This page shows the pre-commit working store (the raw extraction under review). This case was committed to OntServe on 2026-10-24 07:56; the committed record differs by design (deduplication, typing, and agent binding are applied at commit). View the committed record
Overview
Facts Discussion
Provenance Draft

PASS 1: Contextual Framework Facts Section

Case 116: Duty To Report Violation—Anonymous Complaint

R Roles
0
Classes
2
Individuals
S States
4
Classes
4
Individuals
Rs Resources
1
Classes
1
Individuals

Extracted Ontology Entities

12 RDF entities extracted organized by concept type

R Roles

Roles Classes
0
No new roles classes were identified in this section.
Roles Individuals
2
No new roles classes were discovered - the 2 individual(s) below reference existing classes from the ontology.
Engineer A Engineer
Engineer Role
Linked
Engineer Role
C116
Text References:
"Engineer A observes what he believes is a serious violation of the state board’s rules of professional conduct by Engineer B."
"Engineer A submits an anonymous complaint to the state engineering licensure board identifying Engineer B and the circumstances surrounding the alleged violation of the state board’s rules of professi..."
Confidence: 0.9
Actor: Engineer A
Role Class: Engineer Role
Role Kind: professional
Additional Relationships:
  • {'type': 'submits anonymous complaint to', 'target': 'State Engineering Licensure Board', 'quote': 'Engineer A submits an anonymous complaint to the state engineering licensure board identifying Engineer B and the circumstances surrounding the alleged violation of the state board’s rules of professional conduct.'}
  • {'type': 'observes alleged violation by', 'target': 'Engineer B', 'quote': 'Engineer A observes what he believes is a serious violation of the state board’s rules of professional conduct by Engineer B.'}
Case Involvement: Observed what he believed was a serious violation of the state board's rules of professional conduct by Engineer B, and thereafter submitted an anonymous complaint to the state engineering licensure board identifying Engineer B and the circumstances of the alleged violation. He is not a competitor of Engineer B and does not know him personally.
Relationship to engineer b: not a competitor of Engineer B and does not know Engineer B personally
[facts] "Engineer A observes what he believes is a serious violation of the state board’s rules of professional conduct by Engineer B. Engineer A is not a competitor of Engineer B and does not know Engineer B ..."
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • actor: Engineer A
  • attributes: {'relationship_to_engineer_b': 'not a competitor of Engineer B and does not know Engineer B personally'}
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • textReferences content: Engineer A observes what he believes is a serious violation of the state board’s rules of professional conduct by Engineer B.; Engineer A submits an anonymous complaint to the state engineering licensure board identifying Engineer B and the circumstances surrounding the alleged violation of the state board’s rules of professional conduct.
  • roleClass content: Engineer Role
  • roleKind content: professional
  • additionalRelationships content: {'type': 'submits anonymous complaint to', 'target': 'State Engineering Licensure Board', 'quote': 'Engineer A submits an anonymous complaint to the state engineering licensure board identifying Engineer B and the circumstances surrounding the alleged violation of the state board’s rules of professional conduct.'}; {'type': 'observes alleged violation by', 'target': 'Engineer B', 'quote': 'Engineer A observes what he believes is a serious violation of the state board’s rules of professional conduct by Engineer B.'}
  • caseInvolvement content: Observed what he believed was a serious violation of the state board's rules of professional conduct by Engineer B, and thereafter submitted an anonymous complaint to the state engineering licensure board identifying Engineer B and the circumstances of the alleged violation. He is not a competitor of Engineer B and does not know him personally.
  • confidence assessment: 0.9
State Engineering Licensure Board
Regulatory Authority Role
Linked
Regulatory Authority Role
C116
Text References:
"Engineer A submits an anonymous complaint to the state engineering licensure board identifying Engineer B and the circumstances surrounding the alleged violation of the state board’s rules of professi..."
Confidence: 0.9
Actor: State Engineering Licensure Board
Role Class: Regulatory Authority Role
Role Kind: participant
Additional Relationships: {'type': 'receives anonymous complaint from', 'target': 'Engineer A', 'quote': 'Engineer A submits an anonymous complaint to the state engineering licensure board identifying Engineer B and the circumstances surrounding the alleged violation of the state board’s rules of professional conduct.'}
Case Involvement: The state licensure body whose rules of professional conduct Engineer B allegedly violated, and which received the anonymous complaint from Engineer A identifying Engineer B and the circumstances of the alleged violation.
Governing instrument: state board's rules of professional conduct
[facts] "Thereafter, Engineer A submits an anonymous complaint to the state engineering licensure board identifying Engineer B and the circumstances surrounding the alleged violation of the state board’s rules..."
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • actor: State Engineering Licensure Board
  • attributes: {'governing_instrument': "state board's rules of professional conduct"}
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • textReferences content: Engineer A submits an anonymous complaint to the state engineering licensure board identifying Engineer B and the circumstances surrounding the alleged violation of the state board’s rules of professional conduct.
  • roleClass content: Regulatory Authority Role
  • roleKind content: participant
  • additionalRelationships content: {'type': 'receives anonymous complaint from', 'target': 'Engineer A', 'quote': 'Engineer A submits an anonymous complaint to the state engineering licensure board identifying Engineer B and the circumstances surrounding the alleged violation of the state board’s rules of professional conduct.'}
  • caseInvolvement content: The state licensure body whose rules of professional conduct Engineer B allegedly violated, and which received the anonymous complaint from Engineer A identifying Engineer B and the circumstances of the alleged violation.
  • confidence assessment: 0.9

S States

States Classes
4
changed
Violation Belief State
rdfs:subClassOf States
Review
Epistemic State
C116
Definition
Extracted from facts primary
An epistemic condition in which a professional believes, based on his own observation, that another professional has committed a serious violation of the rules of professional conduct, so his knowledge of the alleged misconduct is a sincere belief rather than an adjudicated fact.
Inherited from EpistemicState · note
A condition of what an agent knows, believes, or is uncertain of with respect to facts material to a decision. As a content kind it captures the agent's knowledge state, the classical Aristotelian epistemic condition for responsibility: an agent is answerable for conduct in proportion to what the agent knew or should have known; Sarmiento et al. (2022) name epistemic aspects fundamental for moving beyond causality to responsibility. Its deontic relevance is that knowledge conditions the obligations governing informed decision and decision-under-uncertainty.
Properties
Text References:
"Engineer A observes what he believes is a serious violation of the state board’s rules of professional conduct by Engineer B."
Confidence: 0.9
State Category: epistemic
Persistence Type: inertial
Activation Conditions: A professional observes conduct he believes constitutes a serious violation of the rules of professional conduct by another professional
Termination Conditions: The belief is confirmed or dispelled by an investigation or adjudication of the alleged violation
Obligation Activation: Duty to report alleged violations of rules of professional conduct to the appropriate authority
Principle Transformation: The belief that a serious violation has occurred makes the general duty to uphold the profession's rules concrete as a decision about whether and how to bring the matter to the licensure board.
[facts] "Engineer A observes what he believes is a serious violation of the state board’s rules of professional conduct by Engineer B."
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • textReferences content: Engineer A observes what he believes is a serious violation of the state board’s rules of professional conduct by Engineer B.
  • stateCategory content: epistemic
  • persistenceType content: inertial
  • principleTransformation content: The belief that a serious violation has occurred makes the general duty to uphold the profession's rules concrete as a decision about whether and how to bring the matter to the licensure board.
  • confidence assessment: 0.9
Derived (reconstructable from the graph)
  • activationConditions: A professional observes conduct he believes constitutes a serious violation of the rules of professional conduct by another professional
  • terminationConditions: The belief is confirmed or dispelled by an investigation or adjudication of the alleged violation
  • obligationActivation: Duty to report alleged violations of rules of professional conduct to the appropriate authority
changed
Absent Conflict Of Interest State
rdfs:subClassOf States
Review
Absent Conflict Of Interest State
C116
Definition
Extracted from facts primary
A conflict-of-interest condition found not to obtain, in which the professional raising a concern about another professional holds no competing or self-interested position with respect to that professional, here Engineer A being neither a competitor of Engineer B nor personally acquainted with him, so the complaint is not tainted by rivalry or personal motive.
Inherited from AbsentConflictOfInterestState · note
A conflict-of-interest condition in which a professional's public comment is not made on behalf of any client or undisclosed private interest and is not used to advance the professional's own personal interests, so the independence restrictions on public comment are satisfied. In this case, the Board finds no indication that the consulting engineer was representing any client or using his criticism to advance his own personal interests.
Properties
Text References:
"Engineer A is not a competitor of Engineer B and does not know Engineer B personally."
Confidence: 0.9
State Category: conflict_of_interest
Persistence Type: inertial
Activation Conditions: The professional stands in no competitive or personal relationship with the professional whose conduct is at issue
Termination Conditions: A competitive or personal relationship arises between the two professionals
Principle Transformation: The absence of any competing interest means the complaint can be evaluated as a good-faith exercise of the duty to report misconduct rather than as self-interested criticism of a rival.
[facts] "Engineer A is not a competitor of Engineer B and does not know Engineer B personally."
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • textReferences content: Engineer A is not a competitor of Engineer B and does not know Engineer B personally.
  • stateCategory content: conflict_of_interest
  • persistenceType content: inertial
  • principleTransformation content: The absence of any competing interest means the complaint can be evaluated as a good-faith exercise of the duty to report misconduct rather than as self-interested criticism of a rival.
  • confidence assessment: 0.9
Derived (reconstructable from the graph)
  • activationConditions: The professional stands in no competitive or personal relationship with the professional whose conduct is at issue
  • terminationConditions: A competitive or personal relationship arises between the two professionals
changed
Violation Reported State
rdfs:subClassOf States
Linked
Violation Reported State
C116
Definition
Extracted from facts primary
A disclosure condition in which an alleged violation of the rules of professional conduct has been reported by an engineer to a licensure authority, so the information about the alleged violation and the identity of the accused engineer is now disclosed to the body with jurisdiction over it.
Inherited from ViolationReportedState · note
A disclosure condition in which an alleged Code violation has been reported by an engineer to another party, so the information about the alleged violation is now disclosed and the question of whether the recipient is the proper authority arises. In this case, Engineer B has reported the alleged violation to Engineer A.
Properties
Text References:
"Engineer A submits an anonymous complaint to the state engineering licensure board identifying Engineer B and the circumstances surrounding the alleged violation of the state board’s rules of professi..."
Confidence: 0.92
State Category: disclosure
Persistence Type: inertial
Activation Conditions: An engineer submits a complaint identifying another engineer and the circumstances of an alleged violation to the licensure board
Termination Conditions: The licensure board resolves or dismisses the complaint
Obligation Activation: The licensure board's duty to consider the reported allegation
Principle Transformation: Once the alleged violation is disclosed to the licensure board, the abstract duty to assist in enforcing the rules of professional conduct has been discharged in concrete form by placing the matter before the proper authority.
[facts] "Engineer A submits an anonymous complaint to the state engineering licensure board identifying Engineer B and the circumstances surrounding the alleged violation of the state board’s rules of professi..."
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • textReferences content: Engineer A submits an anonymous complaint to the state engineering licensure board identifying Engineer B and the circumstances surrounding the alleged violation of the state board’s rules of professional conduct.
  • stateCategory content: disclosure
  • persistenceType content: inertial
  • principleTransformation content: Once the alleged violation is disclosed to the licensure board, the abstract duty to assist in enforcing the rules of professional conduct has been discharged in concrete form by placing the matter before the proper authority.
  • confidence assessment: 0.92
Derived (reconstructable from the graph)
  • activationConditions: An engineer submits a complaint identifying another engineer and the circumstances of an alleged violation to the licensure board
  • terminationConditions: The licensure board resolves or dismisses the complaint
  • obligationActivation: The licensure board's duty to consider the reported allegation
changed
Anonymous Complaint State
rdfs:subClassOf States
New C116
Definition
Extracted from facts primary
A disclosure condition in which a complaint alleging a professional violation has been submitted with the accused party and the circumstances identified, while the identity of the complainant is withheld from the receiving authority and from the accused, so the accusation is disclosed but its source is not.
Properties
Text References:
"Engineer A submits an anonymous complaint to the state engineering licensure board identifying Engineer B and the circumstances surrounding the alleged violation of the state board’s rules of professi..."
Confidence: 0.9
State Category: disclosure
Persistence Type: inertial
Activation Conditions: A complaint is submitted to an authority without disclosing the complainant's identity
Termination Conditions: The complainant's identity is disclosed to the receiving authority or the accused
Principle Transformation: The withholding of the complainant's identity shapes how the duties of honesty and fairness toward the accused engineer and the board apply to the reporting act, since the accusation stands disclosed while its source remains concealed.
[facts] "Engineer A submits an anonymous complaint to the state engineering licensure board identifying Engineer B and the circumstances surrounding the alleged violation of the state board’s rules of professi..."
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • textReferences content: Engineer A submits an anonymous complaint to the state engineering licensure board identifying Engineer B and the circumstances surrounding the alleged violation of the state board’s rules of professional conduct.
  • stateCategory content: disclosure
  • persistenceType content: inertial
  • principleTransformation content: The withholding of the complainant's identity shapes how the duties of honesty and fairness toward the accused engineer and the board apply to the reporting act, since the accusation stands disclosed while its source remains concealed.
  • confidence assessment: 0.9
Derived (reconstructable from the graph)
  • activationConditions: A complaint is submitted to an authority without disclosing the complainant's identity
  • terminationConditions: The complainant's identity is disclosed to the receiving authority or the accused
States Individuals
4
changed
Review
Epistemic State
C116
Text References:
"Engineer A observes what he believes is a serious violation of the state board’s rules of professional conduct by Engineer B."
Confidence: 0.9
State Class: Violation Belief State
Subject: Engineer A, who believes he has observed a serious violation of the state board's rules of professional conduct by Engineer B
Active Period: From Engineer A's observation of the conduct through and after the submission of the complaint
Triggering Event: Engineer A observes conduct by Engineer B that he believes is a serious violation of the state board's rules of professional conduct
Terminated By: Not stated in the case; the belief would end only upon resolution of the allegation
Affected Parties:
  • Engineer A
  • Engineer B
Urgency Level: medium
[facts] "Engineer A observes what he believes is a serious violation of the state board’s rules of professional conduct by Engineer B."
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • textReferences content: Engineer A observes what he believes is a serious violation of the state board’s rules of professional conduct by Engineer B.
  • stateClass content: Violation Belief State
  • subject content: Engineer A, who believes he has observed a serious violation of the state board's rules of professional conduct by Engineer B
  • activePeriod content: From Engineer A's observation of the conduct through and after the submission of the complaint
  • triggeringEvent content: Engineer A observes conduct by Engineer B that he believes is a serious violation of the state board's rules of professional conduct
  • terminatedBy content: Not stated in the case; the belief would end only upon resolution of the allegation
  • affectedParties content: Engineer A; Engineer B
  • confidence assessment: 0.9
  • urgencyLevel assessment: medium
changed
No Conflict With Engineer B
Absent Conflict Of Interest State
Review
Absent Conflict Of Interest State
C116
Text References:
"Engineer A is not a competitor of Engineer B and does not know Engineer B personally."
Confidence: 0.9
State Class: Absent Conflict Of Interest State
Subject: Engineer A, who is not a competitor of Engineer B and does not know Engineer B personally
Active Period: Throughout the events of the case
Triggering Event: Not stated in the case; the condition holds as a standing fact of the relationship between the two engineers
Terminated By: Not stated in the case
Affected Parties:
  • Engineer A
  • Engineer B
Urgency Level: low
[facts] "Engineer A is not a competitor of Engineer B and does not know Engineer B personally."
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • textReferences content: Engineer A is not a competitor of Engineer B and does not know Engineer B personally.
  • stateClass content: Absent Conflict Of Interest State
  • subject content: Engineer A, who is not a competitor of Engineer B and does not know Engineer B personally
  • activePeriod content: Throughout the events of the case
  • triggeringEvent content: Not stated in the case; the condition holds as a standing fact of the relationship between the two engineers
  • terminatedBy content: Not stated in the case
  • affectedParties content: Engineer A; Engineer B
  • confidence assessment: 0.9
  • urgencyLevel assessment: low
changed
Alleged Violation Reported To Board
Violation Reported State
Linked
Violation Reported State
C116
Text References:
"Engineer A submits an anonymous complaint to the state engineering licensure board identifying Engineer B and the circumstances surrounding the alleged violation of the state board’s rules of professi..."
Confidence: 0.92
State Class: Violation Reported State
Subject: The alleged violation of the state board's rules of professional conduct by Engineer B, now disclosed to the state engineering licensure board
Active Period: From Engineer A's submission of the complaint onward
Triggering Event: Engineer A submits a complaint to the state engineering licensure board identifying Engineer B and the circumstances surrounding the alleged violation
Terminated By: Not stated in the case; the condition would end when the board resolves or dismisses the complaint
Affected Parties:
  • Engineer A
  • Engineer B
  • State engineering licensure board
Urgency Level: medium
[facts] "Engineer A submits an anonymous complaint to the state engineering licensure board identifying Engineer B and the circumstances surrounding the alleged violation of the state board’s rules of professi..."
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • textReferences content: Engineer A submits an anonymous complaint to the state engineering licensure board identifying Engineer B and the circumstances surrounding the alleged violation of the state board’s rules of professional conduct.
  • stateClass content: Violation Reported State
  • subject content: The alleged violation of the state board's rules of professional conduct by Engineer B, now disclosed to the state engineering licensure board
  • activePeriod content: From Engineer A's submission of the complaint onward
  • triggeringEvent content: Engineer A submits a complaint to the state engineering licensure board identifying Engineer B and the circumstances surrounding the alleged violation
  • terminatedBy content: Not stated in the case; the condition would end when the board resolves or dismisses the complaint
  • affectedParties content: Engineer A; Engineer B; State engineering licensure board
  • confidence assessment: 0.92
  • urgencyLevel assessment: medium
changed
New C116
Text References:
"Engineer A submits an anonymous complaint to the state engineering licensure board identifying Engineer B and the circumstances surrounding the alleged violation of the state board’s rules of professi..."
Confidence: 0.9
State Class: Anonymous Complaint State
Subject: Engineer A's complaint to the state engineering licensure board, which identifies Engineer B and the circumstances of the alleged violation while withholding Engineer A's identity
Active Period: From the submission of the anonymous complaint onward
Triggering Event: Engineer A submits the complaint anonymously to the state engineering licensure board
Terminated By: Not stated in the case; the condition would end if Engineer A's identity were disclosed
Affected Parties:
  • Engineer A
  • Engineer B
  • State engineering licensure board
Urgency Level: medium
[facts] "Engineer A submits an anonymous complaint to the state engineering licensure board identifying Engineer B and the circumstances surrounding the alleged violation of the state board’s rules of professi..."
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • textReferences content: Engineer A submits an anonymous complaint to the state engineering licensure board identifying Engineer B and the circumstances surrounding the alleged violation of the state board’s rules of professional conduct.
  • stateClass content: Anonymous Complaint State
  • subject content: Engineer A's complaint to the state engineering licensure board, which identifies Engineer B and the circumstances of the alleged violation while withholding Engineer A's identity
  • activePeriod content: From the submission of the anonymous complaint onward
  • triggeringEvent content: Engineer A submits the complaint anonymously to the state engineering licensure board
  • terminatedBy content: Not stated in the case; the condition would end if Engineer A's identity were disclosed
  • affectedParties content: Engineer A; Engineer B; State engineering licensure board
  • confidence assessment: 0.9
  • urgencyLevel assessment: medium

Rs Resources

Resources Classes
1
changed
LegalResource
rdfs:subClassOf Resources
Linked
Legal Resource
C116
Definition
Extracted from facts primary
Laws, regulations, and statutes governing professional practice, here the rules of professional conduct promulgated by a state engineering licensure board that establish enforceable conduct requirements for licensed engineers.
Inherited from LegalResource · note
Laws, regulations, and statutes governing professional practice that establish legal boundaries and compliance requirements for professional activities.
Properties
Text References:
"Engineer A observes what he believes is a serious violation of the state board’s rules of professional conduct by Engineer B."
"Engineer A submits an anonymous complaint to the state engineering licensure board identifying Engineer B and the circumstances surrounding the alleged violation of the state board’s rules of professi..."
Confidence: 0.9
Resource Category: legal_resource
[facts] "Engineer A observes what he believes is a serious violation of the state board’s rules of professional conduct by Engineer B."
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • textReferences content: Engineer A observes what he believes is a serious violation of the state board’s rules of professional conduct by Engineer B.; Engineer A submits an anonymous complaint to the state engineering licensure board identifying Engineer B and the circumstances surrounding the alleged violation of the state board’s rules of professional conduct.
  • resourceCategory content: legal_resource
  • confidence assessment: 0.9
Resources Individuals
1
Linked
Legal Resource
C116
Text References:
"Engineer A observes what he believes is a serious violation of the state board’s rules of professional conduct by Engineer B."
"the circumstances surrounding the alleged violation of the state board’s rules of professional conduct"
Confidence: 0.88
Resource Class: Legal Resource
Document Title: state board's rules of professional conduct
Topic: professional conduct requirements for licensed engineers
Used By: Engineer A
[facts] "Engineer A observes what he believes is a serious violation of the state board’s rules of professional conduct by Engineer B."
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • usedBy: Engineer A
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • textReferences content: Engineer A observes what he believes is a serious violation of the state board’s rules of professional conduct by Engineer B.; the circumstances surrounding the alleged violation of the state board’s rules of professional conduct
  • resourceClass content: Legal Resource
  • documentTitle content: state board's rules of professional conduct
  • topic content: professional conduct requirements for licensed engineers
  • confidence assessment: 0.88
Pass 1: Contextual Framework - Facts
Review extracted entities, then continue to the next step
Continue to Discussion Review
Case texts: National Society of Professional Engineers, Board of Ethical Review.

NOTE: The NSPE Board of Ethical Review considers ethical cases involving either real or hypothetical matters submitted to it from NSPE members, other engineers, public officials, and members of the public. The BER reviews each case in the context of the NSPE Code of Ethics and earlier BER opinions. The facts contained in each case do not necessarily represent all of the pertinent facts submitted to or reviewed by the BER and shall not be considered a direct evaluation of any real matter that may have been submitted.

Each opinion is intended as guidance to individual practicing engineers, students, and the public. In regard to the question of application of the NSPE Code of Ethics to engineering organizations (e.g., corporations, partnerships, sole proprietorships, government agencies, and university engineering departments), the specific business form or type should not negate nor detract from the conformance of individuals to the Code. The NSPE Code deals with professional services, which must be performed by real persons. Real persons in turn establish and implement policies within business structures.

This opinion is for educational purposes only and is not legal advice. It may be reprinted without further permission, provided that this statement is included before or after the text of the case and appropriate attribution is provided to the National Society of Professional Engineers' Board of Ethical Review.

© Licensed under the GNU GPL v3