state, or federal environmental or safety standards, and to document those recommendations.
The public agency contacted VWX Architects and Engineers which then contacted Engineer A
a public agency retained the services of VWX Architects and Engineers to perform a major scheduled overhaul of a bridge
Public Agency Client is a specialization of Client Role representing a government body commissioning infrastructure services. It is closely related to Municipal Client already extracted in prior cases but is referenced here in the context of bridge overhaul and is treated as the same general concept.
A government or public agency that commissions professional engineering or architectural services for public infrastructure, acting as the primary client and decision-maker, and as the party responsible for authorizing or directing corrective action when safety-relevant findings are reported through the consultant chain.
Public Funds Misrepresentation Avoidance Capability
Professional engineering on publicly funded infrastructure projects
Assess accuracy of representations about deliverable completeness
Identify when funding-contingent assertions are misleading
Recognize when a justification for incomplete work borders on fraud
Refrain from misrepresenting incomplete documents as adequate
Public Funds Misrepresentation Avoidance Obligation
Engineer A's comment about Federal funds borders on fraud and misrepresentation and is a clear violation of the NSPE Code.
Capability to recognize when representations made to a client or funding authority about the completeness or adequacy of professional work products would be false or misleading, particularly in the context of publicly funded projects, and to refrain from making such representations even when doing so might secure continued funding or avoid disclosure of deficiencies.
Whether the engineer made representations about funding remediation of deficiencies that were unsupported and served to conceal incomplete deliverables
Professional discipline for deceptive acts; potential fraud findings; misuse of public funds
Duty of an engineer engaged on a publicly funded project to refrain from representations to the client, funding agency, or approving authority that incomplete or deficient work is acceptable or will be remedied by anticipated public funding, when such representations are unsupported and serve to conceal the engineer's failure to deliver a complete and conforming work product.
Public Funds Misrepresentation Constraint
Deliver complete work products before representing them as adequate
Disclose incompleteness explicitly rather than relying on anticipated funding
Obtain verified funding commitments before making representations about project adequacy
Professional ethics violation; potential fraud and misrepresentation liability; loss of public trust; project cost overruns borne by public
The prohibition on misrepresenting incomplete work as adequate by relying on unverified public funding assumptions is a specific application of the general non-deception constraint. The Cost Assumption Neutrality Constraint extracted from prior sections addresses the rationalization aspect, while this constraint addresses the affirmative misrepresentation to the client and funding agency. It is a variant of Non-Deception rather than a fully new class, but the public-funds-specific framing and fraud-border characterization give it enough specificity to warrant a distinct class.
Ethical and legal constraint prohibiting an engineer from representing to a client or funding agency that incomplete or inadequate work products are acceptable or sufficient on the basis of an assumption that public funds will be awarded to remedy the deficiency. Such representations border on fraud and misrepresentation and violate professional ethics codes regardless of the engineer's subjective belief that funding will materialize.
[Non_Deception] Constraint established by ethics code provisions
Principle requiring contextual interpretation of what constitutes unjustified expenditure and deceptive conduct in the public funding context, and recognition that the public interest in fiscal integrity is a professional concern even absent a safety dimension.
Avoid misrepresentations about project completeness to public funding authorities
Complete work to applicable standards without deferring deficiencies to future public funding
Report unjustified expenditure of public funds as a matter of professional right and potentially of duty
BER Case No. 82-5 involving excessive subcontractor costs on a defense contract
BER dam design case involving Engineer A's assertion that federal funds would remedy incomplete design work
Requires engineers on publicly funded projects to avoid misrepresentations about project status, to complete work to applicable standards without relying on anticipated future public funding to remedy known deficiencies, and to report unjustified expenditures of public funds even when not required by safety obligations.
Public trust in the integrity of publicly funded infrastructure projects, accountability to taxpayers and public funding authorities, and the special obligations that attach to work performed with public resources.
Professional principle establishing that engineers engaged on publicly funded projects bear a heightened responsibility to avoid deceptive acts, misrepresentations, and conduct that results in the unjustified expenditure of public funds, even when the conduct does not rise to the level of a direct public health or safety threat. The use of public funds imposes an affirmative obligation of honesty and completeness that goes beyond the minimum duties owed to a private client.
Documented disclosure of the specific risk, its technical basis, and the conditions triggering it, communicated to the client and relevant authorities before the risk-creating action is taken
Public health harm; professional discipline; potential legal liability
The obligation closely matches the existing Preliminary Risk Disclosure Obligation, which covers the duty to disclose identified risks to public health or safety to the client and relevant stakeholders promptly. The present case involves a fully characterized rather than merely preliminary risk, but the core disclosure duty is the same concept.
Duty of an engineer who identifies a specific, quantified risk to public health, such as lead leaching from service pipes exceeding drinking water standards, to disclose that risk clearly and completely to the client and to the public or regulatory authority, including the technical basis for the risk assessment and the conditions under which the risk will materialize.
[PreliminaryRiskDisclosureObligation] Duty of an engineer who identifies a potential risk to public health or safety during a preliminary phase of work to disclose that risk to the client and relevant stakeholders promptly, even before the risk has been fully quantified, so that the client can make informed decisions about project scope, suspension, or protective measures.
Environmental and stormwater engineering regulatory reporting
Act on the public safety paramount obligation despite client instructions to the contrary
Recognize when a client's refusal to implement safety measures triggers a public safety reporting obligation
Report identified stormwater risks to the appropriate regulatory or pollution control authority
Public Safety Paramount Judgment Capability is defined as the capability to recognize that the professional obligation to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public takes precedence over duties of loyalty to a client or former client, and to act on that recognition by taking affirmative steps such as regulatory reporting even when doing so is adverse to the client's interests. This is a direct match at high confidence.
Capability to recognize that the professional obligation to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public takes precedence over duties of loyalty to a client, and to act on that recognition by taking affirmative steps such as regulatory reporting even when doing so is adverse to the client's interests.
the MWC has been considering changing its water supply source
The MWC is a municipal or quasi-governmental body commissioning engineering services and acting as the primary decision-maker, which aligns with Municipal Client. The commission structure with voting authority over technical recommendations is a specialization of that existing class.
A public governing body responsible for overseeing a municipal water utility, making policy and infrastructure decisions on water supply sources and capital expenditures, and acting as the client and decision-making authority for professional engineering services retained by the utility, with the power to override technical recommendations made by its own engineers.
Public Water Supply Protection Standard Resource
Environmental protection agencies and professional engineering bodies
Provides collective professional and regulatory agreement on acceptable practices for preventing contamination of community drinking water supplies, grounding engineering design obligations in documented technical criteria.
ensuring that stormwater from the new development will not impact this primary drinking water source for the community
Stormwater management design near drinking water sources
Technical or regulatory standards specifying design and operational requirements for protecting public drinking water sources from contamination, including stormwater runoff controls and watershed management criteria.
Open-textured value requiring case-by-case interpretation of what constitutes a sufficient threat to public welfare to trigger disclosure or refusal obligations, and how to balance against competing duties of loyalty and confidentiality.
Disclose identified safety and environmental risks to affected parties and authorities
Prioritize public health over client economic concerns when the two conflict
Refuse to continue work when client declines to implement necessary protective measures
BER Case 22-5 and BER Case 20-4: emphasis on safe drinking water as public welfare concern
BER Case 76-4: Engineer Doe obligated to report discharge findings to Pollution Control Authority despite client instruction to suppress written report
BER Case 84-5: Engineer A violated Code by continuing project after client refused safety representative, subordinating public welfare to client economic concerns
Requires engineers to disclose known safety risks to appropriate authorities, refuse to continue work that creates unmitigated public risk, and resist client pressure to suppress or ignore safety findings.
Section 2(a) requires that his duty to the public be paramount.
a code of ethics is of course a statement of commitment from a particular profession to assist its members in the protection of the public health and safety
it is basic to the entire concept of a profession that its members will devote their interests to the public welfare
The foundational justification for professional licensure and regulation is protection of the public, who cannot independently assess the safety of engineered works and must rely on professional integrity.
This principle maps directly to the existing Public Welfare Principle and Public Welfare Paramount classes in the ontology. The case text explicitly invokes NSPE Canon I.1 and the paramountcy formulation. The existing Public Welfare Principle class covers this concept; the individual record captures the case-specific application.
Fundamental principle requiring engineers to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public above all competing professional obligations, including duties of loyalty to clients and employers. This principle is the highest-order canon in engineering ethics and cannot be overridden by client economic concerns, contractual relationships, or instructions to suppress findings.
[PublicWelfarePrinciple] Requires contextual interpretation to balance against client confidentiality and employer loyalty when public safety is at risk.
BER Case No. 00-5 centered on the reopening of a dangerous, closed bridge by a nonengineer public works director
A non-engineer public official who holds administrative authority over public works infrastructure and may make operational decisions affecting public safety, including decisions that override professional engineering recommendations.
Disclose the qualitative risk estimate with explicit notation of its preliminary or unquantified character
Document the basis for the qualitative estimate and the limitations of the analysis
Recommend further study to quantify the risk while simultaneously disclosing the qualitative finding
Engineer L conducts additional studies and qualitatively estimates the risk that heavy rainfall could lead to stormwater runoff from the development reaching the nearby watershed and community drinking water source.
Client and regulatory authorities are deprived of material safety information, potentially allowing a known risk to persist without protective action while the engineer awaits a level of certainty that may not be achievable within the project timeline.
The existing Concern Versus Fact Disclosure Constraint addresses the boundary between preliminary concerns and established facts for disclosure purposes. The qualitative risk scenario here is closely related: Engineer L has moved beyond a mere concern to a qualitative estimate, which sits between a preliminary concern and a fully quantified finding. The existing class addresses this spectrum and its disclosure implications. This is a variant match at medium confidence, as the existing class covers the conceptual territory though the qualitative-estimate framing is a specific application.
Ethical and professional constraint establishing that an engineer who has conducted sufficient analysis to form a qualitative estimate of a risk to public health or safety is obligated to disclose that estimate to the client and, where applicable, to relevant regulatory authorities, even when a full quantitative characterization of the risk has not yet been completed. A qualitative finding that a risk exists and is material triggers disclosure obligations equivalent to those arising from a quantified finding.
Environmental and stormwater engineering risk assessment
Communicate the basis and limitations of a qualitative risk estimate to a client
Estimate stormwater runoff risk to a watershed using qualitative methods
Identify when qualitative findings are sufficient to trigger disclosure or protective measure recommendations
Environmental Risk Quantification Capability covers the technical capability to conduct sufficient analysis to quantify environmental risks, assess magnitude and likelihood of stormwater or discharge impacts on public water sources, and document the status of quantification work when full analysis cannot be completed. The present case involves a qualitative rather than fully quantitative estimate, which is a variant of the same core competency. The match is medium confidence because the existing class emphasizes quantification while the case involves a qualitative estimate, but both concern the same domain and the same obligation to characterize risk sufficiently to support disclosure and protective measure recommendations.
Environmental Risk Quantification Capability
Technical capability to conduct and communicate a qualitative or semi-quantitative estimate of an environmental or public safety risk when full quantitative analysis is not yet feasible, including the ability to characterize the nature, direction, and approximate magnitude of a risk based on available evidence and professional judgment, and to recognize the limits of such an estimate.
[EnvironmentalRiskQuantificationCapability] Technical capability to conduct sufficient analysis to quantify environmental risks identified during professional work, including the ability to assess the magnitude and likelihood of stormwater or discharge impacts on public water sources and to document the status of quantification work when full analysis cannot be completed.
Disclose inability to provide complete objective analysis and withdraw from advisory role
Refer client to publicly available or subscription resources covering all options
Engineer A could have referred City Administrator to resources (whether library, free, or subscription) that provided complete analyses of the various methodologies. That would be a completely ethical informal response to an informal solicitation, involving no provision of engineering services.
Client receives incomplete or biased guidance, professional gains unfair advantage, trust in advisory relationship is undermined.
Ethical constraint establishing that when a professional cannot or should not provide a complete advisory service without incurring conflicts of interest or other ethical violations, the professional must offer the client a referral to independent resources or qualified third parties rather than providing a partial or self-serving substitute for that service.
Referral Resource Identification Capability
Professional engineering advisory practice, particularly project delivery method selection
Decline partial advisory engagement in favor of neutral referral
Identify publicly available resources relevant to client inquiry
Refer client to complete third-party analyses
Self-Serving Advisory Avoidance Obligation
Capability to identify and direct clients to appropriate external resources, such as publicly available analyses, library materials, or subscription references, as an ethical alternative to providing partial or self-serving professional advisory services, particularly when a full engagement would create a conflict of interest.
Engineer A had an obligation to first advise Engineer B that Engineer A had an obligation to inform the appropriate authorities, and then to so inform the appropriate authorities
The appropriate authorities referenced in the text are precisely the code-enforcement officials and government oversight bodies described by the Regulatory Authority Role in the ontology.
A government body, code-enforcement official, or oversight authority to whom engineers must report safety violations that cannot be resolved through direct professional dialogue, overriding confidentiality obligations when public health, safety, and welfare are at risk.
Documented formal submission or presentation of findings and recommendations to the state regulatory agency
Continued public health risk; professional discipline; potential legal liability
This obligation is a contextual variant of the existing Client Override Public Safety Reporting Obligation, with the distinguishing feature that the escalation target is specifically a state regulatory agency and the mechanism is a formal presentation of facts and findings. The core duty is the same: report to appropriate authority when client overrides safety recommendations.
Duty of an engineer who has identified a public health or safety risk and whose client has overridden protective recommendations to formally present the facts, findings, and recommendations to the appropriate state or federal regulatory authority, so that the authority can exercise its oversight function and protect the public.
Documented evidence that the engineer reported the unresolved violation to the appropriate federal or state authority after the client failed to remediate within a reasonable period.
Failure to escalate to regulatory authorities after client inaction leaves a known public welfare risk unaddressed and constitutes a breach of the paramount duty under NSPE I.1.
This obligation is a close variant of the Post-Termination Environmental Risk Reporting Obligation and the Client Override Public Safety Reporting Obligation. It differs in that it is triggered not by client override of a recommendation but by client failure to remediate after being contacted, and it follows a graduated response sequence. The conditional trigger and the graduated-response framing distinguish it sufficiently to warrant a medium-confidence match rather than a full identity match.
Duty of an engineer who has contacted a client about a legal or regulatory violation and monitored the situation to report the violation to the appropriate regulatory authority when the client fails to take adequate remedial steps within a reasonable time, placing the paramount duty to public welfare above any residual loyalty to the client.
Advise client to verify approved methods directly with the funding agency
Cite the governing funding source documentation when presenting options
Review and accurately convey all funding-agency-approved options to the client
Client may select a non-compliant delivery method, jeopardizing funding eligibility and project viability
Constraint arising when a specific funding source or regulatory authority limits the set of permissible project delivery methods, procurement approaches, or procedural options available to an owner, requiring that any professional advisor accurately represent those regulatory boundaries to the client rather than substituting the advisor's own narrower selection.
Regulatory Reporting Authority Identification Capability
Environmental engineering and regulatory compliance, particularly wetland and water resource regulation
Determine whether concurrent reporting to multiple agencies is required
Identify the appropriate federal authority for wetland fill violations
Identify the appropriate state authority for wetland fill violations
Regulatory Reporting Trigger Recognition Capability covers recognizing when findings must be reported to a regulatory or pollution control authority and identifying the appropriate authority. The present capability focuses specifically on the authority identification and jurisdictional selection dimension rather than the trigger recognition dimension. It is a closely related variant of the existing class, warranting a new class to capture the distinct authority-identification competency that is required once the reporting trigger has been recognized.
Regulatory Reporting Trigger Recognition Capability
Capability to identify the specific federal and state regulatory authorities to whom a discovered violation of environmental law must be reported, including the ability to determine jurisdictional scope and select the appropriate reporting channel when multiple authorities may have concurrent jurisdiction.
[RegulatoryReportingTriggerRecognitionCapability] Capability to recognize when identified professional findings about public health or safety risks must be reported to a regulatory or pollution control authority, including the ability to identify the appropriate authority and to act on that obligation even when the client has instructed the engineer not to complete or submit a report.
Environmental and stormwater engineering regulatory compliance
Act on the reporting obligation despite client instructions to the contrary
Determine the appropriate pollution control or regulatory authority to notify
Identify when stormwater or environmental risk findings trigger a mandatory regulatory reporting obligation
Regulatory Reporting Trigger Recognition Capability is defined as the capability to recognize when identified professional findings about public health or safety risks must be reported to a regulatory or pollution control authority, including the ability to identify the appropriate authority and to act on that obligation even when the client has instructed the engineer not to complete or submit a report. This matches the capability required in this case at high confidence.
Capability to recognize when identified professional findings about public health or safety risks must be reported to a regulatory or pollution control authority, including the ability to identify the appropriate authority and to act on that reporting obligation even when the client has instructed the engineer to proceed without implementing recommended safeguards or has declined to authorize a report.
Verification that submitted design documents include all safety features required by applicable regulations, confirmed by systematic regulatory checklist review
Client W raised concerns about the accuracy and reliability of the engineering design and instructed Engineer A to revise the plans, ensuring that all elements satisfied the necessary professional and regulatory standards.
Public safety risk; regulatory non-compliance; professional discipline; client harm; potential liability for injuries or regulatory penalties
This obligation is a specialization of the existing Safety Obligation, focused specifically on regulatory compliance in design documents. The existing Safety Obligation covers the general duty to hold paramount public safety, and the external reference standard 'Comply with Applicable Safety Standards' is closely related. A distinct class is warranted because this obligation specifically addresses regulatory compliance verification in submitted design documents rather than the broader public welfare principle.
Duty of an engineer preparing engineering design documents to ensure that all plans and specifications comply with applicable local, state, and federal regulatory safety requirements before submission, regardless of the method used to generate the documents.
Environmental and regulatory compliance contexts where a professional has notified a client of a violation and must track follow-through
Assess adequacy of corrective steps against regulatory requirements
Determine when remediation is sufficient to close the reporting loop
Identify when promised remediation has not materialized
Monitor client remedial actions after violation notification
the engineer should advise that the all remedial actions should be in full compliance with all applicable environmental laws and regulations, which may include the review of a licensed engineer
Capability to monitor a client's or former client's remedial actions following notification of a legal or regulatory violation, including the ability to assess whether promised corrective steps are actually being taken, to evaluate whether those steps are adequate and compliant with applicable law, and to determine when the situation has been sufficiently remedied to satisfy the engineer's professional obligations.
Engineer maintains documented follow-up records confirming that remedial actions were completed and comply with all applicable environmental laws and regulations.
In this connection, the engineer should advise that the all remedial actions should be in full compliance with all applicable environmental laws and regulations, which may include the review of a licensed engineer.
Failure to monitor allows a client's unfulfilled remediation promise to stand unchallenged, leaving the public welfare risk unresolved and the engineer in constructive breach of the paramount duty.
Duty of an engineer who has notified a client of a legal or regulatory violation and received assurances of remediation to monitor the client's actual remedial actions until the engineer is sufficiently satisfied that the violation has been fully corrected in compliance with applicable law.
Report Completeness Integrity Capability
Professional engineering reporting and advisory practice across domains
Audit a draft report for omitted or selectively excluded information
Ensure advisory memos include all relevant methodologies, pros, and cons
Identify when partial presentation of options or data would mislead the recipient
BER Case 95-5 addressed integrity and completeness in preparing reports. The engineer in question rendered an opinion that... failed to include in the report that the initial log indicated that several of the piles were driven to essential refusal (intentional disregard of other information); that the test equipment had failed (selective use of information).
BER Case 99-8 was relatively analogous. Engineer A submitted plans that were lacking much of the design detail in both drawings and specifications.
by providing only a partial, comparative engineering evaluation with no analysis and a recommendation to Engineer A's benefit, the conduct constituted both incomplete and self-serving information (as in 95-5 and 99-8)
Capability to recognize when a professional report, memo, or advisory product omits material information, selectively presents data, or disregards contrary evidence, and to ensure that all relevant and pertinent information is included so that the product is not misleading or self-serving.
Must not affix signature to plans reviewed only after preparation without involvement in development
Must not delegate engineering judgment entirely to AI tools
Professional signs or seals documents without active involvement in design and development
Reliance on AI or other tools substitutes for engineering judgment
Review limited to post-preparation checking without supervisory direction during preparation
Duty to engage actively in the engineering process from conception to completion
Duty to make engineering decisions personally or through supervised subordinates
Duty to refrain from sealing documents not under genuine direction and control
Transforms the responsible charge and public safety principles into a concrete prohibition on passive post-hoc review as a substitute for active supervisory engagement throughout the engineering process.
Comprehensive verification process established
Professional re-engages with active supervisory direction and control
Responsible charge obligations demonstrably satisfied
Engineer A did not maintain responsible charge in violation of licensure law which violates Code section III.8.a.
Engineer A, as the engineer in Responsible Charge of the project, is required to provide an experienced-based quality assurance review, engaging in critical discussions, mentorship, and professional development.
Reviewing drawings or documents after preparation without involvement in the design and development process does not satisfy the definition of Responsible Charge.
State in which a professional engineer has failed to maintain the active engagement, supervisory direction, and control authority required by responsible charge standards, whether due to over-reliance on automated tools, absence of mentorship support, or insufficient involvement in the design and development process, such that the professional's seal or signature does not reflect genuine oversight.
Grounds the abstract obligation of responsible charge in concrete behavioral criteria, enabling engineers and reviewers to assess whether adequate oversight was exercised over engineering work including AI-generated outputs.
NSPE defines 'Responsible Charge' in NSPE Position Statement No. 10-1778 as 'being actively engaged in the engineering process, from conception to completion.'
Assessing direction and control of engineering deliverables
Evaluating adequacy of engineer oversight
NSPE Position Statement No. 10-1778 is a supporting policy document that defines a professional practice concept. It functions as reference material rather than a professional code provision, technical standard, or case precedent. No existing class captures position statements defining responsible charge specifically, so matching to the Reference Material base class at medium confidence.
An official position statement or policy document issued by a professional engineering society that defines the concept of responsible charge, specifying what constitutes active engagement, supervisory direction, and control authority in engineering practice.
Conduct comprehensive verification of all AI-generated outputs
Establish solution guidelines and constraints before initiating AI-assisted drafting
Maintain documented evidence of active involvement throughout design process
Obtain qualified assistance when mentor or supervisor is unavailable
Code section II.2.b states that, '[e]ngineers shall not affix their signatures to any plans or documents dealing with subject matter in which they lack competence, nor to any plan or document not prepared under their direction and control.'
Much like directing an engineering intern to solve a problem, responsible use of AI requires an engineer to outline solution guidelines and constraints.
NSPE defines 'Responsible Charge' in NSPE Position Statement No. 10-1778 as 'being actively engaged in the engineering process, from conception to completion. Engineering decisions must be personally made by the professional engineer or by others over which the professional engineer provides supervisory direction and control authority. Reviewing drawings or documents after preparation without involvement in the design and development process does not satisfy the definition of Responsible Charge.'
Violation of licensure law, submission of deficient or unsafe work products, regulatory noncompliance, public safety hazard, professional discipline
Regulatory and ethical constraint requiring that an engineer in responsible charge actively direct and control the preparation of engineering work products from conception through completion, including outlining solution guidelines and constraints before delegating to any tool or subordinate, and critically evaluating outputs rather than accepting them without independent judgment. Reviewing completed documents after preparation without involvement in the design process does not satisfy this requirement.
The meaning of substantive oversight depends on the complexity of the work, the tools used, and the applicable regulatory framework, requiring engineers to interpret what genuine responsible charge demands in each context.
Ensure AI-generated content meets professional and regulatory standards before sealing
Identify errors and omissions before submitting sealed documents
Perform substantive technical review of all sealed work products
Seek additional review when personal competence or capacity is insufficient
Engineer applying seal to work prepared by others without independent verification
Engineer of record delegating substantive technical judgment to automated tools
Engineer sealing AI-generated design documents after only cursory review
Requires engineers to perform independent technical review proportionate to the complexity and risk of the work, to identify and correct errors before sealing, and to refuse to seal work they have not genuinely reviewed.
Loss of mentorship or supervisory support
The professional seal is a public representation that the engineer has exercised independent professional judgment over the work. Nominal or superficial review undermines the trust that licensure is designed to protect.
Professional virtue principle requiring the engineer of record to exercise genuine, substantive oversight of all work performed under their seal, including work generated by automated or AI-assisted tools, ensuring that the seal represents authentic professional judgment rather than nominal approval.
Responsible Charge Review Adequacy State
Engineer must not seal documents based solely on confidence in an automated system without independent verification
Engineer must not seal documents based solely on general confidence in subordinates without detailed review
Documents were prepared by subordinates, registered engineers, or automated systems under the engineer's direction
Engineer seals documents not personally prepared by the engineer
Question arises whether the engineer's review was sufficiently detailed to satisfy responsible charge
Obligation to assume full responsibility for the work product
Obligation to carefully direct, control, and review material prepared under responsible charge
Obligation to check and review documents in sufficient detail before sealing
Transforms the sealing and responsible charge principle into a concrete obligation to perform detailed review, distinguishing between the impermissible practice of sealing without review and the permissible practice of sealing after sufficient direction, control, and review even without personal preparation.
Engineer completes a sufficiently detailed check and review of the documents
it would not be unethical for an engineer to sign and seal the drawings in question as long as those plans were checked and reviewed by the engineer in some detail
State in which a professional engineer has sealed or is considering sealing engineering documents prepared by others, and the ethical permissibility of that sealing depends on whether the engineer has performed a sufficiently detailed check and review of the documents to satisfy responsible charge obligations, as distinguished from either personally preparing the documents or merely providing general supervisory oversight without detailed review.
Consult state engineering seal law and professional society responsible charge definitions before sealing AI-assisted work
Decline to seal work products prepared by others or by AI tools without sufficient personal oversight
Document the nature and extent of supervisory direction exercised over each sealed work product
Maintain active involvement in the preparation of all work products bearing the engineer's seal
Invalid or fraudulent seal application, regulatory violation, license revocation, legal liability for deficient sealed documents, and public safety risk from reliance on improperly certified work.
Regulatory and legal constraint requiring that a licensed professional engineer apply their professional seal only to work products over which they have exercised genuine responsible charge, meaning active supervisory direction and control throughout preparation, not merely a post-preparation review of a completed product.
Safety Accountability Judgment Capability
Professional engineering accountability and quality assurance
Assess the professional duty to consent to peer review
Distinguish personal reluctance from professional obligation
Recognize when prior errors trigger review obligations
Recognizing that prior errors create an accountability obligation and that personal resistance to review is ethically impermissible is a form of ethical perception, specifically the ability to recognize ethically salient features of a situation as described by Anderson et al. 2006 and Berreby et al. 2017. This is a variant focused on accountability contexts, matched at medium confidence.
Capability to recognize that prior discovery of significant professional errors creates an obligation to support quality assurance processes, and to assess when consent to independent review is required as an expression of professional accountability.
Design documents reviewed against applicable regulatory safety checklists prior to submission; no required safety features omitted
Client W reviewed the design documents, they found misaligned dimensions and key safety features (including those necessary for compliance with local regulations) were omitted.
The errors in the AI-generated design documents could have led to regulatory noncompliance and safety hazards, conflicting with the Fundamental Canon I.1, 'hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public'.
Regulatory noncompliance; public safety hazard; disciplinary action; potential legal liability
This obligation is a variant of the already-extracted Regulatory Safety Compliance Obligation, with specific emphasis on verifying that safety features required by local regulations are not omitted from AI-generated design documents.
Duty of an engineer to ensure that engineering design documents include all safety features required by applicable local, state, and federal regulations, and to verify that AI-generated or otherwise automated design outputs have not omitted required safety elements before submission to a client or regulatory authority.
Engineering design review for regulatory and public safety compliance
Assess regulatory compliance status of engineering design documents
Flag safety deficiencies before document submission or sealing
Identify safety features required by local regulations in design documents
Recognize omissions of mandatory safety elements in AI-generated plans
failure to detect misaligned dimensions and omitted safety features further indicates that Engineer A did not exercise sufficient diligence. The errors in the AI-generated design documents could have led to regulatory noncompliance and safety hazards, conflicting with the Fundamental Canon I.1, 'hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public'.
The existing Engineering Design Error Recognition Capability covers identifying errors, omissions, and deficiencies in engineering plans including safety implications. The present capability is a more specific instantiation focused on safety feature recognition and regulatory compliance checking. A medium-confidence match to the existing class is appropriate, but the regulatory compliance and safety feature identification dimension is sufficiently distinct to warrant a separate class for precision.
Engineering Design Error Recognition Capability
Technical capability to identify required safety features in engineering design documents, including the ability to recognize when AI-generated or otherwise prepared plans omit safety elements mandated by applicable regulations, and to assess the public safety implications of such omissions.
[EngineeringDesignErrorRecognitionCapability] Technical capability to identify significant errors, omissions, or deficiencies in engineering plans and designs through independent review, including the ability to assess the severity and safety implications of discovered errors.
it was unethical for Engineer A not to report the safety violations to the appropriate public authorities
A licensed professional engineering role in which the practitioner identifies a safety hazard affecting the public, exhausts direct channels with the client or employer, and bears an obligation to formally report findings and recommendations to all appropriate regulatory or governmental authorities when the client overrules the engineering judgment and public safety remains endangered.
Document the refusal and the safety rationale for proceeding
Escalate to professional licensing board if consent is withheld
Proceed with peer review under client authorization even absent consent
As the first tower is built, several significant design errors are discovered in the plans and design of Engineer A.
Continued public safety risk from unreviewed designs with known defect history, potential liability for harm, and professional accountability failure.
This constraint maps to the existing Safety Constraint class, which covers constraints ensuring safety requirements are met. The specific application here is that known prior design defects create a safety imperative that limits the original engineer's ability to block independent review. It is a variant of Safety Constraint with the distinguishing feature of the consent limitation arising from confirmed prior defects.
Safety constraint establishing that when significant design defects have been confirmed in a professional's prior work, that professional cannot reasonably withhold consent to an independent peer review of related subsequent work, because public safety interests override individual professional prerogative.
[SafetyConstraint] Constraints ensuring safety requirements are met (Arkin 2008)
Evidence that the design engineer consented to or cooperated with the peer review process when prior errors were established
Potential endangerment of public safety; professional disciplinary action; liability for harm resulting from unreviewed defective designs
This is a contextual specialization of the existing Safety Obligation class, applying the paramount public safety duty to the specific situation where a design engineer must cooperate with safety-motivated peer review. The existing Safety Obligation class directly covers the duty to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public.
Duty of a design engineer to consent to independent peer review of their work when significant errors have been discovered in prior related work and public safety may be at risk, placing public welfare above personal reputational interests.
Professional may not alter or destroy field notes documenting the out-of-scope observation
Scope limitation does not extinguish the duty to document and verbally report material safety observations
Client or prime consultant instructs professional to exclude the observation from the formal report
Professional observes a condition outside the contractual scope of services
The out-of-scope condition is material to safety, legal compliance, or professional accuracy
Obligation to document observation in field notes regardless of scope
Obligation to follow up to confirm corrective action
Obligation to verbally report observation to client or prime consultant
Transforms the contractual scope limitation into a bounded constraint that governs formal report content but does not eliminate the professional's independent duty to document and communicate material safety observations through appropriate channels.
Observation is formally documented and communicated to responsible party
Professional escalates to authorities if corrective action is not taken
Responsible party takes corrective action
Engineer A's scope of work was solely to identify any pavement damage on the bridge and report the damage to VWX for further review and repair.
The public agency contacted VWX Architects and Engineers which then contacted Engineer A and asked Engineer A not to include this additional information in his final report since it was not part of his scope of work.
The Scope Limitation Justification State is defined as a state in which a professional invokes a contractually defined scope of work as justification for failing to investigate or report on material technical findings that bear on safety or accuracy. The present state is the same concept but framed from the perspective of the professional who has made an out-of-scope observation and must decide how to handle it, rather than from the perspective of a professional who uses scope as a shield. The match is medium-high because the underlying tension between contractual scope and independent professional duty is the same.
State in which a professional, while performing services within a defined contractual scope, observes a condition or deficiency that falls outside that scope but is material to safety, legal compliance, or the accuracy of the professional's overall assessment, creating a tension between scope compliance and the independent duty to document, report, and follow up on the out-of-scope observation.
[ScopeLimitationJustificationState] State in which a professional invokes a contractually defined scope of work as justification for failing to investigate or report on material technical findings that bear on safety or accuracy, creating a tension between contractual scope compliance and the professional's independent duty of completeness and objectivity.
Technical reporting in engineering investigations and expert witness contexts
Disclose omitted data sources or unavailable records
Document scope constraints in technical reports
Identify equipment failures or procedural gaps that limit findings
Qualify conclusions appropriately given investigative limitations
Previously, Engineer B had said, 'We didn't look at the pile driving records because it was not in our scope of work.'
No existing capability class addresses the competency of recognizing and disclosing material scope limitations in technical reports.
Ability to recognize when material limitations exist on the scope of an investigation and to communicate those limitations clearly and completely in any resulting report or findings document.
Report contains explicit statement of any limitations, equipment failures, or data sources excluded from the analysis
Professional discipline; report conclusions may be invalidated; reputational harm
Duty of an engineer to disclose in any report or findings document any material limitations on the scope of the investigation, including equipment failures, records not reviewed, or methodological constraints that could affect the reliability or completeness of the conclusions.
Requires judgment about which scope limitations are material to the conclusions and would affect a reasonable reader's assessment of the report's reliability.
Disclose evidence sources that were available but not consulted
Qualify conclusions to reflect the actual scope of investigation performed
Engineer B's failure to disclose that dynamic test equipment had failed during the test pile driving
Engineer B's failure to disclose that pile driving records were not reviewed
Requires engineers to identify scope limitations that are material to conclusions, disclose them explicitly in the report, and avoid presenting conclusions with a degree of confidence that the underlying investigation does not support.
Client interest in a clean, unqualified report
Recipients of professional reports, including courts, clients, and affected parties, must be able to assess the evidentiary basis and limitations of the conclusions presented to them.
Professional principle requiring engineers to disclose in their reports and findings any material limitations on the scope of their investigation that could affect the reliability or completeness of their conclusions, including evidence sources that were available but not consulted, tests that failed or were not properly replicated, and methodological constraints imposed by the engagement terms.
Apply analytical methods consistently across all data sets
Distinguish legitimate client advocacy from suppression of material evidence
Present all available technical data regardless of which party it favors
Corruption of technical findings, professional misconduct, potential harm to client through misdirected conclusions, undermining of dispute resolution integrity
The Selective Data Use Constraint maps closely onto the Client Advocacy Boundary Constraint already in the ontology, which marks the boundary between permissible client service and professional misconduct through suppression or omission of material technical evidence. The case text's characterization of selective data use as an egregious denial of professional duties in any setting is the same concept. The present framing adds emphasis on the data-selection mechanism specifically, but the core prohibition is the same.
Prohibition on an engineer assuming a defensive or advocacy posture toward a client by selectively using technical data to support a predetermined conclusion, which constitutes a denial of professional duties in any setting, legal, quasi-legal, or non-legal.
Professional must disclose basis for excluding options
Professional must not limit option presentation to self-serving alternatives
Client lacks independent knowledge to detect the omission
Omitted options are known to the professional
Professional omits one or more approved or viable options from advice or recommendation
Duty to avoid misleading clients through omission
Duty to disclose material information affecting client decisions
Duty to provide complete and objective professional advice
Transforms the general duty of honesty and objectivity into a concrete obligation to present all materially relevant options and disclose the basis for any exclusions.
Client independently learns of omitted options
Full disclosure of all available options provided to client
State in which a professional presents only a subset of available or approved options to a client, omitting alternatives that the professional is not positioned to provide or that would disadvantage the professional's business interests, creating a transparency deficit and potential breach of the duty to provide complete and unbiased advice.
Distinguish legitimate competence from tool-based self-certification
Evaluate whether a product purchase confers genuine professional qualification
Refrain from holding out services based solely on tool acquisition
By ordering and using the CD-ROM, Engineer A in a sense was 'self-certifying' his competency to perform facilities design and construction services without obtaining the substantive education, experience, and qualifications to perform those services in a competent and professional manner
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to recognize when the acquisition or use of a commercial tool, template, reference library, or similar product does not constitute a legitimate basis for representing competence in a technical domain, and to refrain from treating such acquisition as a substitute for the substantive education, examination, and professional experience required to practice competently in that domain.
Self-Certification Prohibition Principle
Evidence that the engineer did not represent competence in a domain solely on the basis of a commercial tool or product acquisition
A CD-ROM that permits virtually anyone to specify, design and cost out a project clearly is not an appropriate basis upon which an individual can obtain professional competency to perform facilities design and construction services
By ordering and using the CD-ROM, Engineer A in a sense was self-certifying his competency to perform facilities design and construction services without obtaining the substantive education, experience, and qualifications to perform those services in a competent and professional manner
not unlike mail order certifications offered by so called diploma mills whereby individuals self certify their competency based upon a perfunctory review process that rarely involves comprehensive study, examination, or practice
Professional discipline; public safety risk; reputational harm to the profession
Duty of a licensed engineer to refrain from treating the acquisition or use of a commercial tool, template, CD-ROM library, or similar product as a basis for representing competence in a technical domain in which the engineer lacks substantive education, training, and experience, recognizing that such self-certification is contrary to the foundational ethical principles of the profession.
Self-Certification Competence Constraint
Decline engagements that require competencies not yet established through recognized means
Obtain formal education and supervised experience in the target domain before offering services
Retain qualified specialists for work outside demonstrated competence
A CD-ROM that permits virtually anyone to 'specify, design and cost out' a project clearly is not an appropriate basis upon which an individual can obtain professional competency to perform facilities design and construction services.
Engineer misrepresents qualifications to clients and the public, exposes the public to work performed without adequate knowledge, and undermines the professional standards that protect public health and safety.
The Unfamiliar Tool Competence Constraint addresses limits on using tools the engineer lacks sufficient experience with, which partially overlaps. However, the present constraint is more specifically about the prohibition on treating tool acquisition as a substitute for domain competence certification, which is a distinct concept closer to self-certification and misrepresentation than to mere unfamiliarity with a tool. The match is a variant rather than an exact match; the existing class does not fully capture the self-certification dimension.
Ethical and regulatory constraint prohibiting a licensed engineer from treating self-directed acquisition of a commercial tool, template, or automated system as a sufficient basis for claiming or representing competence in a technical domain, in lieu of obtaining the substantive education, examination, and professional experience that genuine competence requires.
Open-textured principle requiring judgment about what constitutes genuine competence acquisition versus superficial credentialing, and about the threshold at which tool-assisted practice crosses into unqualified practice.
Accurately represent the basis of one's qualifications when soliciting or accepting work
Refrain from offering services in domains where competence rests solely on a commercial tool or template
Seek formal education or supervised experience before expanding into a new technical domain
Analogy to diploma mill self-certification noted by the Board of Ethical Review
BER Case current: Engineer A orders a CD-ROM and begins offering facilities design services without any substantive background in civil, structural, mechanical, or electrical engineering
Requires engineers to obtain substantive education, experience, and demonstrated qualifications before offering services in a new domain, and to refrain from representing tool-assisted familiarity as professional competence.
The public relies on licensure and professional representation as a signal that the engineer possesses genuine knowledge and skill. Self-certification through tool acquisition undermines that signal and exposes the public to undetected incompetence.
Professional integrity principle prohibiting engineers from treating the acquisition of a commercial tool, template, software package, or other shortcut resource as a substitute for genuine education, examination, and supervised experience in a technical domain. An engineer who orders a tool and declares themselves competent to practice in a new domain on that basis alone is engaged in a form of self-certification that is incompatible with the professional obligation to demonstrate substantive qualifications before offering services.
Must not perform services in the domain without genuine competence
Must not represent tool-assisted output as product of professional judgment
Must not submit work product to clients or authorities as if produced by a qualified practitioner
Professional acquires a tool, software, or reference material and treats it as conferring domain competence
Professional begins offering services in a domain without verifiable education or experience credentials
Professional self-assesses as qualified without external validation
Duty to decline work outside genuine competence
Duty to disclose competence limitations to clients
Duty to retain or recommend qualified specialists
Obligation to protect public health and safety by not performing unqualified work
Transforms the general competence principle into a concrete prohibition on performing services and a positive duty to refer or disclose, activated by the gap between claimed and actual capability.
Professional declines the work or refers it to a qualified practitioner
Professional discloses limitation and retains a qualified specialist
Professional obtains substantive education and supervised experience in the domain
A CD-ROM that permits virtually anyone to specify, design and cost out a project clearly is not an appropriate basis upon which an individual can obtain professional competency
Engineer A in a sense was self-certifying his competency to perform facilities design and construction services without obtaining the substantive education, experience, and qualifications
not unlike mail order certifications offered by so called diploma mills whereby individuals self certify their competency based upon a perfunctory review process
State in which a professional declares or implies competence in a domain based solely on self-assessment or use of a commercial shortcut tool, without having obtained the substantive education, training, examination, or supervised experience that the domain requires, creating conditions in which the professional's representations of capability are false or misleading and in which work product carries elevated risk of harm to the public.
Professional must disclose any financial interest in the recommended option before or at the time of recommendation
Professional must not recommend options solely or primarily on the basis of personal gain
Professional has a financial or business interest in the recommended option
Professional recommends a specific option or course of action
Duty to act in the client's best interest
Duty to disclose personal or business interest in recommended option
Duty to provide objective and unbiased professional advice
Transforms the general conflict-of-interest principle into a concrete obligation to disclose business interest in a recommended project delivery method and to ensure the recommendation is grounded in the client's needs rather than the professional's commercial advantage.
Conflict of interest disclosed to client
Engineer A recommended Progressive Design Build
Conflict of Interest State captures the general condition of competing personal and professional interests. This new class is a more specific variant focused on the act of making a recommendation while holding an undisclosed business interest in the recommended option, which adds the disclosure and advice-objectivity dimensions not fully expressed by the general class.
State in which a professional makes a recommendation to a client that favors an option under which the professional stands to benefit commercially, without disclosing that interest, creating a conflict between the duty of objective advice and the professional's financial or business interests.
[ConflictOfInterest] Professional situation where personal and professional interests compete
Obtain client informed consent before combining advisory and promotional functions
Refrain from submitting qualifications materials alongside advisory recommendations
Separate advisory and service-provider roles or disclose the dual interest explicitly
Accompanying the recommendation, Engineer A provided a summary of the firm's experience with Progressive-Design-Build projects and references from past projects.
Breach of fiduciary duty, conflict of interest violation, client harm from biased advice, potential disciplinary action
The conduct maps to Conflict of Interest Avoidance because the engineer is using an advisory role to advance personal business interests. However, the specific prohibition on embedding self-promotional materials within an advisory product is a variant not fully captured by the existing class. Matching as a variant with medium confidence.
Ethical constraint prohibiting an engineer who is providing advisory services from using the advisory engagement as a vehicle to promote the engineer's own services or qualifications, particularly when doing so involves presenting a biased or incomplete analysis that steers the client toward an option under which the engineer stands to benefit.
Evidence that the advisory recommendation was based on objective analysis of all available options rather than on the engineer's commercial interest in the outcome
Engineer A could have provided a complete analysis of the four methodologies, with all the pros and cons by compiling properly referenced resources from others
by providing only a partial, comparative engineering evaluation with no analysis and a recommendation to Engineer A's benefit, the conduct constituted both incomplete and self-serving information
Professional discipline; findings of unethical conduct; loss of client trust; potential disqualification
The Advisory Role Objectivity Obligation extracted in prior sections is the closest existing extracted class, but it is listed under previously extracted classes rather than the canonical ontology. Among the canonical ontology classes, Disclosure Obligation is the closest parent because the self-serving advisory avoidance duty is partly grounded in the requirement to inform stakeholders about conflicts and limitations. However, this class is a distinct specialization emphasizing the prohibition on structuring advisory content to serve the engineer's own interests, which goes beyond mere disclosure. Matched as a variant with medium confidence.
Duty of an engineer providing advisory services to refrain from structuring the advisory product in a manner that serves the engineer's own commercial interests, including recommending options under which the engineer is positioned to receive subsequent paid work while omitting or underanalyzing competing options, so that the advisory product reflects the client's interests rather than the engineer's.
Simultaneous Transition Safety Constraint
Document the safety basis for the sequential requirement in writing
Escalate to regulatory authority when client proceeds simultaneously over professional objection
Refuse to endorse simultaneous transition and improvement schedules when sequential completion is required for safety
Confirmed risk of lead or other contaminant leaching above regulatory standards, public health harm, regulatory violation, professional discipline
The simultaneous transition scenario is a specific instance of a client overriding safety recommendations for economic reasons and the engineer being prohibited from continuing to facilitate that unsafe course. The existing Client Budget Override Safety Continuation Constraint captures the core prohibition on continuing work after a client declines safety measures for budget reasons. The simultaneous transition framing is a variant of that concept applied to the specific sequencing question. Matching as a variant at medium confidence.
Client Budget Override Safety Continuation Constraint
Safety constraint prohibiting a water or utility authority, and the engineers advising it, from proceeding with a change in supply source or infrastructure simultaneously with the evaluation and design of required safety improvements, when the professional engineering assessment has established that the safety improvements must be completed before the transition to protect public health. Proceeding simultaneously rather than sequentially creates a confirmed public health risk that engineers must not endorse or facilitate.
[ClientBudgetOverrideSafetyContinuationConstraint] Ethical constraint prohibiting an engineer from continuing work on a project after a client declines to implement safety measures the engineer has identified as necessary to protect public health or safety, when the client's refusal is grounded in budget or economic considerations. The engineer must cease participation rather than subordinate the paramount public safety duty to the client's financial preferences.
Solicitation Critical Evaluation Capability
Assess whether a promoted tool can legitimately substitute for domain expertise
Decline to act on solicitations that would lead to ethical violations
Identify misleading claims in commercial solicitations
Recognize when a solicitation frames professional standards as obstacles
CADD Proficiency Capability addresses recognizing when a technological tool is being used as a substitute for professional judgment, which partially overlaps. However, that class is scoped to CADD systems and proficiency within a known tool context, whereas this capability concerns critically evaluating an external commercial solicitation that misrepresents what a tool can do before the engineer even acquires it. The awareness dimension and the solicitation-evaluation context are sufficiently distinct to warrant a new class. No existing class captures the front-end critical evaluation of marketing claims directed at engineers.
Capability to critically evaluate commercial solicitations, marketing materials, and product promotions directed at licensed engineers, including the ability to recognize when a solicitation misrepresents professional competence requirements, frames ethical obligations as obstacles to profit, or implies that a software tool can substitute for domain knowledge and professional experience.
[CADDProficiencyCapability] Technical capability of a licensed professional engineer to possess sufficient background, education, and training to be proficient with CADD systems, including understanding the limitations of the technology, recognizing when the system is being used as a substitute for professional judgment rather than as a production tool, and ensuring that outputs reflect genuine engineering competence rather than uncritical reliance on system-generated solutions.
Disclose any sources not consulted and the reason for non-consultation
Identify and contact all available witnesses before finalizing conclusions
Review all available primary records relevant to the investigation
Incomplete investigation, unsupported conclusions, professional discipline, unjust outcomes
No existing constraint class in the ontology addresses the procedural requirement to consult available sources before reaching conclusions. This is the bounding constraint corresponding to the obligation-side Investigative Completeness Obligation.
Requirement that an engineer conducting an investigation consult available witnesses, records, and other primary sources before reaching conclusions, and disclose any failure to do so in the resulting report.
Specialist Retention Judgment Capability
General professional engineering practice across multi-discipline projects
Ensure multi-discipline project coverage by competent engineers
Identify technical domains outside own competence
Retain or recommend qualified specialists
a prime professional will be expected to retain or recommend the retention of experts and specialists in situations in which the prime professional is performing substantial services on the project
engineers have an ethical obligation to seek work only in areas where they possess educational background and experience or to retain individuals who possess the necessary educational background and experience to perform the work
the Board recognized the propriety and value of the prime professional or client retaining the services of experts and specialists in the interests of the project
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to recognize when a project involves technical domains outside the engineer's own competence and to identify, retain, or recommend the retention of qualified specialists or experts in those domains, ensuring that all project disciplines are covered by engineers with appropriate education and experience.
Specialist Retention Obligation Principle
Evidence that qualified specialists were retained or recommended for technical domains outside the engineer's competence
Professional discipline; public safety risk; potential liability for deficient design
Duty of an engineer who undertakes or is retained for a project involving technical domains outside the engineer's own competence to retain or recommend the retention of qualified specialists or experts in those domains, rather than attempting to perform the out-of-competence work personally or with inadequate tools.
Requires judgment about when a technical domain is sufficiently distinct from the engineer's background to trigger the obligation, and about what constitutes adequate specialist qualifications.
Identify technical domains in a project that exceed the engineer's own qualifications
Refrain from performing work in domains where the engineer lacks competence and no qualified specialist has been engaged
Retain or recommend retention of qualified specialists for those domains
BER Case 71-2: prime professional expected to retain experts and specialists when performing substantial services on a project
BER Case 78-5: consulting firm obligated to seek work only in areas of competence or to retain individuals with the necessary background
Requires engineers to identify technical domains in a project that fall outside their competence, to seek or recommend qualified specialists for those domains, and to refrain from proceeding without such specialists when the work is safety-relevant.
BER Case 71-2, a case involving the brokerage of engineering services by two firms competing for government work and the question of professional competence, the Board recognized 'the propriety and value of the prime professional or client retaining the services of experts and specialists in the interests of the project'
Public safety and project integrity depend on work in each technical domain being performed by someone with genuine qualifications in that domain. The prime professional or retaining engineer is the gatekeeper who ensures that qualified personnel are engaged.
Professional principle requiring engineers who undertake or are retained for projects involving technical domains outside their own competence to affirmatively retain, or recommend the retention of, qualified specialists or experts in those domains, rather than attempting to perform the work themselves or leaving the gap unaddressed. The obligation applies both to prime professionals managing multi-discipline projects and to engineers who recognize mid-project that a required task exceeds their qualifications.
Speculative Finding Exclusion Capability
Professional engineering inspection and investigation contexts where scope limitations or competence boundaries constrain what can be formally reported
Assess whether an observation is supported by sufficient analysis to appear in a formal report
Communicate the distinction between speculation and confirmed findings to clients
Exclude speculative findings from final written deliverables
Retain speculative observations in field notes for possible future reference
Engineer A surmised that the defective condition may have been a contributing factor in the wall failure and noted this in his engineering notes.
there was nothing under the facts to indicate anything more than Engineer A's general surmise and speculation about the cause of the structural failure of the wall
to place this information in a final report would not be responsible and could unnecessarily inflame the situation
Concern Versus Fact Threshold Capability captures the ability to distinguish between a preliminary professional concern not yet substantiated by technical analysis and a finding that rises to the level of demonstrable fact, and to calibrate disclosure obligations accordingly. The speculative finding exclusion concept is a direct application of that threshold judgment to the question of what belongs in a formal report versus field notes. The match is strong but not identical because the existing class frames the distinction in terms of disclosure obligations broadly, while this capability is specifically about report content decisions.
Capability to distinguish between observations that rise to the level of a professionally supportable finding and observations that remain speculative or unverified, and to exclude speculative observations from formal written reports while preserving them in field notes, so that professional work products do not assert conclusions beyond what the evidence and the engineer's competence support.
Final report contains only findings supported by competent analysis within the engineer's area of expertise; speculative observations are retained in field notes only.
Under the circumstances, the Board concluded that it would have been improper for Engineer A to include reference to the information in his final report, particularly since it would have been based upon mere speculation and not careful testing or evaluation by a competent individual or firm.
While it might have been appropriate for Engineer A to note such information in his field notes, to place this information in a final report would not be responsible and could unnecessarily inflame the situation.
Including speculative findings in a formal report may unjustifiably damage the reputations of other professionals and parties, and may constitute a breach of the duty to practice only within areas of competence.
This is a partial inverse of Complete Technical Reporting Obligation: where that class requires inclusion of all relevant findings, this class addresses the competing duty to exclude findings that are not professionally substantiated. It is a variant that qualifies the completeness duty by competence limits, warranting a medium-confidence match to the parent concept rather than a new independent class, but the specific exclusion framing is not captured by any existing class.
Duty of an engineer to refrain from including observations or conclusions in a formal written report when those observations are based solely on visual inspection without supporting analysis, when the engineer lacks expertise in the relevant discipline, and when inclusion would constitute speculation rather than a professionally substantiated finding.
Professional should not alter or destroy field notes documenting the observation
Professional should not include speculative findings in formal written reports
Professional should not report to public authorities before determining whether corrective action is taken
No testing or formal analysis has been performed to confirm the risk
Professional lacks specific expertise in the relevant technical discipline
Professional observes a potentially hazardous condition through visual inspection only
Obligation to document observation in field notes
Obligation to follow up to confirm corrective action is taken
Obligation to verbally report concern to client or prime consultant
Transforms the general duty of completeness and public safety into a calibrated set of obligations scaled to the epistemic quality of the finding: document, report verbally, monitor, and escalate only if corrective action is not taken.
Competent analysis confirms or refutes the risk
Professional obtains expertise or retains qualified specialist
Engineer A's evaluation was based upon general surmise and speculation about the cause of the structural failure of the wall, based entirely upon a visual inspection without anything more.
There was nothing noted in the facts to indicate that Engineer A had expertise in the specific discipline involved.
The Unverified Risk Concern State is defined as a state in which a professional has a concern or suspicion about a potential risk but has not yet developed the analysis to a point where the concern constitutes a technical or factual finding. This matches the speculative-observation scenario from BER Case 97-13 discussed in the text. The match is medium-high because the existing class already captures the intermediate epistemic condition and its calibrated obligations.
State in which a professional has observed a condition that may indicate a risk or defect but has formed no more than a general surmise or speculation about causation, lacking the technical expertise, testing, or analysis needed to convert the observation into a confirmed professional finding, creating an intermediate epistemic condition that limits but does not eliminate the professional's disclosure and follow-up obligations.
[UnverifiedRiskConcernState] State in which a professional has a concern or suspicion about a potential risk but has not yet developed the analysis to a point where the concern constitutes a technical or factual finding. The concern is real but unquantified, creating an intermediate epistemic condition that does not yet trigger mandatory disclosure obligations but may support prudent voluntary disclosure.
State Wetland Protection Regulation Resource
Establishes state-level legal obligations that complement federal wetland protections and inform the professional duties of engineers observing violations
The existing Environmental Protection Regulation Resource class covers local, state, or jurisdictional regulations for environmental protection. State wetland protection statutes are a variant of this class. Matching with medium confidence as the existing class definition references stormwater and water source protection specifically, while state wetland fill regulations are a related but broader category.
State statutes and regulations governing the protection of wetland areas within a jurisdiction, including requirements for permits or approvals before placing fill material in regulated wetlands. These regulations operate alongside federal requirements and may impose additional or parallel obligations on property owners and professionals.
Engineer L conducts additional studies and qualitatively estimates the risk that heavy rainfall could lead to stormwater runoff
Engineer L is contracted by Client X, a private development entity, to design a stormwater management system
Engineer L, a licensed professional engineer, has many years of experience in stormwater control design
A licensed professional engineering role specializing in stormwater management system design, bearing professional accountability for assessing and communicating risks to public water sources and ensuring designs comply with applicable environmental standards.
Engineer A noticed an apparent pre-existing defective condition in the wall close to where the accident involving Police Officer B occurred
Engineer A, a civil engineer, as its sub-consultant to perform bridge inspection services on the bridge
The bridge inspection sub-consultant role is a specialization of Civil Engineer Role, focused on structural inspection and out-of-scope safety observation reporting. It is distinct enough in its obligation structure to warrant a separate extracted class, but maps to Civil Engineer Role as its parent.
A licensed professional engineering role in which the practitioner is retained to perform inspection services on existing structures, identify deficiencies or defective conditions observed during inspection, and report findings through appropriate channels, bearing professional obligations to disclose safety-relevant observations even when they fall outside the contracted scope of work.
[CivilEngineerRole] Engineer specializing in infrastructure and the built environment.
Supervisory Direction Adequacy Capability
Professional engineering supervision involving CADD-assisted document production by subordinates
Critically evaluate work products produced by supervised personnel
Determine whether the level of direction exercised is sufficient to support sealing
Identify when subordinate work requires additional review before a seal can be applied
Set technical guidelines and constraints for subordinates using CADD or other production tools
Supervisory Direction Control Obligation
AI Direction and Control Capability covers the capability to exercise genuine professional direction and control over AI-assisted tools used to generate engineering work products, including outlining solution guidelines, critically evaluating outputs, and ensuring final work reflects independent professional judgment. The supervisory direction adequacy concept in this case is a variant applied to CADD systems and subordinate personnel rather than AI tools directly, but the core capability structure is the same. Medium confidence match as a variant.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer in a supervisory role to exercise genuine, substantive direction and control over subordinates producing engineering documents, including the ability to set technical requirements, review outputs critically, and ensure that the supervisory relationship is sufficient to support responsible charge before applying a professional seal to work produced by others.
[AIDirectionandControlCapability] Capability to exercise genuine professional direction and control over AI-assisted tools used to generate engineering work products, including the ability to outline solution guidelines and constraints, critically evaluate AI outputs, and ensure that final work products reflect independent professional judgment rather than uncritical acceptance of AI-generated content.
Documented evidence of active involvement in design decisions, technical review, and correction of subordinate work prior to sealing
Professional discipline; invalidation of sealed documents; civil liability for deficient work
The existing Responsible Charge Verification Obligation captures the duty to conduct comprehensive, experience-based verification of all work products before sealing, including active involvement in design and development. The supervisory direction and control concept is a close variant of that obligation applied to the context of subordinate-produced CADD documents, warranting a medium-confidence match to the parent class.
Duty of a licensed engineer who seals documents produced by subordinates to exercise genuine, substantive direction and control over the work throughout its preparation, including setting technical parameters, reviewing outputs, and verifying conformance with professional standards, so that the seal reflects real professional oversight rather than mere administrative approval.
Disclose the preliminary concern in suspension communications with appropriate qualification as unquantified
Document the concern in writing before suspending work
Request client acknowledgment of the disclosed risk before finalizing suspension
In their communications about the suspension, Engineer L does not mention to Client X the potential increased risk of impact to the community drinking water source.
Client proceeds through suspension period without knowledge of a material safety risk, delaying protective action and potentially allowing conditions to worsen before work resumes.
The existing Preliminary Risk Disclosure Constraint addresses the duty to disclose a potential risk to public health or safety during a preliminary phase of work before suspending or transitioning work. The suspension-period scenario here is a specific application of that same concept: the engineer identifies a preliminary risk and then suspends work without disclosing it. The existing class covers this scenario adequately, though the suspension-period framing adds a temporal specificity not fully captured in the existing label. Matching as a variant with medium-high confidence.
Ethical constraint requiring that an engineer who has identified a preliminary concern about a risk to public health or safety must disclose that concern to the client at the time of a work suspension, even when the risk has not yet been fully quantified, so that the client is not left uninformed of a material safety issue during the period when work is paused and no further investigation will occur.
[PreliminaryRiskDisclosureConstraint] Ethical and professional constraint requiring an engineer who identifies a potential risk to public health or safety during a preliminary phase of work to disclose that concern to the client before suspending, pausing, or transitioning work, even when the risk has not yet been fully quantified, so that the client can make informed decisions about how to proceed.
Suspension Period Risk Disclosure Capability
Professional engineering practice involving project suspensions and incomplete risk analyses
Communicate preliminary risk findings to a client at the time of suspension
Distinguish between risks requiring immediate disclosure and those requiring further analysis
Identify risks discovered before a work suspension
Suspension Period Risk Disclosure Obligation
Incomplete Analysis Disclosure Capability covers the obligation to recognize when a professional analysis has been suspended or left incomplete and to disclose the status and significance of unfinished findings to the client, including communicating identified but unquantified risks rather than remaining silent during a work suspension. This maps closely to Engineer L's failure to disclose the preliminary stormwater risk concern at the time of suspension. The match is medium confidence because the existing class emphasizes the suspension of analysis rather than the suspension of the engagement itself, but the core concept is the same.
Capability to recognize when a work suspension creates an obligation to disclose identified but unquantified risks to a client before or during the suspension, including the ability to distinguish between risks that are sufficiently developed to warrant disclosure and those that remain too preliminary, and to communicate identified concerns even when the analysis is incomplete.
Documented evidence that the engineer communicated the identified risk to the client at or before the time of the suspension agreement.
Failure to disclose may allow a known risk to persist unaddressed during the suspension period, potentially resulting in harm to public welfare and professional discipline for the engineer.
The existing Preliminary Risk Disclosure Obligation covers the duty to disclose potential risks to public health or safety during a preliminary phase of work before the risk is fully quantified. This case instantiates that obligation in the specific context of a work suspension, where the engineer failed to disclose a preliminary concern during suspension communications. The suspension context adds a temporal qualifier but the core obligation is the same: disclose identified preliminary risks promptly so the client can make informed decisions. Matched as a variant with medium-high confidence.
Duty of an engineer who has identified a potential risk to public health or safety during an active engagement to disclose that risk to the client before or at the time of a work suspension, rather than remaining silent about the risk during communications about the suspension, so that the client has the opportunity to make informed decisions about the project during the suspension period.
Professional engineering report preparation and documentation
Identify authoritative technical sources relevant to a work product
Incorporate citations into AI-generated or AI-assisted reports
Recognize absence of citations as an ethical deficiency in professional documents
Absent this professional level of care, diligence, and documentation, Engineer A's use of the AI language processing software would be less than ethical.
the facts do not indicate the AI-generated report included citations of pertinent documents of technical authority. Per Code section III.9, engineers are required to 'give credit for engineering work to those to whom credit is due,' so Engineer A's ethical use of the AI software would need to include appropriate citations.
Capability to identify and include appropriate citations to pertinent documents of technical authority in professional work products, including the ability to recognize when AI-generated content lacks proper attribution and to supply required references.
Establish a citation checklist as part of document review process
Include citations to all referenced standards, codes, and technical documents
Review AI-generated content specifically for missing citations
Failure to give proper credit, inability to verify technical basis of work product, potential misrepresentation of the work's intellectual foundation, ethics code violation
Procedural and ethical constraint requiring that an engineer's professional work products include appropriate citations to pertinent documents of technical authority, ensuring proper attribution of sources and enabling verification of technical claims by clients and reviewers.
Work products contain citations to pertinent technical authority documents commensurate with the scope and risk of the work
Violation of professional attribution standards; potential disciplinary action; erosion of client and public trust
Duty of an engineer to include appropriate citations to pertinent documents of technical authority in professional work products, including those substantially generated or assisted by AI tools, so that the intellectual and technical basis of the work is transparent and properly attributed.
High-level value requiring engineers to maintain the epistemic integrity of technical analysis even under institutional pressures that reward partisan advocacy, with the scope of the obligation requiring case-by-case interpretation.
Distinguish technical findings from advocacy
Present all material technical facts regardless of their effect on the client's legal position
Refrain from structuring report language to deny alternative interpretations
NSPE Code provisions on objectivity and truthfulness in professional reports and testimony
Requires engineers to present facts that cut against the client's position, to refrain from structuring reports to foreclose alternative interpretations, and to treat the adversarial context as irrelevant to the technical content of findings.
Engineering analysis serves a truth-seeking function that is corrupted when technical authority is weaponized for adversarial ends. The public and the legal system rely on engineering reports as honest technical assessments, not advocacy documents.
The Litigation Neutrality Principle addresses the obligation to render opinions based solely on technical analysis without shaping findings to favor the retaining party. This principle is closely related but operates at a higher level of abstraction, covering all professional engineering contexts, not only litigation, and emphasizing the epistemic character of engineering analysis as inherently non-adversarial. The case text explicitly generalizes the obligation beyond litigation settings. A new class is warranted to capture this broader, more fundamental value, with the Litigation Neutrality Principle as a domain-specific instantiation.
Professional principle requiring engineers to base reports, findings, and testimony on objective technical analysis of all available facts, refusing to selectively deploy evidence in service of a client's adversarial position, regardless of the legal or quasi-legal context of the engagement.
Geotechnical and civil engineering investigations involving field test records
Assess the significance of available records to investigation conclusions
Identify relevant field documentation for inclusion in analysis
Further, by excluding the pile driving records, Engineer B has denied himself the opportunity to present a rational for discounting their value, and thereby to serve his client.
Geotechnical Analysis Capability covers technical competency in geotechnical methods but does not specifically address the procedural competency of identifying, obtaining, and reviewing available field records as part of an investigation. Investigative Inquiry Capability addresses pursuing lines of inquiry broadly but is framed around witness consultation and anomaly follow-up rather than the specific technical record review process. This is a distinct domain-specific competency.
Ability to identify, obtain, and systematically review available technical records such as pile driving logs, test data, and field documentation as part of a technical investigation or evaluation, and to incorporate those records into the analysis.
Evidence that the engineer exercised independent professional judgment and did not rely solely on technological tool outputs as the basis for professional work products
Professional engineering cannot be reduced to an activity whereby practitioners rely upon computers and technical information instead of time-tested professional experience and engineering judgment
Relying on a how to CD-ROM appears to show a general disregard for the fundamental role that professional engineers play in protecting the public health and safety and minimizes the high level of knowledge and expertise necessary to perform these critical responsibilities
it is the Board's position that technology has an important place in the practice of engineering, but it must never be a replacement of a substitute for engineering judgment
Professional discipline; public safety risk from engineering work performed without genuine professional judgment
The Technology Non-Substitution Obligation in the ontology captures the duty to ensure technological tools serve as instruments under the engineer's direction rather than substitutes for professional judgment. The present obligation is the same concept applied to the CD-ROM context. A medium-high match is appropriate because the ontology class is stated in terms of CADD systems but the definition is general enough to encompass any technological tool including CD-ROMs.
Duty of a licensed engineer to ensure that computers, software, CD-ROMs, and other technological tools serve as instruments supporting professional practice under the engineer's direction rather than as replacements for engineering judgment, and to recognize that technology has an important place in engineering practice only when it supplements rather than substitutes for genuine professional competence.
[TechnologyNon-SubstitutionObligation] Duty of a licensed engineer to ensure that technological tools, including CADD systems and similar computer-assisted platforms, serve as instruments of professional production under the engineer's direction rather than as substitutes for the engineer's own professional judgment, so that the engineer retains genuine intellectual and technical responsibility for the work product and does not incorporate system-generated solutions the engineer has not prepared or fully understands.
Technology Substitution Prohibition Principle
Requires ongoing interpretation of the boundary between legitimate tool use and impermissible substitution of tool output for professional judgment, particularly as tool capabilities evolve.
Conduct comprehensive rather than high-level review of AI-generated technical work
Critically evaluate and challenge AI-generated outputs rather than accepting them
Define problem constraints and guidelines before delegating to AI tools
Verify that AI outputs meet independent professional standards before incorporation
BER Case 90-6 warning that CADD used beyond its ability has a propensity to be used as a crutch or substitute for judgment
BER Case 98-3 conclusion that technology must not replace or be used as a substitute for engineering judgment
Engineer A conducting only a high-level review of AI-generated design documents rather than substantive independent evaluation
Requires engineers to outline solution guidelines and constraints before using AI tools, to critically evaluate and challenge tool outputs, to understand the reasoning behind outputs, and to accept only those outputs that satisfy independent professional standards.
Professional Competence (efficient use of available tools)
As night follows day one can be assured that CADD utilized beyond its ability to serve as a valuable tool has a propensity to be utilized as a crutch or substitute for judgement.
It is the [BER]'s position that technology has an important place in the practice of engineering, but it must never be a replacement of a substitute for engineering judgement.
Engineering judgment is the core professional contribution that licenses and professional obligations protect; allowing tools to replace rather than assist that judgment undermines the entire basis for professional licensure and public trust.
Fundamental professional principle prohibiting engineers from using technological tools, including AI-assisted drafting or automated design systems, as a substitute for independent engineering judgment, requiring instead that such tools serve only as aids subject to substantive professional evaluation and oversight.
Evidence that the engineer directed the tool's use, set technical parameters, and critically reviewed outputs rather than passively accepting tool-generated content
Professional discipline; invalidation of sealed documents; reputational harm
Duty of a licensed engineer to ensure that technological tools, including CADD systems and AI-assisted drafting platforms, serve as instruments of professional production under the engineer's direction rather than as substitutes for the engineer's own professional judgment, authorship, or oversight, so that the engineer retains genuine intellectual and technical responsibility for the work product.
Geotechnical and foundation engineering test programs
Design test programs that replicate prior conditions as closely as practicable
Disclose methodological differences and their potential effect on results
Identify original test or construction conditions from records
Recognize when deviations from original conditions have occurred
No existing capability class addresses the technical competency of replicating prior test or construction conditions in a comparative investigation.
Technical ability to reproduce the conditions of prior work when conducting comparative tests or investigations, and to recognize and disclose deviations that may affect the validity of results.
Professional must not omit equipment failures from reports that rely on data from those tests
Professional must not present conclusions as reliable when known test deficiencies undermine the data
Conclusions in the report rely on the deficient test data
Equipment fails or procedural deviations occur during testing
Testing or investigation is conducted to generate data for a professional report
The deficiencies are known to the professional issuing the report
Duty to disclose equipment failures and procedural deviations in the report
Duty to qualify conclusions that rest on deficient test data
Duty to recommend retesting when deficiencies are material
Transforms the general duty of truthfulness and objectivity into a specific obligation to disclose known test deficiencies and qualify any conclusions that depend on data generated under those deficient conditions.
Report is amended to disclose deficiencies and qualify conclusions accordingly
Testing is repeated under corrected conditions
State in which the testing or investigative methodology used to generate data for a professional report contains known deficiencies, including equipment failures, non-representative conditions, or procedural deviations, that materially affect the reliability of the data and the validity of conclusions drawn from it, creating obligations to disclose those deficiencies in any report relying on the data.
Tool Substitution Recognition Capability
Distinguish between a tool that aids a competent practitioner and one marketed as a replacement for competence
Identify when a solicitation conflates tool access with professional qualification
Recognize that a CD-ROM design library does not supply the judgment required for facilities design
Refuse to offer services on the basis of tool possession alone
Technology Non-Substitution Judgment Capability directly addresses recognizing when a technological tool is being used as a substitute for professional judgment rather than as an aid to it, and resisting the temptation to incorporate system-generated solutions the engineer has not prepared or fully understands. This is the same core concept applied to a CD-ROM design library rather than a CADD system or AI platform. The match is high confidence as a variant of the same reusable class.
Technology Non-Substitution Judgment Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to recognize when a software tool, automated design library, or similar product is being positioned as a substitute for the domain knowledge, training, and professional experience required to practice competently in a specialty area, and to resist treating the tool as conferring competence the engineer does not independently possess.
[TechnologyNon-SubstitutionJudgmentCapability] Capability of a licensed professional engineer to recognize when a technological tool such as a CADD system or AI-assisted platform is being used as a substitute for professional judgment rather than as an aid to it, and to resist the temptation to incorporate system-generated solutions that the engineer has neither prepared nor fully understands, ensuring that the tool remains subordinate to the engineer's independent professional competence.
Evidence that the engineer did not expand service offerings into new technical domains solely on the basis of acquiring a software tool or automated design library
Professional discipline; public safety risk from deficient work products generated without genuine domain competence
The Technology Non-Substitution Obligation captures the duty to ensure technological tools serve as instruments under the engineer's direction rather than substitutes for professional judgment. This case instantiates that concept specifically in the context of a CD-ROM design library being used to enter an entirely new domain of practice, which is a variant of the same principle. Medium confidence because the existing class focuses on tools within an established practice area, while this case involves using a tool to enter a domain where no competence exists at all.
Duty of a licensed engineer to refrain from treating a software tool, CD-ROM library, or similar automated system as a substitute for the domain knowledge, education, and professional experience required to competently practice in a technical field, and to recognize that access to such a tool does not confer competence to offer professional services in that field.
Must not market services as competent practice when competence rests solely on tool availability
Must not seal or certify work product generated by a tool the professional cannot independently evaluate
Professional acquires or deploys a tool marketed as enabling practice in an unfamiliar domain
Professional has no independent basis for evaluating the tool's outputs
Professional proceeds to offer or deliver services based on tool outputs without supervision
Duty to disclose reliance on automated tools to clients
Duty to obtain competent supervision before delivering work product
Duty to verify that tool outputs meet applicable professional standards
Transforms the general principle that engineers shall practice only in areas of competence into a specific prohibition on treating automated tools as competence proxies and a requirement to maintain independent professional judgment over tool outputs.
Professional acquires independent competence in the domain
Professional associates with a competent engineer who provides genuine oversight
Professional discontinues use of the tool as a competence substitute
Unfamiliar Tool Deployment State captures the use of a tool without prior experience. This case adds the distinct dimension that the tool is being used as a wholesale substitute for domain competence rather than merely as an unfamiliar instrument within an area where the professional otherwise has expertise. The substitution-for-competence aspect is materially different and ethically more serious, warranting a distinct class, though the existing class is the closest match.
State in which a professional treats a commercial software tool, database, or automated system as a functional substitute for the domain knowledge, training, and experience required to practice competently in a given area, rather than as an instrument augmenting existing professional judgment, creating conditions in which the professional lacks the background necessary to evaluate, correct, or take responsibility for the tool's outputs.
[UnfamiliarToolDeploymentState] State in which a professional uses a tool, technology, or method with which they have no prior experience, creating elevated risk of undetected errors and triggering heightened obligations of verification, disclosure, and caution before relying on outputs for professional work products.
Contractor-engineer may not later claim ignorance of deficiencies apparent from document review
Contractor-engineer must not submit a bid that ignores known inadequacies without disclosure
A contractor-engineer reviews bidding documents prior to submitting a bid
The contractor-engineer submits a bid without reflecting the deficiency or seeking clarification
The documents are materially incomplete or inadequate for construction
Obligation to disclose known inadequacies to the owner
Obligation to reflect known deficiencies in bid pricing
Obligation to seek clarification when documents appear incomplete
Transforms the general duty of honesty and competence into a specific obligation to disclose known document deficiencies at the bid stage rather than proceeding silently and later attributing construction failures to the design engineer.
Contract is withdrawn or rebid with complete documents
Contractor adjusts bid to include items for additional services
Contractor seeks clarification and receives adequate design information
Engineer C's actions in bidding on an 'unbuildable' contract is also very troubling
Engineer C's bid should have reflected that fact and contained appropriate bid items for additional services required to complete the work
State in which a contractor-engineer bids on a contract knowing or having reasonable grounds to know that the engineering documents are incomplete or inadequate to support construction, without adjusting the bid to reflect the additional work required or seeking clarification from the owner or design engineer, thereby assuming known risks without disclosure and forfeiting the ability to claim ignorance of resulting construction problems.
Must include citations and attribution consistent with professional standards
Must not represent AI-generated content as solely the product of the professional's own analysis without disclosure
AI tools substantially contributed to the work product
No disclosure of AI contribution made to client or relevant parties
Duty to avoid creating false impressions about the origin of work
Duty to disclose substantial AI contributions to clients
Duty to provide appropriate attribution in work products
Transforms the general honesty and attribution principles into a concrete obligation to proactively disclose when AI has substantially shaped a work product, even absent a universal regulatory mandate to do so.
Appropriate attribution included in the work product
Client acknowledges and accepts the AI contribution
AI, while not a human contributor, fundamentally shaped the report and design documents, warranting disclosure under Code section III.9.
State in which artificial intelligence tools have made a substantial contribution to a professional work product but that contribution has not been disclosed to the client or relevant parties, creating a transparency deficit that implicates attribution obligations, client trust, and professional honesty standards.
Should not represent AI-generated content as entirely self-authored without disclosure
Should not seal or certify work without disclosing the role of AI in its production where standards require
AI tools are used to generate or substantially draft a professional work product
The professional omits disclosure of AI use when submitting the work product
Obligation to comply with professional standards governing attribution and transparency
Obligation to correct any false impression created by non-disclosure
Obligation to disclose AI use to clients and relevant parties
Transforms honesty and transparency principles into specific disclosure obligations when AI tools have played a material role in producing a professional work product.
Disclosure of AI use is made to the client or relevant parties
Work product is resubmitted with appropriate attribution and disclosure
State in which a professional has used AI tools to generate or substantially assist in producing a work product but has not disclosed that use to the client, employer, or relevant professional body, creating a transparency deficit that may implicate honesty obligations, professional standards, and client trust.
Professional must not allow client or approving authority to rely on a deliverable without knowing its limitations
Professional must not seal and submit documents known to be incomplete without disclosing the reason and the incompleteness
Professional does not disclose the pressure or its effect to affected parties at time of delivery
Professional experiences deadline pressure that affects completeness or quality of deliverable
Duty to disclose factors that materially affected the quality of the professional's work product
Duty to notify client when deadline constraints prevent delivery of a complete and adequate product
Duty to seek deadline extension rather than deliver a known-incomplete product
Transforms general honesty and faithful-agent principles into a specific obligation to disclose when external pressures have compromised the professional's ability to deliver a complete and adequate work product.
Affected parties are informed and given opportunity to respond
Professional discloses the deadline pressure and its effect on the work product
he felt pressured to deliver the drawings and specifications on a specified date
State in which a professional has experienced time pressure that caused or contributed to the production of an incomplete or substandard work product, but has not disclosed that pressure or its effect on deliverable quality to the client, approving authority, or other affected parties, leaving those parties unable to assess the reliability of the work product.
Professional should communicate preliminary concerns even when unquantified
Professional should not allow work suspension to serve as a reason to defer disclosure of a known risk concern
Client is not informed of the concern at the time of suspension
Professional identifies a preliminary risk concern during contracted work
Work is suspended or interrupted before the concern is disclosed
Duty to disclose material risk concerns to the client
Duty to protect public health and safety
Obligation not to withhold information material to the client's decisions
Transforms the general duty of honest communication into a specific obligation to disclose preliminary risk findings before or at the time of any work suspension, so that the client can make informed decisions during the interruption.
Professional discloses the concern to the client
Risk is formally assessed and communicated
Engineer L becomes concerned that the risk of impact to the community drinking water source will potentially increase
The existing Unverified Risk Concern State captures the intermediate epistemic condition where a professional has a concern but not yet a confirmed finding. However, the distinctive feature here is that the concern was not disclosed at the time of work suspension, creating a transparency deficit that persists through the interruption. The existing class does not specifically capture the non-disclosure dimension during a work suspension. A medium-confidence match is appropriate, but the non-disclosure aspect during suspension is a meaningful additional element.
State in which a professional has identified a preliminary concern about a potential risk to public safety or welfare during the course of contracted work, but has not disclosed that concern to the client or affected parties before a work suspension or other interruption occurs, leaving the client without information needed to make informed decisions during the intervening period.
Unpermitted Environmental Alteration State
Professional may not assist client in concealing or perpetuating the violation
Professional must not misrepresent the site condition in any subsequent professional work
Alteration constitutes a violation of applicable federal or state environmental law
Client installs fill material or otherwise alters regulated environmental feature without permits
Professional observes or becomes aware of the unpermitted alteration
Duty to assess whether the violation creates a public safety or environmental risk requiring mandatory reporting
Duty to consider whether continued professional silence constitutes complicity in ongoing violation
Obligation to evaluate post-engagement reporting duties triggered by confirmed regulatory violation
Transforms general environmental stewardship principles and post-engagement duties into concrete obligations to evaluate mandatory disclosure to regulatory authorities when a client has committed a substantial unpermitted alteration of a regulated environmental feature.
Client obtains required permits or regulatory authorization retroactively
Fill or alteration is removed and site restored to compliant condition
Regulatory authority issues enforcement action resolving the violation
State in which a client or property owner has made a substantial physical alteration to an environmentally regulated site, such as filling wetlands, without obtaining required permits, variances, or regulatory approvals, creating a condition of active legal violation and triggering the professional's obligations to assess reporting duties to regulatory authorities.
Professional should not suspend work without communicating identified concerns
Professional should not treat unquantified risk as equivalent to no risk
Professional identifies a potential risk during preliminary work
Risk assessment is incomplete or suspended before quantification is achieved
Duty to disclose known concerns to client even before full quantification
Duty to resume and complete risk assessment when work resumes
Precautionary duty to flag potential third-party harm
Transforms general honesty and public safety principles into a concrete obligation to communicate preliminary risk findings to the client before or at the time work is suspended, rather than waiting for full quantification.
Risk is fully quantified and characterized
Engineer L does not mention to Client X the potential increased risk
before Engineer L can quantify the increased risk, Client X encounters unexpected financial setbacks
State in which a professional has identified a potential risk to third parties or the public but has not yet completed the analysis needed to quantify or confirm that risk, creating an intermediate epistemic condition that still triggers preliminary disclosure and precautionary obligations even though the full scope of harm remains uncertain.
Reviewer must not allow incomplete work to advance without disclosure
Reviewer must not approve work beyond their competence
A reviewing engineer approves a design submission
The reviewer either lacked competence or failed to apply adequate review
The submission is materially incomplete or deficient
Obligation to notify supervisors when unable to perform adequate review
Obligation to recognize competence limits and escalate to a qualified reviewer
Obligation to refuse approval of incomplete submissions
Transforms the general duty of competence and professional review into a specific obligation to escalate or refuse approval when the reviewer cannot adequately evaluate the submission.
A competent reviewer re-examines and properly evaluates the submission
Deficiencies are identified and corrected
The project is halted pending correction
Engineer B's approval of Engineer A's incomplete plans is troubling
the failure to recognize the lack of competency and take appropriate action to address the situation is a violation of the NSPE Code
State in which a reviewing engineer has approved or accepted a design submission that is materially incomplete, either because the reviewer lacked the competence to detect the deficiencies or failed to apply adequate scrutiny, resulting in an incomplete work product advancing through the approval process without correction.
Unsuccessful Project Advisory Constraint
Cease participation if the client overrides a safety-critical recommendation
Document the advisory and the client's response
Formally advise the client in writing when the engineer believes a project will not succeed without specific measures
Engineer L notified Client X of this risk. Consistent with Code sections I.4, II.3.a, II.3.b, III.1.b, and III.3.a.
Section III.1.b. clearly requires the engineer to inform a client when the engineer believes that a project will not be successful. The term 'successful' includes not merely the structural and economic success of a project but also the success of the project from a safety standpoint.
Client proceeds without informed understanding of project risks; engineer fails professional duty to advise; public safety may be compromised.
The Project Success Advisory Constraint in the ontology captures exactly this concept: the requirement to advise a client when the engineer believes a project will not be successful, with success defined to include safety outcomes. The BER Case 84-5 and Engineer L facts are direct instantiations of that class.
Ethical constraint requiring an engineer to advise a client or employer when the engineer believes a project will not be successful, where success encompasses structural, economic, and safety outcomes. This obligation must be fulfilled before the engineer can be said to have met professional ethics requirements, and it applies whenever the engineer's professional judgment indicates that proceeding without specific measures will result in project failure in any of these dimensions.
[ProjectSuccessAdvisoryConstraint] Ethical constraint requiring an engineer to advise a client or employer when the engineer believes a project will not be successful, where success encompasses not only structural and economic outcomes but also safety outcomes. This obligation must be fulfilled before the engineer can be said to have met professional ethics requirements, and it applies whenever the engineer's professional judgment indicates that proceeding without specific measures will result in project failure in any of these dimensions.
Professional must not allow a public hearing or decision to proceed on incomplete written record
Professional must not submit a written report that omits material findings already communicated verbally
Professional communicates the finding verbally to client
Professional identifies a material technical finding
Professional omits the finding from a written report submitted to a public authority or decision-making body
Duty to be objective and truthful in professional reports
Duty to ensure public authorities have complete information
Duty to include all relevant and pertinent information in written reports
Transforms the general duty of truthfulness and completeness into a specific obligation to document and submit material findings in writing whenever a report is submitted to a public authority.
Finding is documented in a written report
Written disclosure is submitted to all relevant parties
Engineer A verbally mentioned the concern, but Engineer A did not include the information in a written report that will be submitted to a public authority
Engineer Doe verbally reported to XYZ that their discharge will lower the water quality in the receiving body of water below standards. XYZ instructed Engineer Doe not to complete a written report
The existing class Incomplete Written Disclosure State directly captures the condition in which a professional has verbally communicated a material finding but omitted it from a written report submitted to a public authority, which is precisely the pattern in both BER Case 76-4 and BER Case 07-6 analyzed here.
State in which a professional has communicated a material technical finding or concern to a client verbally but has not reduced that finding to writing, creating a condition in which the professional's disclosure obligations under codes requiring objective and truthful written reports remain unfulfilled, and in which the client or a public authority may act on incomplete or unrecorded information.
[IncompleteWrittenDisclosureState] State in which a professional has verbally communicated a material finding or concern to a client but has omitted that finding from a written report submitted to a public authority or other decision-making body, creating a transparency deficit and a breach of the duty to be objective and truthful in professional reports.
A licensed professional engineering role in which the practitioner serves simultaneously as superintendent and chief engineer for a public water utility, bearing professional accountability for technical recommendations on water supply, treatment adequacy, and public health protection, while operating within a governance structure where elected or appointed commissioners hold final decision-making authority.
Engineer B is a consulting engineer, which is a specialization of Consultant Role. However, the role is specifically an engineering consulting role focused on water treatment evaluation, making it more precisely a specialization of Engineer Role or Consultant Role. Matched as a specialization of Consultant Role at medium confidence because the engineering specialty and public health protection obligations distinguish it from the generic consultant archetype.
A licensed professional engineering role in which the practitioner is retained by a public water utility to evaluate water treatment requirements associated with a change in water supply source, prepare technical reports recommending capital improvements and timelines, and advise the utility on risks to public health such as lead leaching from aging service infrastructure.
Water Treatment Engineering Report Resource
Provides the technical grounding for engineering recommendations on water supply changes, establishing the factual and analytical basis for professional advice to a public authority.
Public health risk assessment in water engineering
A formal technical report produced by a consulting engineer evaluating water treatment requirements, capital investment needs, and implementation timelines associated with a change in water supply source or treatment process. Such reports provide the technical basis for infrastructure decisions and serve as primary professional knowledge sources in water utility planning.
Water treatment engineering and public water supply management
Assess water quality implications of source change
Develop capital investment and timeline recommendations for treatment upgrades
Identify required treatment infrastructure improvements
Engineers A B Project Success Notification
Technical capability to evaluate the water treatment requirements associated with a change in public water supply source, including the ability to assess water quality parameters, identify required treatment processes, estimate capital investment needs, and develop a realistic timeline for design, evaluation, and construction of treatment improvements sufficient to protect public health.
Geotechnical engineering professional consensus and published analytical methods
Provides an accepted analytical framework for translating field driving records into pile capacity estimates, grounding professional judgments about whether piles meet design requirements.
A documented analytical method or calculation applying wave equation principles to pile driving data to estimate pile capacity from blow count and driving resistance records. This method is an accepted engineering technique for evaluating driven pile performance and serves as a technical knowledge source in foundation engineering practice.
Engineer A is an environmental engineer. Engineer A performs wetland delineation services on the client's wetland site.
Wetland delineation is a specialization of environmental engineering practice. The existing Environmental Engineer class covers environmental analysis and technical reports bearing licensure-based accountability, which encompasses this role. Matching as a specialization at medium confidence.
A licensed professional engineering role in which the practitioner is retained to perform wetland delineation services, assess wetland boundaries, and produce technical findings for a client site, bearing professional obligations of accuracy, completeness, and disclosure of violations of federal and state environmental laws discovered in connection with the engagement.
[EnvironmentalEngineer] A professional engineering role specializing in environmental systems, contaminant analysis, groundwater monitoring, and related infrastructure design, bearing licensure-based accountability for technical reports and engineering documents delivered to clients.
Licensed environmental engineering professionals
Provides the technical baseline that defines the scope of regulated wetland area and grounds professional accountability for subsequent site changes
A formal technical report produced by a qualified environmental engineer documenting the boundaries, extent, and characteristics of wetland areas on a subject property. Such reports establish the baseline conditions for regulatory compliance and serve as primary reference documents for subsequent permitting, enforcement, and professional accountability determinations.
The client here is the party that commissioned wetland delineation services and is the subject of the violation. The existing Client Role covers the party that commissions project work. This is a specialization adding the violation context, so matching to Client Role at medium confidence.
A client who has commissioned professional environmental engineering services for a wetland site and subsequently installs fill material on that site without required permits, variances, or permissions, thereby committing a substantial violation of federal and state environmental laws and placing the engineer in a conflict between client confidentiality and public welfare obligations.
Environmental engineering with specialization in wetland delineation and wetland regulatory compliance
Assess the magnitude of the violation in terms of acreage and regulatory thresholds
Identify that fill material placed without permits violates federal and state wetland laws
Identify the appropriate federal and state regulatory authorities to notify
Domain Expertise covers professional domain-specific knowledge and competencies. Wetland regulatory knowledge is a specialized instance of domain expertise. The existing class is a reasonable parent match, but the wetland regulatory dimension is sufficiently specific and recurrent in environmental engineering ethics cases to warrant a distinct subclass capturing both the technical delineation competency and the regulatory compliance knowledge dimension.
Domain-specific technical and legal competency in federal and state wetland regulations, including the ability to identify permit requirements, recognize unpermitted fill activity, assess the substantiality of a violation, and determine which regulatory authorities have jurisdiction over wetland fill violations.
[DomainExpertise] Professional domain-specific knowledge and competencies (Hallamaa & Kalliokoski 2022, Doernberg & Truog 2023)
Distinguish cases involving public safety from those involving only fiscal or quality concerns
Document concerns thoroughly before deciding whether to escalate
Seek legal counsel regarding whistleblower protections
if an engineer feels strongly that an employer's course of conduct is improper when related to public concerns, and if the engineer feels compelled to blow the whistle to expose facts as he sees them, he may well have to pay the price of loss of employment
the engineer did not have an ethical obligation to continue his efforts to secure a change in the policy after his employer rejected his reports or to report his concerns to proper authority, but has an ethical right to do so as a matter of personal conscience
the ethical duty or right of the engineer becomes a matter of personal conscience, but the Board was unwilling to make a blanket statement that there is an ethical duty in these kinds of situations
No professional ethics violation for declining to escalate; personal consequences such as employment loss may follow voluntary escalation
Ethical constraint establishing that when an engineer identifies employer or organizational conduct that is improper in relation to public concerns but does not involve a danger to public health or safety, the engineer has an ethical right but not a mandatory ethical duty to report or escalate that conduct beyond the employer's rejection of the engineer's reports. Pursuing such disclosure is a matter of personal conscience, and the engineer may bear personal consequences such as loss of employment for doing so.
Whistleblower Conscience Judgment Capability
Professional engineering practice in defense, public works, and other contexts involving public funds or public interest
Assess whether improper conduct involves public health or safety
Decide whether to escalate concerns beyond internal channels
Distinguish ethical right from ethical duty in disclosure decisions
Weigh personal conscience against professional risk
Safety Disclosure Escalation Capability addresses escalation to regulatory authorities when internal resolution fails, but the present capability is distinct in that it concerns the threshold judgment between ethical right and ethical duty in non-safety public interest contexts, and the personal conscience dimension of that judgment. The match is weak enough that a new class is warranted, though there is partial conceptual overlap.
Capability to recognize when employer or organizational conduct that is improper in relation to public concerns rises to the level where personal conscience compels disclosure beyond internal reporting, including the ability to assess whether the situation involves public health and safety or a lesser public interest, and to weigh the personal and professional costs of external disclosure against the ethical right to pursue the matter.
Whether the engineer recognized the distinction between a matter of personal conscience and a mandatory reporting duty, and acted accordingly
the Board ruled that the engineer did not have an ethical obligation to continue his efforts to secure a change in the policy after his employer rejected his reports or to report his concerns to proper authority, but has an ethical right to do so as a matter of personal conscience
No mandatory professional sanction for declining to escalate; personal consequences such as employment loss may follow if the engineer chooses to escalate
Duty of an engineer who identifies employer or organizational conduct that is improper in relation to public concerns, such as unjustified expenditure of public funds or unsatisfactory plans, to recognize that further disclosure or whistleblowing is a matter of personal conscience and ethical right rather than a mandatory professional duty, absent a direct danger to public health or safety, and to understand that exercising that right may carry personal professional consequences.
Open-textured principle requiring case-by-case determination of whether the conduct at issue crosses the threshold from a matter of personal conscience into a mandatory disclosure obligation, based on the presence or absence of public health and safety risk.
Accept professional consequences of voluntary disclosure decisions
Distinguish safety threats from financial impropriety before determining disclosure duty
Exhaust internal channels before public disclosure when safety is not at stake
BER Case No. 82-5 where an engineer reported excessive subcontractor costs and delays but the Board declined to impose a duty of continued disclosure
Requires distinguishing between conduct that threatens public safety, which triggers mandatory disclosure, and conduct that is merely improper or wasteful, which triggers only a right of disclosure. Engineers must accept employment consequences if they choose to exercise that right.
Respect for professional autonomy and personal conscience, balanced against the recognition that not every organizational impropriety rises to the level requiring mandatory professional action.
Professional principle recognizing that when an engineer identifies employer or organizational conduct that is improper with respect to public concerns but does not rise to the level of a direct public safety threat, the engineer has an ethical right but not an ethical duty to pursue disclosure beyond internal channels or to escalate to public reporting. The decision to continue the campaign or blow the whistle becomes a matter of personal conscience, and the engineer must accept the professional consequences of that choice.
Comparison of the written report against all findings documented in the engineer's work product to verify that no material finding was omitted
The BER concluded that it was unethical for Engineer A to not include the information about the threat to the bird species in a written report that will be submitted to a public authority. The BER noted that Engineer A was obligated under Code section II.3.a to be objective and truthful in professional reports, statements, or testimony and include all relevant and pertinent information in such reports.
Violation of Code section II.3.a; submission of a materially incomplete report to a public authority; potential harm to public welfare
The existing Report Completeness Obligation directly captures the duty to include all relevant and pertinent information and to refrain from selectively omitting data. This class is a close match, with the additional specificity that the report is submitted to a public authority. The match is high confidence.
Duty of an engineer preparing a written report to be submitted to a public authority to include all relevant and pertinent information, including findings that may be unfavorable to the client's interests or that concern risks to protected species, environmental quality, or public welfare, and to refrain from omitting such information even when it has been communicated verbally to the client.
[ReportCompletenessObligation] Duty of an engineer preparing a professional report, analysis, or advisory memo to include all relevant and pertinent information, and to refrain from selectively omitting data, findings, or options that would materially affect the recipient's understanding or decision, regardless of whether the omitted information is unfavorable to the engineer's interests.
Professional engineering and technical writing practice involving AI-assisted content generation
Accurately attribute authorship in professional submissions
Communicate the nature and extent of AI contribution to clients
Identify AI-generated content within a work product
Refrain from presenting AI-generated text as original professional writing
Client W noted that the introduction discussing the contaminant's manufacture, use, and characteristics to be exceptionally polished. The Client commented that the report read as if written by two different authors
Capability to accurately represent the intellectual origin and authorship of professional work products, including the ability to distinguish between AI-generated content and original professional work and to avoid misrepresenting AI output as one's own independent analysis.
Professional engineering practice using AI-assisted drafting or synthesis tools across technical domains
Assess completeness and reliability of AI-synthesized technical content
Determine whether AI output meets professional and regulatory standards
Identify regulatory omissions in AI-generated design documents
Review AI-generated reports for factual accuracy
Not being familiar with the full functionality of the AI software, including the accuracy and originality of AI-generated text, Engineer A conducted a thorough review of the report
Technical capability to critically evaluate AI-generated work products for accuracy, completeness, regulatory compliance, and professional adequacy, sufficient to take responsible charge over the output and identify deficiencies before submission.
Documented disclosure of AI tool use in submitted work products or accompanying transmittal communications
Misrepresentation of authorship and methodology; potential disciplinary action; erosion of client trust; professional license sanctions
Duty of an engineer who uses AI-assisted tools or large language models in the preparation of professional work products to disclose that use to clients, employers, and other stakeholders who rely on those work products, so that they can assess the nature and provenance of the work.
Professional engineering societies, ethics boards, and regulatory bodies issuing guidance on emerging technology in practice
Bridges abstract professional responsibility principles to the novel context of AI-assisted engineering work, providing concrete guidance on when and how AI tools may be used and what obligations attach to their use.
Engineer A did not cite their use of AI-software or its large language models
Professional guidance, policy statements, or documented norms addressing the appropriate use of artificial intelligence tools in engineering practice, including disclosure obligations, accuracy verification requirements, and professional responsibility when AI-generated content is incorporated into deliverables.
NSPE Board of Ethical Review and professional engineering community consensus
Grounds the professional duty to maintain competence when adopting new computational design technologies, bridging abstract competence obligations to specific CADD and AI tool contexts.
It is critical for engineers to fully understand the role that new technologies such as CADD will play in the performance of professional services.
Technology adoption in engineering practice
CADD competency guidance is a variant of the existing AI Tool Use Guidance Resource class, which covers professional guidance on appropriate use of computational and AI tools including disclosure obligations, accuracy verification, and professional responsibility. CADD predates modern AI but the class definition is broad enough to encompass it as a subtype.
Professional guidance addressing the requisite background, education, training, and limitations engineers must understand when using Computer Aided Drafting and Design systems in professional practice, including the distinction between using such tools as aids versus substitutes for professional judgment.
[AIToolUseGuidanceResource] Professional guidance, policy statements, or documented norms addressing the appropriate use of artificial intelligence tools in engineering practice, including disclosure obligations, accuracy verification requirements, and professional responsibility when AI-generated content is incorporated into deliverables.
Computer-assisted design and drafting in professional engineering practice
Avoid incorporating system-generated solutions the engineer has not prepared or fully understands
Maintain professional authorship over CADD-produced documents
Recognize when CADD output exceeds the engineer's understanding
Use CADD systems as a production tool under professional direction
The concept partially overlaps with AI Output Verification Capability in that both concern the engineer's ability to critically evaluate technology-generated outputs and avoid uncritical reliance on them. However, CADD Proficiency Capability is broader, encompassing the foundational technical training and background needed to use the system competently as a tool, not merely the verification of outputs. The existing class focuses on post-generation evaluation; this class includes the upstream competence to direct and understand the system. A medium-confidence variant match is appropriate, but the concept is sufficiently distinct in scope to warrant a separate class.
Technical capability of a licensed professional engineer to possess sufficient background, education, and training to be proficient with CADD systems, including understanding the limitations of the technology, recognizing when the system is being used as a substitute for professional judgment rather than as a production tool, and ensuring that outputs reflect genuine engineering competence rather than uncritical reliance on system-generated solutions.
[AIOutputVerificationCapability] Technical capability to critically evaluate AI-generated work products for accuracy, completeness, regulatory compliance, and professional adequacy, sufficient to take responsible charge over the output and identify deficiencies before submission.
Distinguish between presenting favorable evidence and omitting contrary evidence
Refuse client instructions to omit material findings
Withdraw from engagement if client demands suppression of evidence
Engineer B was obligated to serve the municipality's legitimate interests while refusing to omit material technical evidence from the report.
We just did not believe the driving records and there was also the issue of whether the pile was vented to allow air to escape.
Professional discipline, harm to opposing parties, unjust outcomes, public safety risk
No existing constraint class in the ontology captures the hard ethical boundary between permissible client advocacy and impermissible suppression of evidence. The obligation-side Faithful Agent Boundary Obligation is a duty; this is the inviolable constraint on conduct.
Prohibition on an engineer acting as a retained expert or agent crossing from legitimate advocacy of a client's position into suppression or omission of material technical evidence, marking the boundary between permissible client service and professional misconduct.
Document the refusal and the engineer's recommendation in writing before withdrawal
Report the risk to appropriate regulatory authorities after withdrawal
Withdraw from the project upon client refusal to implement identified safety measures
Engineer continues work on a project that poses a confirmed risk to public health or safety without adequate safeguards, directly violating the paramount duty to hold public welfare above client economic interests.
The existing Client Economic Pressure Safety Continuation Constraint directly addresses the prohibition on an engineer continuing work after a client declines to implement safety measures on economic grounds. The case facts map precisely onto this existing class: Client X refuses additional protective measures citing budget limitations, and Engineer L faces the constraint of whether to continue. This is a high-confidence match to the existing class.
Ethical constraint prohibiting an engineer from continuing work on a project after a client declines to implement safety measures the engineer has identified as necessary to protect public health or safety, when the client's refusal is grounded in budget or economic considerations. The engineer must cease participation rather than subordinate the paramount public safety duty to the client's financial preferences.
Continuing work after client refuses a necessary safety measure constitutes a violation of the public safety paramount duty
Professional may not abandon the ethical duty to the public in response to client cost concerns
Client declines the recommendation citing cost
Professional continues work without the safety measure
Professional recommends a safety measure as necessary for project success
Obligation not to continue work that poses unmitigated public safety risk
Obligation to advise client that the project will not be successful without the measure
Obligation to prioritize public safety over client economic preferences
Transforms the abstract duty to hold public safety paramount into a concrete prohibition on continuing professional services when a client refuses a safety measure that the professional has identified as necessary, regardless of the client's economic rationale.
Project is redesigned to eliminate the safety concern
Engineer A recommended the client hire a full-time, on-site project representative for the project because of the potentially dangerous nature of implementing the design during the construction phase. The client indicated that hiring the representative would be too costly, and Engineer A continues to work on the project.
State in which a client declines to implement a safety measure recommended by the professional engineer on the grounds that the measure is too costly, and the professional continues to work on the project without the safety measure in place, creating a condition in which the professional's primary obligation has shifted from public safety to the client's economic concerns.
Professional engineering practice where client cost concerns conflict with public safety obligations
Advise the client that the project cannot proceed successfully without the recommended measures
Identify when client cost objections cross the threshold from legitimate scope negotiation to ethically impermissible pressure
Refuse to continue professional work when safety measures the engineer has identified as necessary are rejected by the client
Capability to recognize when a client's refusal to implement professionally recommended safety measures, motivated by cost or economic concerns, creates an obligation to cease work rather than continue, and to act on that obligation by declining to proceed despite client pressure.
Advise client of the ethical limitation and propose compliant alternatives
Decline instructions that conflict with ethics code requirements
Violation of professional ethics, potential disciplinary action, and complicity in unethical conduct if client instructions are followed over ethical obligations.
This constraint is a specific application of the general Ethical Constraint class. It captures the boundary that client loyalty does not override professional ethics obligations. It is closely related to the existing Non-Deception (Constraint) and Conflict of Interest Avoidance (Constraint) ontology entries but is more precisely characterized as an Ethical Constraint governing the limits of client authority over professional conduct.
Ethical constraint establishing that an engineer's duty of loyalty to a client does not extend to following client instructions that require violating professional ethics obligations, and that such instructions must be declined.
Professional engineering review and approval functions across engineering disciplines
Assess whether assigned review task falls within personal competence
Inform supervisor of competence limitations
Recognize when a review is beyond one's technical expertise
Request reassignment of task to a qualified engineer
Capability to recognize the boundaries of one's own technical competence when assigned a professional task, to assess whether one possesses sufficient expertise to perform the task adequately, and to take appropriate action such as informing a supervisor or declining the assignment rather than proceeding with an inadequate review.
Documented evidence that all approved or applicable options were identified and analyzed in the advisory work product
Client makes uninformed decision based on incomplete analysis; engineer may face disciplinary action for dishonest or misleading professional conduct
Duty of an engineer advising a client on selection among multiple available options to present all materially relevant options within the approved or applicable set, rather than selectively presenting only a subset, so that the client can make a fully informed decision.
Address contradictory evidence explicitly rather than omitting it
Disclose equipment failures and procedural anomalies
Include all material test results and field data in the report
the Code of Ethics which requires that engineers 'shall include all relevant and pertinent information in such report, statements or testimony'
Misdirection of technical conclusions, disservice to client, impairment of opposing party's ability to obtain expert review, professional discipline
The Complete Reporting Constraint overlaps substantially with the Contradictory Evidence Omission Constraint already in the ontology, which prohibits preparing a technical report that omits known material evidence contradicting the report's conclusions. The present case text emphasizes the same code requirement to include all relevant and pertinent information. However, the existing class is framed specifically around contradictory evidence, while the case text also addresses omission of non-contradictory material facts such as equipment failure and driven-to-refusal status. The match is strong but not identical, so medium-high confidence is appropriate.
Requirement that an engineer preparing a technical report include all relevant and pertinent information, prohibiting selective omission of material technical facts regardless of the adversarial or client-service context in which the report is prepared.
Advise the reviewed engineer of the intent to notify authorities if resolution is not reached
Discuss safety concerns directly with the reviewed engineer before escalating
Notify appropriate authorities when safety violations remain unresolved
Suppression of safety-critical information, risk to public health and welfare, and potential professional liability for the reviewer who fails to escalate unresolved safety violations.
Constraint arising when a peer reviewer operating under a contractual confidentiality agreement discovers safety code violations. The confidentiality obligation does not eliminate the reviewer's duty to first seek resolution with the reviewed engineer and then, if unresolved, to notify appropriate authorities. The safety disclosure obligation overrides the confidentiality restriction when public health, safety, and welfare are at risk.
Professional may not ethically acquiesce to client pressure to proceed without adequate safeguards
Professional may not suppress or omit the factual finding from written reports
Client has been informed but has not yet responded with adequate safeguards
Professional completes sufficient analysis to characterize a risk as a factual finding
Professional notifies the client of the identified risk
Obligation to advise client that the project will not be successful without safeguards
Obligation to refuse to continue work if client insists on proceeding without safeguards
Potential obligation to report to relevant authorities if client refuses to act
Transforms the general duty to hold public safety paramount into a concrete obligation to withhold professional services when a client refuses to implement identified safeguards, overriding the faithful-agent duty to the client.
Client implements adequate protective measures
Regulatory authority takes over management of the risk
The existing Confirmed Risk Without Adequate Safeguards State directly captures this condition: a professional has confirmed a concrete risk and adequate safeguards are absent. Engineer L has confirmed the stormwater runoff risk as a factual finding, notified the client, and the client refuses to implement protective measures. This matches the existing class at high confidence.
State in which a professional has identified and documented a concrete risk as a factual finding and has notified the client of that risk, creating an active obligation to ensure the client responds with adequate safeguards and triggering heightened duties if the client refuses to act.
Evidence that both engineers agreed on and jointly executed or separately but consistently executed the regulatory escalation
Inconsistent or incomplete regulatory reporting; weakened public protection; professional accountability gap
Duty of two or more engineers who have jointly identified a public health or safety risk and jointly presented recommendations that were overridden by a client to coordinate their escalation response, including agreeing on the form, content, and target of any regulatory report or presentation, so that the escalation is consistent, complete, and effective.
plans and design of Engineer A for the second tower
Design Engineer is a specialization of Engineer Role focused on original design authorship. The ontology has Engineer Role as the occupational archetype head, making this a medium-confidence specialization match rather than a new concept.
A professional engineering role responsible for creating original plans, specifications, and designs for a project, bearing primary accountability for the technical content of those documents.
Structural and civil engineering design review
Assess severity and safety implications of errors
Document findings for accountability purposes
Identify design errors in engineering plans
The ability to identify significant design errors through independent review is a domain-specific professional competency fitting Domain Expertise as defined by Hallamaa and Kalliokoski 2022 and Doernberg and Truog 2023. The focus on error recognition in peer review is a variant of the broader class, matched at medium confidence.
Technical capability to identify significant errors, omissions, or deficiencies in engineering plans and designs through independent review, including the ability to assess the severity and safety implications of discovered errors.
Engineer A was tasked to develop engineering design documents (plans and specifications) for modifications to groundwater infrastructure
Engineer A, an environmental engineer with several years of experience and holding a professional engineering license, was retained by Client W
Environmental Engineer is a specialization of Engineer Role in the ontology. The ontology has Engineer Role as the occupational archetype head for all engineer specializations, so this is a medium-confidence match to the parent. A distinct leaf class is warranted because environmental engineering carries domain-specific obligations around contaminant reporting and groundwater infrastructure not captured by the generic Engineer Role.
A professional engineering role specializing in environmental systems, contaminant analysis, groundwater monitoring, and related infrastructure design, bearing licensure-based accountability for technical reports and engineering documents delivered to clients.
Environmental and stormwater engineering, hydrological risk assessment
Conduct hydrological and environmental impact studies
Document the status of incomplete risk quantification
Estimate qualitative and quantitative risk levels from heavy rainfall events
Quantify risk of stormwater runoff reaching a drinking water source
Technical capability to conduct sufficient analysis to quantify environmental risks identified during professional work, including the ability to assess the magnitude and likelihood of stormwater or discharge impacts on public water sources and to document the status of quantification work when full analysis cannot be completed.
Professional may not abandon public safety duty in response to client cost concerns
Professional may not continue work that poses unmitigated public risk simply to preserve the client relationship
Client instructs professional to take an action or refrain from an action
Following the client's instruction would compromise public safety or welfare
Professional has identified a factual basis for the safety concern
Obligation to advise client that the project will not be successful
Obligation to prioritize public safety over client economic interests
Obligation to refuse to continue work that endangers the public
Transforms the abstract tension between Fundamental Canon I.1 (public safety paramount) and Canon I.4 (faithful agent duty) into a concrete obligation to withhold services when the two duties cannot be reconciled in favor of public safety.
Client agrees to implement adequate safeguards
Professional withdraws from the engagement
Regulatory authority resolves the conflict externally
The existing Competing Duties State captures the general condition of conflicting professional obligations requiring ethical prioritization. The faithful-agent versus public-safety conflict is a canonical instance of competing duties. Matching to the existing class at high confidence rather than creating a new class.
State in which a professional's obligation to act as a faithful agent or trustee for a client comes into direct conflict with the professional's paramount duty to protect public health, safety, and welfare, requiring the professional to prioritize public safety over client loyalty when the two duties cannot be simultaneously satisfied.
[CompetingDuties] State requiring ethical prioritization between conflicting obligations
Professional may not submit a written report to a public authority that omits material facts known to the professional
Verbal disclosure to the client does not satisfy the obligation to disclose in writing to a public authority
Professional identifies a material fact relevant to a public authority's decision
Professional omits the finding from a written report submitted to a public authority
Professional verbally communicates the finding to the client
Obligation to be objective and truthful in written professional communications
Obligation to correct the omission before the report is acted upon
Obligation to include all relevant and pertinent information in professional reports
Transforms the general duty of truthfulness and objectivity into a specific obligation to include material findings in written reports submitted to public authorities, even when the client prefers the information be omitted.
Public authority independently obtains the information
Supplemental written disclosure is submitted to the public authority
Written report is amended to include the omitted finding
The BER concluded that it was unethical for Engineer A to not include the information about the threat to the bird species in a written report
The existing Incomplete Professional Report State captures the condition of a professional report that omits material information, resulting in a misleading or incomplete work product. The BER Case 07-6 pattern of verbal disclosure without written inclusion in a public report is a direct instance of that state. Matching to the existing class at high confidence.
State in which a professional has verbally communicated a material finding or concern to a client but has omitted that finding from a written report submitted to a public authority or other decision-making body, creating a transparency deficit and a breach of the duty to be objective and truthful in professional reports.
Local Regulatory Safety Requirement Resource
Local regulatory authorities and jurisdictional bodies
Provides the concrete regulatory baseline against which engineering design documents are evaluated for compliance, grounding the professional obligation to meet safety and regulatory standards.
ensuring that all elements satisfied the necessary professional and regulatory standards.
Identification of omitted safety features in AI-generated plans
Review of engineering design documents for regulatory compliance
Local regulatory requirements for safety features in engineering design are legal frameworks constraining professional practice, matching the Legal Resource class. No more specific existing class covers local safety regulations for engineering design.
Local or jurisdictional regulations specifying mandatory safety features and design requirements that engineering documents must satisfy, serving as a binding technical and legal floor for professional engineering deliverables.
Observer's report or testimony documents all identified irregularities with supporting evidence
In the opinion of Engineer A's geotechnical consultant, this would have broken the pile bond and undervalued the skin friction value reported by Engineer B's tests.
Failure to report may result in reliance on invalid test data; professional discipline
Duty of an engineer or geotechnical consultant retained to observe a test or investigation to document and report procedural irregularities, equipment failures, or methodological deviations that could affect the validity of the results, and to communicate these findings to the retaining party promptly.
Professional ethics analysis across engineering disciplines where prior board rulings or case law inform current obligations
Analyze factual similarities and differences between a precedent and the current case
Articulate why a prior ruling does or does not govern the current situation
Determine whether a precedent's reasoning extends to a new fact pattern
Identify prior ethics rulings relevant to a current professional dilemma
In BER Case No. 89-7, for example, the facts revealed that the client had confided in the engineer and may have relied upon the engineer to maintain the information in confidence. In addition, the engineer in BER Case No. 89-7 did not have any particular expertise in the technical areas
Similarly, in BER Case No. 97-13, the engineer's evaluation was based upon general surmise and speculation
the Board can easily distinguish BER Case Nos. 89-7 and 97-13 from the present case
Precedent Application Capability covers identifying and applying prior professional ethics rulings and case precedents to novel situations, including reasoning by analogy from established decisions. The present capability adds emphasis on distinguishing precedents by factual differences rather than simply applying them, but the core concept is the same. The match is strong at the intermediate-to-high confidence level.
Capability to identify prior professional ethics rulings or case precedents that are factually similar to a current situation, to analyze the factual distinctions between the precedent and the current case, and to reason from those distinctions to determine whether the precedent's conclusion applies, is modified, or is inapplicable in the current context.
[PrecedentApplicationCapability] Capability to identify and apply prior professional ethics rulings and case precedents to novel situations, including the ability to reason by analogy from established decisions to determine appropriate conduct in related circumstances.
Professional engineering ethics adjudication and peer review practice
Apply precedent reasoning to current facts
Distinguish applicable from inapplicable precedents
It is helpful to consider how the BER has addressed peer review issues in the past. For example, in BER Case 18-10...
The capability to identify and apply prior BER rulings and case-based reasoning to current peer review situations maps closely to Precedent Retrieval, defined as the capability to identify relevant precedents and apply case-based reasoning. The present use is domain-specific to engineering ethics adjudication but the core concept is the same.
Capability to identify and apply prior professional ethics rulings and case precedents to novel situations, including the ability to reason by analogy from established decisions to determine appropriate conduct in related circumstances.
[PrecedentRetrieval] Capability to identify relevant precedents and apply case-based reasoning (McLaren 2003, SIROCCO system)
Document and communicate preliminary risk concerns in writing at the time of suspension or transition
Include a caveat in suspension communications noting unresolved risk items
Recommend that the client retain another engineer to continue risk assessment if work is suspended
Client proceeds without awareness of material risk, potentially causing harm to third parties or the public and exposing the engineer to professional liability.
Ethical and professional constraint requiring an engineer who identifies a potential risk to public health or safety during a preliminary phase of work to disclose that concern to the client before suspending, pausing, or transitioning work, even when the risk has not yet been fully quantified, so that the client can make informed decisions about how to proceed.
Requires interpretation of what forms of oversight are legitimate and what degree of professional resistance to review is permissible when an engineer believes the review process is unfair or unnecessary.
Consent to peer review when prior errors give reasonable grounds for review
Refrain from obstructing safety-motivated oversight
NSPE BER cases in which engineers were found to have an obligation not to obstruct legitimate review of their work
Professional licensing board disciplinary cases involving failure to cooperate with peer review
Requires Engineer A to consent to peer review of the second tower plans given that significant errors were already found in the first tower plans, rather than refusing on grounds of professional autonomy or reputational concern.
Engineers who produce work that affects public safety must be answerable for that work, and the profession's credibility depends on engineers not placing self-protection above accountability.
Direct match to the existing Professional Accountability class in the ontology. The case instantiates this principle through Engineer A's refusal to consent to peer review after significant errors were found in the first tower, which is a paradigm case of failing to accept accountability for one's professional work product.
Professional virtue principle requiring engineers to accept responsibility for their work product and to submit to legitimate oversight and review processes, particularly when errors in that work product have been identified.
[Case 120] Professional virtue principle requiring engineers to accept responsibility for their work product and to submit to legitimate oversight and review processes, particularly when the engineer's seal is affixed to documents, making the engineer personally accountable for the technical adequacy and accuracy of those documents.
Communicate in writing the specific conditions under which the project will not be successful
Document the advisory communication and the client's response
Identify the measures required to achieve success across structural, economic, and safety dimensions
Consistent with Code sections I.4, II.3.a, II.3.b, III.1.b, and III.3.a, Engineer L notified Client X of this risk.
Client proceeds without material information needed to make an informed decision about the project, engineer fails to fulfill advisory duty, and public safety may be compromised if the safety dimension of project success is not communicated.
Ethical constraint requiring an engineer to advise a client or employer when the engineer believes a project will not be successful, where success encompasses not only structural and economic outcomes but also safety outcomes. This obligation must be fulfilled before the engineer can be said to have met professional ethics requirements, and it applies whenever the engineer's professional judgment indicates that proceeding without specific measures will result in project failure in any of these dimensions.
Professional engineering practice requiring integrated safety and feasibility judgment
Assess whether a project can be completed safely given current scope and resources
Communicate a professional judgment that a project will not succeed to the client
Identify conditions whose absence would render a project unsuccessful from a safety standpoint
BER Case 84-5 noted that, 'section III.1.b. clearly requires the engineer to inform a client when the engineer believes that a project will not be successful. The term "successful" includes not merely the structural and economic success of a project but also the success of the project from a safety standpoint.'
Capability to evaluate whether a project can be completed successfully in terms of safety, structural adequacy, and public welfare, and to advise the client or employer when the engineer's professional judgment is that the project will not be successful without specific measures, including the ability to define success beyond mere economic or structural completion.
Documented communication to the client stating that the project will not be successful without the identified measures, prior to any decision to withdraw or continue
Violation of Code section III.1.b; failure to give the client the opportunity to remedy the deficiency before the engineer must withdraw
Duty of an engineer to advise a client or employer when, in the engineer's professional judgment, a project will not be successful, including when success is threatened by the absence of safety measures the client has declined to implement, so that the client has the opportunity to reconsider before the engineer is placed in a position of ethical conflict.
Cease participation in projects where public safety cannot be adequately protected
Refuse client instructions that require subordinating public safety
Report confirmed risks to regulatory authorities when client override creates public danger
Public exposed to preventable harm; engineer violates the foundational obligation of the profession; subject to professional discipline and potential legal liability.
The public safety paramount obligation is best captured as an Inviolable Constraint in the ontology, as it is an absolute constraint that cannot be overridden under any circumstances. However, the Safety Constraint class is also a close match. The Inviolable Constraint class is the better fit because the case text repeatedly frames the public safety duty as paramount and non-negotiable, not merely a safety boundary.
Inviolable ethical constraint establishing that an engineer's duty to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public takes precedence over obligations to clients, employers, and other parties. This constraint governs all professional decisions and cannot be overridden by client instructions, economic pressures, or contractual obligations.
[InviolableConstraint] Absolute constraints that cannot be overridden under any circumstances (Dennis et al. 2016)
Document all communications with client regarding the risk and the client's refusal
Notify the appropriate regulatory or pollution control authority of the identified risk
Withdraw from the engagement if the client continues to override safety recommendations
Public health or safety harmed by unaddressed risk; engineer in violation of paramount public safety duty and potentially subject to professional discipline.
Safety and ethical constraint requiring an engineer who has identified a confirmed risk to public health or safety, and whose client has overridden the engineer's recommendation to address that risk, to report the risk to the appropriate regulatory or pollution control authority when the client's override creates a condition that endangers public welfare and cannot be resolved within the professional relationship.
Documented evidence that all materially relevant information was included in the report or advisory product
Engineer A submitted plans that were lacking much of the design detail in both drawings and specifications
include all relevant and pertinent information
the engineer in question rendered an opinion that, based upon test pile, the project's installed piles did not meet the design safety factor. However, the engineer failed to include in the report that the initial log indicated that several of the piles were driven to essential refusal
Professional discipline; findings of unethical conduct by the Board of Ethical Review; reputational harm
Duty of an engineer preparing a professional report, analysis, or advisory memo to include all relevant and pertinent information, and to refrain from selectively omitting data, findings, or options that would materially affect the recipient's understanding or decision, regardless of whether the omitted information is unfavorable to the engineer's interests.
Open-textured obligation requiring judgment about what counts as relevant and pertinent in any given professional context, with meaning accumulated through case precedents such as BER 95-5 and 99-8.
Disclose all material data bearing on conclusions
Notify recipients of known incompleteness at time of submission
BER Case 95-5 where engineer omitted pile refusal data and equipment failure from safety report
BER Case 99-8 where engineer submitted incomplete design drawings without disclosing their incompleteness
Requires engineers to include all material data, disclose known limitations, and refrain from intentional or negligent omission of information that would change the recipient's understanding of the professional findings.
Engineer A did not inform anyone as to the incompleteness at the time of submission
the engineer failed to include in the report that the initial log indicated that several of the piles were driven to essential refusal (intentional disregard of other information)
the test equipment had failed (selective use of information)
Clients and the public rely on professional reports as complete representations of the engineer's findings; selective omission corrupts the epistemic foundation of professional advice.
Professional integrity principle requiring engineers to include all relevant and pertinent information in reports, analyses, and professional communications, prohibiting selective omission of data that would materially alter the conclusions or recommendations presented.
Cite sources and document the basis for conclusions
Conduct thorough investigation before rendering professional opinions
Disclose limitations in available data or scope of analysis
Include all materially relevant data and contrary evidence in reports
BER Case 95-5 addressed integrity and completeness in preparing reports. The engineer in question rendered an opinion that, based upon test pile, the project's installed piles did not meet the design safety factor. However, the engineer failed to include in the report that the initial log indicated that several of the piles were driven to essential refusal (intentional disregard of other information); that the test equipment had failed (selective use of information)
Client or public reliance on incomplete or misleading professional work product, potential safety consequences, professional discipline, and reputational harm.
The Report Integrity Constraint is closely related to Non-Deception in that selective omission and intentional disregard of contrary evidence are forms of deception. However, the constraint here is broader, encompassing affirmative completeness duties and investigative thoroughness beyond mere non-deception. It also overlaps with the previously extracted Advisory Scope Completeness Constraint and Report Completeness Obligation. A medium-confidence match to Non-Deception is appropriate, but the completeness and investigation dimensions make this a variant rather than an exact match.
Ethical and professional constraint requiring that an engineer's report, analysis, or advisory product be objective and truthful and include all relevant and pertinent information, prohibiting selective omission, intentional disregard of contrary evidence, or incomplete investigation that would render the product misleading.
Licensed professional engineering practice across technical domains
Assess adequacy of one's own review process
Determine whether review depth supports responsible charge
Identify gaps between cursory review and the standard required for sealing
Engineer A was obligated to apply their professional seal to the engineering design documents only after conducting a review sufficient to take general responsibility for the work
Capability to conduct a review of professional work products that is sufficiently thorough to support the exercise of responsible charge, including the ability to assess whether one's review is adequate before applying a professional seal.
Professional must not present conclusions as complete when scope prevented full investigation
Professional must not use scope limitation as a shield against reporting known material findings
Material information exists outside the literal scope
Professional declines to investigate or report that information citing scope limitations
Professional is retained under a defined scope of work
Duty to assess whether scope limitations prevent fulfillment of independent professional obligations
Duty to disclose scope limitations that affect completeness of conclusions
Duty to seek scope expansion when material safety or accuracy issues are identified
Transforms the contractual faithful-agent duty into a bounded obligation that cannot override the independent professional duty of objectivity and completeness when material findings are at stake.
Professional voluntarily addresses the material information despite scope limitation
Scope is expanded to cover the material information
State in which a professional invokes a contractually defined scope of work as justification for failing to investigate or report on material technical findings that bear on safety or accuracy, creating a tension between contractual scope compliance and the professional's independent duty of completeness and objectivity.
Professional engineering practice involving computer-assisted or AI-assisted design tools
Decline to incorporate CADD or AI outputs the engineer does not fully understand
Distinguish between tool-assisted professional work and tool-substituted professional judgment
Maintain independent professional judgment when using automated design systems
Recognize liability exposure created by uncritical reliance on system outputs
CADD utilized beyond its ability to serve as a valuable tool has a propensity to be utilized as a crutch or substitute for judgement. That translates to a scenario for potential liability.
In some instances, there may be a temptation for the engineer to incorporate a solution provided by the system which the engineer has neither prepared nor fully understands because the engineer believes, based upon engineer's confidence in the system and upon prior experience, that the system will provide a quality solution on a project.
AI Direction and Control Capability addresses the engineer's ability to exercise genuine professional direction over AI-assisted tools and ensure final work reflects independent judgment rather than uncritical acceptance of AI output. Technology Non-Substitution Judgment Capability is the same concept applied to CADD systems, with emphasis on the recognition dimension: identifying when the tool is crossing from aid to substitute. The match is a medium-confidence variant because the existing class emphasizes direction and control actions while this class emphasizes the perceptual and judgment dimension of recognizing the substitution risk.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to recognize when a technological tool such as a CADD system or AI-assisted platform is being used as a substitute for professional judgment rather than as an aid to it, and to resist the temptation to incorporate system-generated solutions that the engineer has neither prepared nor fully understands, ensuring that the tool remains subordinate to the engineer's independent professional competence.
Evidence that the engineer actively directed the use of the tool, reviewed outputs critically, and did not passively accept system-generated solutions without independent verification
Ethical violation under NSPE II.2.b; potential professional liability; risk of sealing documents not genuinely under the engineer's direction and control
This obligation is substantively identical to the Technology Tool Non-Substitution Obligation already extracted from prior sections of this case. The concept is the same: engineers must not allow CADD or similar tools to substitute for professional judgment. Matched at high confidence as the same class.
Duty of a licensed engineer to ensure that technological tools, including CADD systems and similar computer-assisted platforms, serve as instruments of professional production under the engineer's direction rather than as substitutes for the engineer's own professional judgment, so that the engineer retains genuine intellectual and technical responsibility for the work product and does not incorporate system-generated solutions the engineer has not prepared or fully understands.
Apply independent engineering judgment to all tool-generated recommendations
Document the basis for accepting or modifying tool outputs
Treat AI and software outputs as preliminary inputs requiring critical review
Engineer A relied on the AI-generated plans and specifications without proper oversight.
Recommendations from the program or intern should not be blindly accepted, they should be considered and challenged and the resulting outputs should be understood.
it is the [BER]'s position that technology has an important place in the practice of engineering, but it must never be a replacement of a substitute for engineering judgment.
Abdication of professional judgment, submission of work products that do not reflect genuine engineering analysis, public safety risk, ethics code violation
Ethical constraint prohibiting an engineer from using a technological tool as a replacement or substitute for independent engineering judgment, requiring that the engineer's own expertise, critical evaluation, and professional standards govern all decisions and that tool outputs be challenged and verified before acceptance.
Should not rely on tool outputs without independent verification when tool behavior is not fully understood
Should not represent outputs as professionally validated without adequate review
Professional adopts a tool or technology for the first time without prior training or experience
Tool is new to the market or otherwise untested in the professional's practice context
Obligation to conduct thorough verification of tool outputs before relying on them
Obligation to disclose use of unfamiliar tools to clients or supervisors where output reliability is uncertain
Obligation to seek guidance or training before deploying the tool on consequential work
Transforms general competence and due care principles into specific verification and disclosure duties when deploying tools whose accuracy and limitations are not yet understood by the professional.
Professional completes formal training on the tool
Professional gains sufficient experience and familiarity with the tool
Not being familiar with the full functionality of the AI software, including the accuracy and originality of AI-generated text
State in which a professional uses a tool, technology, or method with which they have no prior experience, creating elevated risk of undetected errors and triggering heightened obligations of verification, disclosure, and caution before relying on outputs for professional work products.
Verbal Disclosure Written Report Constraint
Document all findings in writing before submission to any public authority
Include all material factual findings in written reports regardless of prior verbal disclosure
Treat verbal communication as supplementary to, not a substitute for, written disclosure
Engineer A verbally mentioned the concern, but Engineer A did not include the information in a written report that will be submitted to a public authority that is considering the developer's proposal. The BER concluded that it was unethical for Engineer A to not include the information about the threat to the bird species in a written report that will be submitted to a public authority.
Public authority acts on incomplete information, engineer violates objectivity and truthfulness obligations under professional ethics codes, potential harm to public welfare.
The concept is a variant of the Report Integrity Constraint, which requires that an engineer's report be objective and truthful and include all relevant and pertinent information, prohibiting selective omission. The present constraint adds the specific dimension that verbal disclosure to a client does not substitute for written inclusion in a report to a public authority, making it a more specific procedural application of the same underlying principle. Medium confidence match to parent.
Ethical and procedural constraint requiring that when an engineer has identified a material factual finding relevant to a public authority's decision, verbal communication of that finding to a client does not satisfy the engineer's obligation to include it in a written report submitted to that authority. The finding must appear in the written record so that the public authority receives complete and accurate information.
[ReportIntegrityConstraint] Ethical and professional constraint requiring that an engineer's report, analysis, or advisory product be objective and truthful and include all relevant and pertinent information, prohibiting selective omission, intentional disregard of contrary evidence, or incomplete investigation that would render the product misleading.
Document verbal disclosures and follow up with written confirmation
Refuse client instructions to omit material findings from written reports
Engineer A verbally mentioned the concern, but Engineer A did not include the information in a written report that will be submitted to a public authority that is considering the developer's proposal.
Public authority makes decisions without complete written record; engineer violates objectivity and truthfulness obligations under professional ethics codes.
The Verbal Disclosure Written Report Constraint in the ontology captures exactly this concept: verbal communication of a material factual finding to a client does not satisfy the engineer's obligation to include it in a written report submitted to a public authority. The BER Case 07-6 facts about Engineer A and the bird species are a direct instantiation of that class.
Ethical and procedural constraint prohibiting an engineer from treating a verbal communication of a material technical finding as a substitute for including that finding in a written report submitted to a public authority or other relying party. The finding must appear in the written record so that the public authority receives complete and accurate information.
[VerbalDisclosureWrittenReportConstraint] Ethical and procedural constraint requiring that when an engineer has identified a material factual finding relevant to a public authority's decision, verbal communication of that finding to a client does not satisfy the engineer's obligation to include it in a written report submitted to that authority. The finding must appear in the written record so that the public authority receives complete and accurate information.
Professional engineering practice using AI-assisted drafting and language processing tools
Critically challenge and evaluate AI-generated recommendations
Define solution parameters and constraints before engaging AI tools
Distinguish between acceptable AI assistance and inappropriate substitution of AI for professional judgment
Ensure final work products reflect the engineer's own professional standards
Because Engineer A performed a thorough review, cross-checked key facts against professional sources, and made adjustments to the text, the final document remained under Engineer A's direction and control
Capability to exercise genuine professional direction and control over AI-assisted tools used to generate engineering work products, including the ability to outline solution guidelines and constraints, critically evaluate AI outputs, and ensure that final work products reflect independent professional judgment rather than uncritical acceptance of AI-generated content.
Expert witness and retained engineering roles in litigation or dispute resolution
Communicate the limits of permissible client advocacy to the retaining party
Decline to omit material evidence from a technical report even under client pressure
Identify when a client's instructions conflict with professional obligations
Serve client interests within the bounds of professional ethics
Engineer B said: 'We just did not believe the driving records and there was also the issue of whether the pile was vented to allow air to escape.'
Engineer B was obligated to serve the municipality's legitimate interests while refusing to omit material technical evidence from the report, even under pressure from the retaining client.
No existing capability class covers the judgment competency of distinguishing legitimate client service from impermissible omission of material evidence.
Ability to distinguish between serving a client's legitimate interests and complying with requests that would require omitting material technical evidence or compromising professional integrity, and to act accordingly.
Advise the client in writing that the project cannot proceed safely without the recommended measures
Decline to continue work when the client refuses necessary safety measures
Document the safety recommendation and the client's refusal before withdrawing
Notify appropriate regulatory authorities if the client proceeds without safeguards
The client indicated that hiring the representative would be too costly, and Engineer A continues to work on the project.
Engineer violates the paramount duty to public safety, exposes the public to confirmed risk, and acts in violation of professional ethics codes by prioritizing client economic concerns over safety obligations.
Ethical constraint prohibiting an engineer from continuing work on a project after a client declines to implement safety measures the engineer has identified as necessary, when proceeding would require the engineer to subordinate public safety obligations to the client's economic concerns. The engineer must cease participation rather than abandon the duty to hold public safety paramount in favor of client financial preferences.
Evidence that the engineer declined or objected to the client instruction and articulated the professional ethics basis for refusal
Complicity in ethics violation; professional disciplinary action; harm to third-party engineers
This obligation is the defeasible counterpart to the Faithful Agent Obligation. The existing Faithful Agent Obligation is explicitly noted as defeasible under states that confirm public-safety risk or ethics violations, and this class captures the duty that defeats it when client instructions cross ethical lines. Medium confidence because the existing class addresses the same role-relationship from the complementary direction.
Duty of an engineer to decline client instructions that would require violating professional ethics obligations, recognizing that the faithful agent duty does not extend to complying with directives that breach professional standards.
[FaithfulAgentObligation] Duty of an engineer to act as a faithful agent or trustee of an employer or client (NSPE Code of Ethics, Section 1 / §II.4). Defeasible under states that confirm public-safety risk.
Professional may not simply defer to client preference when public safety obligations are active
Professional should not proceed as if the safety concern has been resolved
Client has explicitly rejected or deferred the recommendation
Professional has communicated a safety recommendation to the client
Project proceeds without the recommended safeguards
Duty to consider reporting to regulatory authorities if public safety is at risk
Duty to document the recommendation and client's rejection
Duty to refuse to seal or certify work that does not meet safety standards
Transforms the general duty to hold public safety paramount into a concrete obligation to escalate beyond client communication, potentially including regulatory notification or withdrawal, when the client has overridden a safety recommendation.
Client accepts and implements the recommendation
Client X will address any compliance issues later, if needed
State in which a client has been informed of a professional's safety recommendation and has explicitly directed the professional to proceed without implementing that recommendation, citing cost or other business constraints, creating a direct tension between the client's authority over project scope and the professional's duty to protect public safety and comply with applicable regulatory standards.
[Case 76] State in which a governing body or client has been informed of professional safety recommendations and has explicitly voted or directed to proceed without implementing those recommendations, creating a direct tension between the client's authority over project scope and the professional's duty to protect public safety and comply with applicable regulatory standards.
Report includes all material test data, equipment status, and methodological facts; omissions are documented with stated rationale.
Material facts, however, were not addressed in Engineer B's report. Among them, that dynamic test equipment failed during the test, and that all 19 test piles reported as failing the test were driven to refusal.
Report serves only an adversarial purpose rather than a technical one; client may be misdirected; professional credibility is undermined; potential NSPE Code violation.
The existing Contradictory Evidence Disclosure Obligation addresses acknowledging contradictory evidence, and the Scope Limitation Disclosure Obligation addresses disclosing methodological constraints. This obligation is distinct in that it captures the affirmative duty to include all relevant and pertinent technical facts in a report, not merely to disclose limitations or contradictions, grounded directly in the NSPE Code provision requiring complete reporting. It is broader and independently grounded.
Duty of an engineer preparing a technical report to include all relevant and pertinent technical information, including facts that may complicate or contradict the primary conclusions, so that the report supports informed review and interpretation by others.
Documentation showing whether the engineer's finding was supported by completed technical analysis before disclosure was characterized as mandatory
Engineer L is concerned about increased risk over time, but has not developed their work to a point where they can assess risks of potential stormwater runoff resulting from the new development. Thus, Engineer L's 'concern' does not rise to the technical or moral level of 'fact,' and per Code section II.3.b, engineers may express publicly technical opinions that are founded upon knowledge of the facts.
Premature mandatory disclosure claims may misrepresent the state of technical knowledge; failure to recognize the threshold may lead to either over-disclosure of unverified concerns or under-disclosure of confirmed facts
This is a variant of the general Disclosure Obligation that specifically addresses the threshold condition distinguishing a preliminary concern from a technical fact for purposes of mandatory disclosure. The Fact-Based Disclosure Threshold Principle was identified in prior extraction, and this obligation operationalizes that principle. No existing class captures the concern-versus-fact distinction as a conditional trigger for disclosure duties.
Duty of an engineer to distinguish between a preliminary concern that has not yet been substantiated by technical analysis and a finding that constitutes a technical fact, and to recognize that mandatory disclosure obligations under Code section II.3.b are triggered only when the engineer's assessment rises to the level of fact rather than unverified concern, while acknowledging that prudent voluntary disclosure of concerns may nonetheless be appropriate.
Professional engineering ethics and confidentiality in peer review
Distinguish procedural propriety from confidentiality of findings
Identify the proper scope of a confidentiality obligation
Recognize when confidentiality cannot override notification duties
Engineer B was obligated to protect the contents and findings of the peer review as confidential to the Owner, but this confidentiality obligation did not extend to conducting the review covertly
Reasoning about the scope and limits of a confidentiality obligation in order to distinguish permissible from impermissible conduct is a form of ethical reasoning as described by Wallach and Allen 2009 and Belle 2023. This is a variant focused on confidentiality boundary analysis, matched at medium confidence.
Capability to reason about the limits of confidentiality obligations, distinguishing between protecting the contents of a review and using confidentiality as a basis for procedurally improper conduct such as covert review.
[EthicalReasoning] Capability to process ethical information, deliberate on choices, and exercise moral judgment (Wallach & Allen 2009, Belle 2023)
Should not allow deficient work product to remain in use without correction
Should not minimize or conceal the nature or extent of identified deficiencies
Client or reviewer identifies errors, omissions, or regulatory non-compliance in a submitted work product
Work product is found to be inaccurate or incomplete after submission
Obligation to assess whether deficiencies create safety or regulatory compliance risks
Obligation to investigate the root cause of deficiencies to prevent recurrence
Obligation to notify affected parties if deficiencies pose safety risks
Obligation to revise and correct the deficient work product promptly
Transforms general professional responsibility and public safety principles into specific corrective action and notification duties once deficiencies in a submitted work product are confirmed.
Client accepts a corrected version and any safety or compliance risks are resolved
Deficiencies are corrected and a revised work product meeting applicable standards is submitted
Client W raised concerns about the accuracy and reliability of the engineering design and instructed Engineer A to revise the plans
State in which a professional has submitted a work product to a client that contains errors, omissions, or deficiencies that fail to meet professional or regulatory standards, creating obligations to correct the deficiencies, notify affected parties, and assess whether safety or compliance risks have been introduced.
Local and state environmental regulatory agencies
Establishes binding legal floor for engineering design decisions affecting environmental quality and public water supply, grounding professional obligations in enforceable regulatory requirements.
The local environmental standards requiring steps to safeguard public water sources are a variant of the existing Local Regulatory Safety Requirement Resource class. The existing class covers local or jurisdictional regulations specifying mandatory safety features and design requirements. Environmental protection of drinking water sources is a closely related but distinct domain, focused on environmental compliance rather than structural safety, warranting a medium-confidence match as a subtype.
Local, state, or jurisdictional regulations specifying mandatory environmental protection requirements, including standards for safeguarding public water sources and controlling stormwater runoff impacts on natural water bodies.
[LocalRegulatorySafetyRequirementResource] Local or jurisdictional regulations specifying mandatory safety features and design requirements that engineering documents must satisfy, serving as a binding technical and legal floor for professional engineering deliverables.
Professional engineering practice involving phased or suspended work scopes
Communicate the significance of incomplete analysis to client
Disclose preliminary risk findings to client during work suspension
Flag unresolved safety concerns when pausing professional work
Capability to recognize when a professional analysis has been suspended or left incomplete and to disclose the status and significance of unfinished findings to the client, including the ability to communicate identified but unquantified risks rather than remaining silent about them during a work suspension.
Professional must not omit information that would materially affect conclusions
Professional must not render opinions based on selectively presented data
Professional fails to investigate relevant factors before rendering an opinion
Professional selectively uses data to support a predetermined conclusion
Professional submits report omitting known material information
Duty to correct or supplement the deficient report
Duty to include all relevant and pertinent information
Duty to provide objective and truthful analysis
Transforms general honesty and completeness principles into concrete obligations to investigate fully, disclose all material information, and refrain from rendering opinions based on incomplete or selectively assembled data.
Omitted information disclosed to affected parties
Professional retracts or supplements the incomplete submission
integrity and completeness in preparing reports
that the test equipment had failed (selective use of information)
the engineer failed to include in the report that the initial log indicated that several of the piles were driven to essential refusal
Deficient Work Product Submitted State covers errors and omissions in submitted work products, which overlaps substantially. However, the present concept is more specifically focused on the epistemic dimension of selective omission and failure to investigate in a report or opinion context, rather than the broader category of technical deficiencies. A medium-confidence match is appropriate; the existing class is the closest available but does not fully capture the deliberate or negligent omission of material information as the defining feature.
State in which a professional has produced or submitted a report or analysis that omits material information, selectively presents data, or fails to investigate relevant factors, resulting in a misleading or incomplete professional work product that violates duties of objectivity, completeness, and truthfulness.
City B functions as the commissioning client for the wastewater project. The municipal government context is a specialization of the general Client Role, warranting a medium-confidence match to that parent class.
A government or municipal entity that commissions professional engineering or construction services for public infrastructure projects, acting as the primary client and decision-maker but without professional engineering licensure.
Documented evidence that the engineer communicated identified risks to the client at the time of discovery, including during work suspension communications.
Failure to disclose allows the client to make uninformed decisions about project suspension or resumption, potentially increasing public health risk and exposing the engineer to professional discipline.
This is a variant of the existing Disclosure Obligation, specialized to the context of preliminary or unquantified risk identification during a work suspension phase. The existing Disclosure Obligation covers the general duty to inform stakeholders about risks, but does not specifically address the obligation to disclose risks that have been identified but not yet fully quantified, particularly at a project suspension juncture. A new class is warranted to capture this temporal and epistemic specificity.
Duty of an engineer who identifies a potential risk to public health or safety during a preliminary phase of work to disclose that risk to the client and relevant stakeholders promptly, even before the risk has been fully quantified, so that the client can make informed decisions about project scope, suspension, or protective measures.
Open-textured value requiring interpretation of what constitutes sufficient risk to trigger override of ordinary professional deference to client and colleague relationships.
Consent to peer review when significant design errors are known
Disclose known design deficiencies to reviewing engineers
Refrain from blocking safety-motivated oversight
NSPE BER Case 76-6 on obligation to report safety hazards discovered during construction
NSPE Canon 1 requiring engineers to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public
Requires engineers to support independent review of designs containing known errors, refuse to obstruct safety-motivated peer review, and accept oversight even when it is professionally uncomfortable.
Members of the public who occupy buildings cannot evaluate engineering design quality and depend entirely on professional integrity to protect them from latent structural risks.
The principle directly maps to the existing Public Safety class in the ontology, which covers the obligation to prioritize public safety in engineering decisions. The case instantiates this principle through the known design errors and the need for peer review to protect future occupants of the second tower.
Fundamental principle requiring engineers to prioritize public safety above client instructions, employer directives, or collegial relationships when significant design errors create risk to persons who will occupy or use engineered structures.
Professional engineering ethics, applicable across all engineering disciplines
Conclude that public welfare obligations override confidentiality or loyalty in cases of substantial legal violation
Decide to report a violation to regulatory authorities despite adverse consequences for the client
Weigh public safety obligations against client loyalty duties
Ethical Reasoning covers the capability to process ethical information, deliberate on choices, and exercise moral judgment. The public safety paramount judgment is a specific application of ethical reasoning in which the engineer must weigh competing duties and conclude that public welfare prevails. The existing class is the closest match but is more general. The present capability is a distinct and recurrent type of ethical reasoning in engineering ethics cases involving the paramount public safety duty, warranting a new specialized class.
Capability to recognize that the professional obligation to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public takes precedence over duties of loyalty to a client or former client, and to act on that recognition by taking affirmative steps such as regulatory reporting even when doing so is adverse to the client's interests.
Environmental and public safety engineering with regulatory reporting dimensions
Determine the appropriate regulatory authority to receive a report
Identify when findings about environmental or safety risks trigger mandatory reporting to regulatory bodies
Proceed with regulatory notification despite client instructions to the contrary
BER Case 76-4 concluded that Doe had an obligation to report his findings to the Pollution Control Authority.
Engineer L was obligated to report the identified risk to the community drinking water source to the appropriate pollution control or regulatory authority.
Upon learning of the hearing, he is squarely confronted with his obligations to the public concerning its safety, health, and welfare. Section 2(a) requires that his duty to the public be paramount.
Safety Disclosure Escalation Capability addresses recognizing when internal resolution has failed and escalating to regulatory authorities, which partially overlaps. However, the present capability is more specifically about recognizing the initial trigger for regulatory reporting when a client has suppressed a report, rather than about sequencing escalation steps after internal failure. The match is a variant rather than an exact match, so medium confidence is appropriate.
Capability to recognize when identified professional findings about public health or safety risks must be reported to a regulatory or pollution control authority, including the ability to identify the appropriate authority and to act on that obligation even when the client has instructed the engineer not to complete or submit a report.
Engineer A did not maintain responsible charge in violation of licensure law
Engineer A, as the engineer in Responsible Charge of the project, is required to provide an experienced-based quality assurance review
Responsible Charge Engineer is a specialization of Engineer Role, distinguished by the formal licensure-law concept of responsible charge, which imposes active engagement and supervisory control obligations beyond general engineering practice. No existing extracted class captures this specific licensure-based accountability framing.
A licensed professional engineering role in which the practitioner bears formal responsible charge over a project or work product, meaning they must be actively engaged in the engineering process from conception to completion, personally make or directly supervise all engineering decisions, and cannot satisfy this obligation by reviewing completed documents after the fact without involvement in design and development.
Documentation of review process prior to sealing; evidence that the engineer understood the content and methodology of the sealed work product
Misrepresentation of professional oversight; regulatory violation; professional license sanctions; liability for deficient sealed documents
Duty of a licensed engineer exercising responsible charge to apply their professional seal only to work products they have personally reviewed with sufficient depth and competence to take genuine professional responsibility for the content, and not to seal work generated by tools or processes they do not adequately understand or have not adequately verified.
Disclose tool limitations and unfamiliarity to the client and seek consent before proceeding
Engage a colleague with relevant tool expertise to review outputs
Limit use of unfamiliar tools to non-critical or supplementary tasks until competence is established
Obtain training or experience with a new tool before using it for client deliverables
Deficient work products, public safety risk, regulatory non-compliance, and professional liability arising from reliance on tool outputs the engineer cannot adequately evaluate.
The existing Competence Constraint class covers boundaries defined by agent capabilities and technical limitations, which encompasses this scenario. The unfamiliar tool variant is a specific application of that general class. Matching as a variant at medium confidence while defining a more specific reusable subtype for unfamiliar tool deployment contexts.
Competence constraint limiting an engineer's permissible use of a tool, technology, or method with which they lack sufficient experience or understanding, requiring that the engineer either acquire adequate competence before use, limit reliance on the tool's outputs, or obtain qualified assistance, so that professional work products meet required standards.
Professional may not publicly assert the concern as a technical fact
Professional should not suppress the concern entirely without further investigation
Insufficient analysis has been completed to characterize the risk as a factual finding
Professional identifies a potential risk through preliminary observation or intuition
Professional work has been paused or is incomplete
Obligation to complete analysis before making public technical statements
Prudential disclosure to client as a matter of good practice
Transforms general precautionary principles into a limited duty of prudent voluntary disclosure rather than mandatory reporting, because the concern has not yet risen to the level of a factual finding.
Additional analysis confirms or refutes the risk as a factual finding
Risk is quantified and documented in a professional report
Engineer L's concern does not rise to the technical or moral level of fact
State in which a professional has a concern or suspicion about a potential risk but has not yet developed the analysis to a point where the concern constitutes a technical or factual finding. The concern is real but unquantified, creating an intermediate epistemic condition that does not yet trigger mandatory disclosure obligations but may support prudent voluntary disclosure.
Complete sufficient technical analysis before characterizing a concern as a factual finding
Disclose concerns as concerns rather than facts when prudent communication is warranted
Document the distinction between preliminary concerns and confirmed findings
Proceed to quantification promptly when a concern is identified
the present case states that Engineer L is concerned about increased risk over time, but has not developed their work to a point where they can assess risks of potential stormwater runoff resulting from the new development. Thus, Engineer L's 'concern' does not rise to the technical or moral level of 'fact,' and per Code section II.3.b, engineers may express publicly technical opinions that are founded upon knowledge of the facts.
Premature disclosure of unsubstantiated concerns may mislead clients or public authorities, undermine the engineer's credibility, and violate the requirement that technical opinions be founded on knowledge of the facts.
Ethical constraint limiting an engineer's disclosure obligations to findings that have reached the level of established fact supported by technical analysis. A preliminary concern or suspicion that has not yet been substantiated by sufficient analysis does not trigger the same mandatory disclosure obligations as a confirmed factual finding, and an engineer is not required under professional ethics codes to disclose unsubstantiated concerns, though prudent disclosure may be advisable.
Environmental and public safety engineering contexts requiring graduated disclosure judgments
Assess whether identified risks have been sufficiently analyzed to constitute facts
Communicate the epistemic status of findings accurately to clients and authorities
Determine when disclosure obligations are triggered versus when concerns remain preliminary
Capability to distinguish between a preliminary professional concern that has not yet been substantiated by technical analysis and a finding that rises to the level of a demonstrable fact, and to calibrate disclosure obligations accordingly so that neither premature disclosure of unsubstantiated concerns nor suppression of confirmed findings occurs.
Evidence of active engineer involvement in design and development process, not merely post-preparation document review
Engineer A's oversight of engineering plans was inadequate, raising ethical concerns. AI-generated technical work requires at least the same level of scrutiny as human-created work.
Violation of licensure law; potential public safety harm; disciplinary action; license revocation
This obligation is closely related to the already-extracted Responsible Charge Seal Obligation but emphasizes the verification and active-involvement dimension rather than the sealing act itself. It is a variant of that class focusing on the process of responsible charge rather than the sealing act.
Duty of a licensed engineer in responsible charge to conduct a comprehensive, experience-based verification of all work products before sealing or submitting them, including active involvement in design and development rather than merely reviewing completed documents, so that the engineer can genuinely certify the work meets professional and safety standards.
Documented evidence that the engineer notified the appropriate regulatory authority of the identified risk after the client refused to implement protective measures.
Failure to report allows preventable public health harm to proceed, exposes the engineer to professional discipline and potential legal liability, and undermines the public trust in the engineering profession.
The existing Post-Termination Environmental Risk Reporting Obligation addresses reporting after termination of the client relationship. This obligation arises while the client relationship is still active but the client has refused to act on identified risks. The concept is closely related but the triggering condition differs: here the obligation is activated by client refusal during an ongoing engagement rather than post-termination. A new class is warranted to capture the active-engagement client-override trigger.
Duty of an engineer to report identified risks to public health or safety to the appropriate regulatory or pollution control authority when the client refuses to implement recommended protective measures and insists on proceeding without adequate safeguards, placing the paramount duty to public welfare above the faithful agent duty to the client.
Engineering peer review under confidentiality agreements with safety code violation discovery
Advise the responsible engineer of impending disclosure
Determine when internal resolution has been exhausted
Report safety code violations to appropriate authorities
Sequence escalation steps in the correct order
Capability to recognize when internal resolution of a safety concern has failed and to escalate disclosure to appropriate regulatory authorities, including the ability to sequence escalation steps correctly by first advising the responsible engineer before notifying authorities.