Step 4: Case Synthesis

Build a coherent case model from extracted entities

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
Confidentiality of Competitor Information Submitted to Government Agency
Step 4 of 5
Four-Phase Synthesis Pipeline
1
Entity Foundation
Passes 1-3
2
Analytical Extraction
2A-2E
3
Decision Synthesis
E1-E3 + LLM
4
Narrative
Timeline + Scenario
Phase 1 Entity Foundation
176 entities
Pass 1: Contextual Framework
  • 12 Roles
  • 16 States
  • 15 Resources
Pass 2: Normative Requirements
  • 21 Principles
  • 26 Obligations
  • 24 Constraints
  • 31 Capabilities
Pass 3: Temporal Dynamics
  • 31 Temporal Dynamics
Phase 2 Analytical Extraction
2A: Code Provisions 4
LLM detect algorithmic linking Case text + Phase 1 entities
II.4. Engineers shall act for each employer or client as faithful agents or trustees.
II.4.a. Engineers shall disclose all known or potential conflicts of interest that could influence or appear to influence their judgment or the quality of the...
III.4. Engineers shall not disclose, without consent, confidential information concerning the business affairs or technical processes of any present or forme...
III.4.a. Engineers shall not, without the consent of all interested parties, promote or arrange for new employment or practice in connection with a specific pr...
2B: Precedent Cases 3
LLM extraction Case text
linked
A part-time consultant arrangement to municipalities by engineers in private practice did not preclude those same engineers from providing normal engineering services to the same municipalities, where the engineer's loyalties were not divided.
linked
It is not ethical for an engineer retained by the US government to subsequently be retained by a contractor filing a claim against that same government without the former client's consent, per NSPE Code Section III.4.b.
linked
An engineer who gains access to confidential information while working for one party retains an ethical obligation to protect that information even after the professional relationship ends, and cannot subsequently provide services to an adverse party who seeks to exploit that prior access.
2C: Questions & Conclusions 17 25
Board text parsed LLM analytical Q&C LLM Q-C linking Case text + 2A provisions
Questions (17)
Question_1 What are Engineer A’s ethical obligations under these circumstances?
Question_101 Does Engineer A have an obligation to proactively recuse herself from any work at Company Y that directly involves Company X, even if Company Y never ...
Question_102 Is the Board's conclusion sufficient in only requiring disclosure to Company Y before accepting employment, or should Engineer A also be required to n...
Question_103 Given that the Board acknowledges the indeterminacy of the confidentiality obligation's duration, what mechanism or standard should govern when, if ev...
Question_104 Does the government agency itself bear any ethical or institutional responsibility to establish formal revolving-door policies that protect the confid...
Question_201 Does the Competitive Employment Freedom principle, which permits Engineer A to accept a position at Company Y, conflict with the Former Client Adversa...
Question_202 How does the Loyalty Obligation of Engineer A to Company Y within ethical limits conflict with the Faithful Agent Confidentiality Obligation grounding...
Question_203 Does the Conflict of Interest Disclosure Evolution Principle, which requires Engineer A to make her prior government access known to Company Y before ...
Question_204 Does the Post-Public-Service Conflict Avoidance principle, which counsels Engineer A to avoid situations where her government access creates unfair co...
Question_301 From a deontological perspective, does Engineer A's duty as a faithful agent and trustee to the government agency create a categorical obligation to p...
Question_302 From a consequentialist perspective, does the Board's permissive conclusion - allowing Engineer A to join Company Y provided she withholds Company X's...
Question_303 From a virtue ethics perspective, does an engineer of genuine professional integrity merely refrain from disclosing confidential information, or does ...
Question_304 From a deontological perspective, does Engineer A's obligation to disclose the conflict of interest to Company Y before accepting employment - as the ...
Question_401 If Engineer A had accepted employment with Company Y without disclosing her prior government access to Company X's confidential design information, an...
Question_402 What if the government agency had included an explicit revolving-door clause in Engineer A's employment contract prohibiting post-employment work for ...
Question_403 If, analogous to BER Case 85-4, Company X later became involved in an adversarial regulatory or legal proceeding against Company Y and Engineer A was ...
Question_404 What if Company Y had specifically recruited Engineer A because of her government-acquired knowledge of Company X's design strategies - making the com...
Conclusions (25)
Conclusion_1 Engineer A is free to pursue employment with Company Y provided Engineer A does not disclose any confidential and proprietary design information Engin...
Conclusion_101 Beyond the Board's finding that Engineer A may join Company Y provided she withholds Company X's confidential information and discloses the conflict b...
Conclusion_102 The Board's conclusion requires Engineer A to disclose her prior government access to Company Y before accepting employment, but it does not address w...
Conclusion_103 The Board acknowledges that the duration of Engineer A's confidentiality obligation is indeterminate but declines to establish any standard or mechani...
Conclusion_104 The Board's analysis does not address the systemic dimension of the revolving-door problem it implicitly resolves at the individual level. By permitti...
Conclusion_105 The Board's conditional permission for Engineer A to join Company Y does not adequately address the scenario - raised by analogy to BER Case 85-4 - in...
Conclusion_106 The Board's conclusion implicitly assumes that the competitive intelligence value of Engineer A's government access is incidental to Company Y's hirin...
Conclusion_201 In response to Q101, Engineer A's ethical obligations extend beyond merely refraining from active disclosure of Company X's confidential design inform...
Conclusion_202 In response to Q102, the Board's conclusion is incomplete in limiting its disclosure requirement solely to Company Y. Because Company X is the party w...
Conclusion_203 In response to Q103, the Board's acknowledgment of the indeterminacy of the confidentiality obligation's duration is ethically significant but practic...
Conclusion_204 In response to Q104, the government agency bears a distinct institutional responsibility to establish formal revolving-door policies governing enginee...
Conclusion_205 In response to Q201, the tension between Competitive Employment Freedom and the Former Client Adversarial Participation Prohibition is real and struct...
Conclusion_206 In response to Q203, the Board's requirement that Engineer A disclose her prior government access to Company Y before accepting employment creates a g...
Conclusion_207 In response to Q204, the tension between Post-Public-Service Conflict Avoidance and Revolving Door Integrity is one of the most structurally difficult...
Conclusion_208 In response to Q301, from a deontological perspective, Engineer A's duty as a faithful agent and trustee does generate a categorical obligation to pro...
Conclusion_209 In response to Q302, from a consequentialist perspective, the Board's permissive conclusion is vulnerable to a systemic harm objection that individual...
Conclusion_210 In response to Q303, from a virtue ethics perspective, the standard of genuine professional integrity demands more than passive non-disclosure. An eng...
Conclusion_211 In response to Q304, from a deontological perspective, the duty to disclose a conflict of interest is not directionally limited to the party who benef...
Conclusion_212 In response to Q401, if Engineer A had accepted employment with Company Y without disclosing her prior government access to Company X's confidential d...
Conclusion_213 In response to Q402, the presence of an explicit revolving-door clause in Engineer A's government employment contract would not strengthen her underly...
Conclusion_214 In response to Q403, if Company X later became involved in an adversarial regulatory or legal proceeding against Company Y and Engineer A was asked to...
Conclusion_215 In response to Q404, if Company Y specifically recruited Engineer A because of her government-acquired knowledge of Company X's design strategies - ma...
Conclusion_301 The Board resolved the tension between Competitive Employment Freedom and the Confidentiality Obligation toward Company X's regulatory submissions not...
Conclusion_302 The interaction between the Faithful Agent Confidentiality Obligation and the Loyalty Obligation to Company Y within ethical limits reveals a structur...
Conclusion_303 The tension between the Post-Public-Service Conflict Avoidance principle and the Revolving Door Integrity principle exposes a deeper normative questio...
2D: Transformation Classification
Not classified
LLM classification Phase 1 entities + 2C Q&C
2E: Rich Analysis (Causal Links, Question Emergence, Resolution Patterns)
LLM batched analysis label-to-URI resolution Phase 1 entities + 2C Q&C + 2A provisions
Causal-Normative Links (7)
CausalLink_Resign from Government Agency Resigning from the government agency initiates the revolving door transition and, while not inherently unethical, activates all post-public-employment...
CausalLink_Accept Position at Competitor Accepting a position at Company Y is permissible under competitive employment freedom but simultaneously triggers the full suite of revolving-door con...
CausalLink_Withhold Company X Confidentia Withholding Company X's confidential design information is the central affirmative ethical duty that fulfills Engineer A's perpetual post-public-emplo...
CausalLink_Accept Retention by Opposing P Accepting retention by the opposing party in BER 82-6 directly violates the switching-sides prohibition because the engineer had already acquired conf...
CausalLink_Decline Favorable Plaintiff Re Declining to issue a favorable plaintiff report in BER 85-4 is the ethically required outcome because Engineer A's prior confidential access to the pl...
CausalLink_Accept Retention by Defendant' Accepting retention by the defendant's attorney (Attorney X) after having already provided confidential forensic work for the plaintiff (Attorney Z's ...
CausalLink_Access Confidential Design Inf Accessing Company X's confidential design information during government agency employment is a legitimate regulatory function that creates the protect...
Question Emergence (17)
QuestionEmergence_1 This foundational question emerged because Engineer A's transition from a government regulatory role-where she accumulated uniquely sensitive competit...
QuestionEmergence_2 This question arose because the Board's conclusion that disclosure to Company Y before employment is sufficient does not address the ongoing, day-to-d...
QuestionEmergence_3 This question emerged because the Board's analysis is asymmetric-it imposes disclosure obligations running toward Company Y but is silent on obligatio...
QuestionEmergence_4 This question arose directly from the Board's candid admission of indeterminacy: by acknowledging that the obligation's duration cannot be fixed while...
QuestionEmergence_5 This question emerged because the entire ethical burden in the Board's analysis is placed on Engineer A as an individual, yet the structural condition...
QuestionEmergence_6 This question emerged because the data of Engineer A's government-acquired confidential access combined with her transition to a direct competitor cre...
QuestionEmergence_7 This question arose because the data of Engineer A's dual relational position - owing loyalty to Company Y as a new employer while carrying a perpetua...
QuestionEmergence_8 This question emerged because the data of Engineer A's regulatory access created a structural paradox: the disclosure obligation that normally resolve...
QuestionEmergence_9 This question arose because the data of technically durable confidential information combined with a government-to-competitor transition placed two st...
QuestionEmergence_10 This question arose because the data of Engineer A's role as a faithful agent and trustee - a status that generates categorical rather than merely con...
QuestionEmergence_11 This question arose because the Board's analysis operates at the level of individual conduct (withhold the information) while consequentialism demands...
QuestionEmergence_12 This question arose because virtue ethics evaluates character dispositions rather than discrete acts, and the data of accumulated structural knowledge...
QuestionEmergence_13 This question arose because the Board's disclosure obligation is structurally asymmetric - it protects Company Y from unknowing complicity but leaves ...
QuestionEmergence_14 This question arose because the Board's conditional framework does not specify the triggering threshold at which conditions are so thoroughly violated...
QuestionEmergence_15 This question arose because the absence of a contractual revolving-door provision creates ambiguity about the relationship between legal enforceabilit...
QuestionEmergence_16 This question arose because BER Case 85-4 established a switching-sides prohibition grounded in the structural integrity of adversarial proceedings an...
QuestionEmergence_17 This question arose because the Board's original conclusion permitting the employment transition was premised on the assumption that the hiring motiva...
Resolution Patterns (25)
ResolutionPattern_1 The Board concluded that the employment transition is ethically permissible because the NSPE Code does not prohibit engineers from changing employers ...
ResolutionPattern_2 The Board extended C1's conditional permission by finding that the faithful agent standard under II.4 and the confidentiality obligation under III.4 g...
ResolutionPattern_3 The Board found that C1's exclusive focus on disclosure to Company Y is structurally incomplete because the faithful agent standard under II.4 and the...
ResolutionPattern_4 The Board resolved the duration indeterminacy by rejecting both a purely temporal expiration and a perpetual absolute prohibition, instead holding und...
ResolutionPattern_5 The Board found that C1's individual-level resolution, while ethically sound on its own terms, fails to address the systemic dimension of the revolvin...
ResolutionPattern_6 The board resolved Q16 by extending BER Case 85-4's switching-sides prohibition to Engineer A's situation, concluding that if Company X and Company Y ...
ResolutionPattern_7 The board resolved Q17 by identifying a significant ethical gap in the original conclusion's silence on hiring motivation, determining that if Company...
ResolutionPattern_8 The board concluded in response to Q101 that genuine compliance with confidentiality obligations requires Engineer A to proactively formalize her recu...
ResolutionPattern_9 The board resolved Q102 by identifying a structural gap in the original conclusion's exclusive focus on disclosure to Company Y, concluding that basic...
ResolutionPattern_10 The board resolved Q103 by constructing a three-factor expiration standard - requiring public domain entry, technological supersession, and commercial...
ResolutionPattern_11 The board concluded that the agency bears a distinct but non-transferable institutional responsibility for the absence of revolving-door policies, bec...
ResolutionPattern_12 The board concluded that Engineer A may accept employment at Company Y because Competitive Employment Freedom is not extinguished by the conflict, but...
ResolutionPattern_13 The board concluded that Engineer A can satisfy her pre-employment disclosure obligation to Company Y without breaching her confidentiality duty to Co...
ResolutionPattern_14 The board reached a permissive-with-constraint resolution, but the conclusion argues this is insufficient when the confidential information constitute...
ResolutionPattern_15 The board concluded from a deontological perspective that Engineer A's confidentiality obligation is categorical and non-contingent because it arises ...
ResolutionPattern_16 The Board resolved Q302 by acknowledging that its permissive conclusion survives individual-level consequentialist scrutiny but fails systemic scrutin...
ResolutionPattern_17 The Board resolved Q303 by applying the virtue ethics framework's question of what a person of good character would do rather than what rules minimall...
ResolutionPattern_18 The Board resolved Q304 by extending the deontological disclosure principle symmetrically, reasoning that if the duty to disclose a conflict arises fr...
ResolutionPattern_19 The Board resolved Q401 by identifying a two-element conjunctive threshold - non-disclosure at hiring plus adversarial assignment - as the specific tr...
ResolutionPattern_20 The Board resolved Q402 by drawing a clear distinction between the legal and ethical planes: a revolving-door clause would strengthen enforceability a...
ResolutionPattern_21 The board concluded that the switching-sides prohibition from BER Case 85-4 applies with full force in adversarial proceedings because the prohibition...
ResolutionPattern_22 The board concluded that the conditional permission to accept employment at Company Y does not survive when the recruitment is explicitly structured a...
ResolutionPattern_23 The board resolved the conflict between Competitive Employment Freedom and the Confidentiality Obligation by conditioning the former on strict complia...
ResolutionPattern_24 The board concluded that Engineer A's loyalty obligation to Company Y is materially curtailed by the content of what she knows from prior government a...
ResolutionPattern_25 The board resolved the tension between Post-Public-Service Conflict Avoidance and Revolving Door Integrity by declining to set a calendar-based expira...
Phase 3 Decision Point Synthesis
Decision Point Synthesis (E1-E3 + Q&C Alignment + LLM)
E1-E3 algorithmic Q&C scoring LLM refinement Phase 1 entities + 2C Q&C + 2E rich analysis
E1
Obligation Coverage
-
E2
Action Mapping
-
E3
Composition
-
Q&C
Alignment
-
LLM
Refinement
-
Phase 4 Narrative Construction
Narrative Elements (Event Calculus + Scenario Seeds)
algorithmic base LLM enhancement Phase 1 entities + Phase 3 decision points
4.1
Characters
-
4.2
Timeline
-
4.3
Conflicts
-
4.4
Decisions
-
Review Entities & Commit View Synthesis

© Licensed under the GNU GPL v3 | Report Issue