Step 4: Full View

Entities, provisions, decisions, and narrative

Back to Case

Pipeline Steps

Overview

1 Contextual Framework

2 Normative Requirements

3 Temporal Dynamics Reconcile

4 Whole-Case Synthesis

Extraction Review Full View

Provenance

Conflict of Interest - Part-Time Service as City Engineer

Step 4 of 5

Entity Review

24

Entities

0

Provisions

0

Precedents

0

Questions

0

Conclusions

--

Transformation

Full Entity Graph

Context: 0 Normative: 0 Temporal: 0 Synthesis: 0

Filter:

Layout:

Hide unconnected

Entity Types

Synthesis Reasoning Flow

Shows how NSPE provisions inform questions and conclusions - the board's reasoning chain

Show Labels

Show Entities

The board's deliberative chain: which code provisions informed which ethical questions, and how those questions were resolved. Toggle "Show Entities" to see which entities each provision applies to.

Nodes:

■ Provision (e.g., I.1.) ◆ Question: Board = board-explicit, Impl = implicit, Tens = principle tension, Theo = theoretical, CF = counterfactual ▬ Conclusion: Board = board-explicit, Resp = question response, Ext = analytical extension, Synth = principle synthesis ▬ Entity (hidden by default)

Edges:

→ informs → answered by → applies to

NSPE Code Provisions Referenced

View Extraction

No code provisions extracted yet.

Cross-Case Connections

View Extraction

Implicit Similar Cases 10 Similarity Network

Cases sharing ontology classes or structural similarity. These connections arise from constrained extraction against a shared vocabulary.

Conflict Of Interest—Consultant Serving As City Engineer cites this

50%

Component Similarity 53% Facts Similarity 62% Discussion Similarity 63% Provision Overlap 44% Outcome Alignment 100% Tag Overlap 22%

Shared provisions: II.4.a, II.4.b, III.5, III.5.b Same outcome True View Synthesis

Conflict of Interest - Municipal Engineer

47%

Component Similarity 54% Facts Similarity 72% Discussion Similarity 34% Provision Overlap 29% Outcome Alignment 100% Tag Overlap 33%

Shared provisions: I.4, III.5 Same outcome True View Synthesis

Expert Witness Testimony - Serving Plaintiffs And Defendants

43%

Component Similarity 35% Facts Similarity 42% Discussion Similarity 61% Provision Overlap 30% Outcome Alignment 100% Tag Overlap 67%

Shared provisions: II.4.a, II.4.b, III.5 Same outcome True View Synthesis

Conflict of Interest—Peer Reviewer Participating on Subseque...

42%

Component Similarity 42% Facts Similarity 53% Discussion Similarity 35% Provision Overlap 27% Outcome Alignment 100% Tag Overlap 38%

Shared provisions: II.4.a, II.4.b, III.5 Same outcome True View Synthesis

Expert Witness—Chair of Standards and Safety Committee

41%

Component Similarity 50% Facts Similarity 48% Discussion Similarity 56% Provision Overlap 8% Outcome Alignment 100% Tag Overlap 33%

Shared provisions: III.5 Same outcome True View Synthesis

Conflict Of Interest Providing Both City Engineer And Inspec...

40%

Component Similarity 50% Facts Similarity 55% Discussion Similarity 74% Provision Overlap 57% Tag Overlap 57%

Shared provisions: I.4, II.4.a, III.5, III.5.b View Synthesis

Obligation to Former Employer and Former Client Following A...

40%

Component Similarity 32% Facts Similarity 41% Discussion Similarity 60% Provision Overlap 27% Outcome Alignment 100% Tag Overlap 50%

Shared provisions: II.4.a, II.4.b, III.5 Same outcome True View Synthesis

Engineer's Duty As Interpreter Of Contract Documents

39%

Component Similarity 35% Facts Similarity 50% Discussion Similarity 34% Provision Overlap 25% Outcome Alignment 100% Tag Overlap 38%

Shared provisions: II.4.a, III.5 Same outcome True View Synthesis

Confidentiality of Competitor Information Submitted to Gover...

38%

Component Similarity 32% Facts Similarity 51% Discussion Similarity 57% Provision Overlap 18% Outcome Alignment 100% Tag Overlap 50%

Shared provisions: I.4, III.5 Same outcome True View Synthesis

Post lnterview Change in Joint Venture Team

36%

Component Similarity 35% Facts Similarity 41% Discussion Similarity 55% Provision Overlap 18% Outcome Alignment 100% Tag Overlap 22%

Shared provisions: II.4.a, III.5 Same outcome True View Synthesis

Questions & Conclusions

View Extraction

Linked View Side-by-Side

Each question is shown with its corresponding conclusion(s). Board questions are expanded by default.

No questions extracted yet. Run Step 4 synthesis first.

Decisions & Arguments

View Extraction

No decision points found. Run Phase 3 synthesis on the Step 4 page first.

Event Timeline

Temporal Extraction View Extraction

10 sequenced 5 actions 5 events

Action (volitional) Event (occurrence) Associated decision points

1 Retaining Part-Time City Engineer At outset of arrangement, prior to any specific project engagement

2 Accepting Part-Time City Engineer Role At outset of arrangement, concurrent with city council's retention decision

3 Accepting Additional Project Commission On a project-by-project basis, after the general retainer arrangement is established

4 Waiving Independent Plan Review Implicitly, at the time the city council retains the engineer for project design while he retains his advisory role

5 Advising on Self-Designed Projects Ongoing, each time the engineer advises the city council on a project for which he is or may be the designer

6 Dual Role Status Established At the outset of the retainer agreement

7 Conflict of Interest Condition Triggered Upon acceptance of first additional project commission beyond the retainer

8 Independent Oversight Gap Created Following waiver of independent plan review and acceptance of advisory role over self-designed projects

9 Ongoing Arrangement Normalization Over time, as the arrangement continues

10 Ethics Case Precedent Established Upon completion of the Discussion section analysis

No narrative data available. Run Phase 4 (Narrative Construction) on the Step 4 page first.