This page shows the pre-commit working store (the raw extraction under review). This case was committed to OntServe on 2026-07-25 15:27; the committed record differs by design (deduplication, typing, and agent binding are applied at commit). View the committed record
Overview
Provenance Draft

PASS 3: Temporal Dynamics

Case 120: Use Of Cadd System

24 entities 5 actions 3 events 7 causal chains 8 temporal relations
Timeline Overview
Action Event 9 sequenced markers
Precedent case, BER Case 86-2 (1986)
Literal Code Interpretation Ruling BER Case 86-2 decision (1986)
Community Controversy Following the rendering of the Board's opinion in BER Case 86-2 (1986)
Detailed Review Infeasibility During the events of BER Case 86-2, prior to the Board's 1986 ruling
Sign and Seal Own Work Present case, at completion of the CADD-prepared documents
Sign and Seal Supervised Work Present case, at completion of documents prepared by others under his direction
Precedent Clarification Present deliberation, during review of the instant case
Standard Application Ruling Present deliberation, conclusion of the instant case
Technological Evolution In recent years, preceding and during the present case
OWL-Time Temporal Structure 8 relations time: = w3.org/2006/time
others preparing documents using CADD under Engineer B's direction time:intervalBefore Engineer B signing and sealing documents
engineer's detailed check and review of plans time:intervalBefore engineer signing and sealing drawings
others' work on CADD system time:intervalDuring Engineer B's direction and control
Board's prior review of cases addressing similar issues time:intervalBefore current review of computerized design case
manual design techniques era time:intervalBefore Computer Aided Design (CAD) era
Computer Aided Design (CAD) era time:intervalBefore Computer Assisted Drafting and Design (CADD) era
Computer Assisted Drafting and Design (CADD) era time:intervalBefore Artificial Intelligence era
Engineer A preparing documents using CADD time:intervalBefore Engineer A signing and sealing documents
Extracted Actions (5)
Volitional professional decisions with intentions and ethical context

Description: In BER Case 86-2 the Board read the direction and control language of Section II.2.b. quite literally and decided it was unethical for the chief engineer to seal plans he had not prepared or checked and reviewed in detail.

Temporal Marker: BER Case 86-2 decision (1986) instant

Fluent Transitions:
Initiates (1)
  • Literal Interpretation Standard Holding

Mental State: deliberative

Intended Outcome: Enforce a strict reading of the Code requirement that sealed work be prepared under the engineer's direction and control

Foreseen Unintended Effects:

  • Placing a significant number of practitioners in conflict with the provisions of the Code
Guided By Principles:
  • Direction and Control Principle
Required Capabilities:
Ethical adjudication Code interpretation
Within Competence: Yes
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • guidedByPrinciple: Direction and Control Principle
  • requiresCapability: Ethical adjudication; Code interpretation
  • initiates: Literal Interpretation Standard Holding
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • description content: In BER Case 86-2 the Board read the direction and control language of Section II.2.b. quite literally and decided it was unethical for the chief engineer to seal plans he had not prepared or checked and reviewed in detail.
  • hasAgent content: Board of Ethical Review
  • temporalMarker content: BER Case 86-2 decision (1986)
  • hasMentalState content: deliberative
  • intendedOutcome content: Enforce a strict reading of the Code requirement that sealed work be prepared under the engineer's direction and control
  • foreseenUnintendedEffects content: Placing a significant number of practitioners in conflict with the provisions of the Code
  • textReferences content: 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.
  • temporalExtent content: instant
  • temporalSequence content: 3
  • withinCompetence assessment: True
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/120#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#",
    "time": "http://www.w3.org/2006/time#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/120#Action_Literal_Code_Interpretation_Ruling",
  "@type": "proeth:Action",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-12T23:05:40.358068+00:00",
  "proeth:description": "In BER Case 86-2 the Board read the direction and control language of Section II.2.b. quite literally and decided it was unethical for the chief engineer to seal plans he had not prepared or checked and reviewed in detail.",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "discussion",
  "proeth:foreseenUnintendedEffects": [
    "Placing a significant number of practitioners in conflict with the provisions of the Code"
  ],
  "proeth:guidedByPrinciple": [
    "Direction and Control Principle"
  ],
  "proeth:hasAgent": "Board of Ethical Review",
  "proeth:hasMentalState": "deliberative",
  "proeth:initiates": [
    "Literal Interpretation Standard Holding"
  ],
  "proeth:intendedOutcome": "Enforce a strict reading of the Code requirement that sealed work be prepared under the engineer\u0027s direction and control",
  "proeth:requiresCapability": [
    "Ethical adjudication",
    "Code interpretation"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalExtent": "instant",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "BER Case 86-2 decision (1986)",
  "proeth:temporalSequence": 3,
  "proeth:textReferences": [
    "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."
  ],
  "proeth:withinCompetence": true,
  "rdfs:label": "Literal Code Interpretation Ruling"
}

Description: Engineer A signs and seals documents he personally prepared using a CADD system.

Temporal Marker: Present case, at completion of the CADD-prepared documents instant

Fluent Transitions:
Initiates (2)
  • Sealed Documents State
  • Professional Responsibility Assumed

Mental State: deliberate

Intended Outcome: Certify professional responsibility for documents he prepared himself using CADD

Obligation Engagement:
Fulfills (2)
  • Direction and Control Obligation
  • Competence Obligation
Guided By Principles:
  • Full Responsibility for Work Product
Required Capabilities:
Proficiency with CADD dynamics and limitations Professional engineering competence
Within Competence: Yes
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • fulfillsObligation: Direction and Control Obligation; Competence Obligation
  • guidedByPrinciple: Full Responsibility for Work Product
  • requiresCapability: Proficiency with CADD dynamics and limitations; Professional engineering competence
  • initiates: Sealed Documents State; Professional Responsibility Assumed
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • description content: Engineer A signs and seals documents he personally prepared using a CADD system.
  • hasAgent content: Engineer A
  • temporalMarker content: Present case, at completion of the CADD-prepared documents
  • eventRoleContext content: Registered Professional Engineer
  • hasMentalState content: deliberate
  • intendedOutcome content: Certify professional responsibility for documents he prepared himself using CADD
  • textReferences content: Engineer A, a registered professional engineer signs and seals documents he prepared using a CADD system.
  • temporalExtent content: instant
  • temporalSequence content: 5
  • withinCompetence assessment: True
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/120#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#",
    "time": "http://www.w3.org/2006/time#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/120#Action_Sign_and_Seal_Own_Work",
  "@type": "proeth:Action",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-12T23:05:40.357321+00:00",
  "proeth:description": "Engineer A signs and seals documents he personally prepared using a CADD system.",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "facts",
  "proeth:eventRoleContext": "Registered Professional Engineer",
  "proeth:fulfillsObligation": [
    "Direction and Control Obligation",
    "Competence Obligation"
  ],
  "proeth:guidedByPrinciple": [
    "Full Responsibility for Work Product"
  ],
  "proeth:hasAgent": "Engineer A",
  "proeth:hasMentalState": "deliberate",
  "proeth:initiates": [
    "Sealed Documents State",
    "Professional Responsibility Assumed"
  ],
  "proeth:intendedOutcome": "Certify professional responsibility for documents he prepared himself using CADD",
  "proeth:raisesObligation": [],
  "proeth:requiresCapability": [
    "Proficiency with CADD dynamics and limitations",
    "Professional engineering competence"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalExtent": "instant",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "Present case, at completion of the CADD-prepared documents",
  "proeth:temporalSequence": 5,
  "proeth:textReferences": [
    "Engineer A, a registered professional engineer signs and seals documents he prepared using a CADD system."
  ],
  "proeth:violatesObligation": [],
  "proeth:withinCompetence": true,
  "rdfs:label": "Sign and Seal Own Work"
}

Description: Engineer B signs and seals documents produced by others using a CADD system who worked under his direction and control.

Temporal Marker: Present case, at completion of documents prepared by others under his direction instant

Fluent Transitions:
Initiates (2)
  • Sealed Documents State
  • Professional Responsibility Assumed

Mental State: deliberate

Intended Outcome: Certify and assume responsibility for documents prepared by others under his direction and control

Obligation Engagement:
Fulfills (2)
  • Direction and Control Obligation
  • Review and Checking Obligation
Guided By Principles:
  • Full Responsibility for Work Product
Required Capabilities:
Proficiency with CADD dynamics and limitations Capacity to direct, control and review material prepared under responsible charge
Within Competence: Yes
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • fulfillsObligation: Direction and Control Obligation; Review and Checking Obligation
  • guidedByPrinciple: Full Responsibility for Work Product
  • requiresCapability: Proficiency with CADD dynamics and limitations; Capacity to direct, control and review material prepared under responsible charge
  • initiates: Sealed Documents State; Professional Responsibility Assumed
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • description content: Engineer B signs and seals documents produced by others using a CADD system who worked under his direction and control.
  • hasAgent content: Engineer B
  • temporalMarker content: Present case, at completion of documents prepared by others under his direction
  • eventRoleContext content: Registered Professional Engineer
  • hasMentalState content: deliberate
  • intendedOutcome content: Certify and assume responsibility for documents prepared by others under his direction and control
  • textReferences content: 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.
  • temporalExtent content: instant
  • temporalSequence content: 6
  • withinCompetence assessment: True
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/120#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#",
    "time": "http://www.w3.org/2006/time#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/120#Action_Sign_and_Seal_Supervised_Work",
  "@type": "proeth:Action",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-12T23:05:40.357932+00:00",
  "proeth:description": "Engineer B signs and seals documents produced by others using a CADD system who worked under his direction and control.",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "facts",
  "proeth:eventRoleContext": "Registered Professional Engineer",
  "proeth:fulfillsObligation": [
    "Direction and Control Obligation",
    "Review and Checking Obligation"
  ],
  "proeth:guidedByPrinciple": [
    "Full Responsibility for Work Product"
  ],
  "proeth:hasAgent": "Engineer B",
  "proeth:hasMentalState": "deliberate",
  "proeth:initiates": [
    "Sealed Documents State",
    "Professional Responsibility Assumed"
  ],
  "proeth:intendedOutcome": "Certify and assume responsibility for documents prepared by others under his direction and control",
  "proeth:raisesObligation": [],
  "proeth:requiresCapability": [
    "Proficiency with CADD dynamics and limitations",
    "Capacity to direct, control and review material prepared under responsible charge"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalExtent": "instant",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "Present case, at completion of documents prepared by others under his direction",
  "proeth:temporalSequence": 6,
  "proeth:textReferences": [
    "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\u0027s direction and control."
  ],
  "proeth:violatesObligation": [],
  "proeth:withinCompetence": true,
  "rdfs:label": "Sign and Seal Supervised Work"
}

Description: The Board modifies and clarifies its BER 86-2 conclusion, holding that sealing plans not personally prepared by the engineer is not unethical as long as those plans were checked and reviewed by the engineer in some detail.

Temporal Marker: Present deliberation, during review of the instant case instant

Fluent Transitions:
Initiates (1)
  • Clarified Review Standard Holding
Terminates (1)
  • Literal Interpretation Standard Holding

Mental State: deliberative

Intended Outcome: Bring the Code's application into consonance with generally prevailing practices and avoid imposing an impossible standard upon practice

Foreseen Unintended Effects:

  • Being perceived as a reversal of the Board's decision in BER Case 86-2
Guided By Principles:
  • Consonance with Prevailing Practice
Required Capabilities:
Ethical adjudication Code interpretation
Within Competence: Yes
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • guidedByPrinciple: Consonance with Prevailing Practice
  • requiresCapability: Ethical adjudication; Code interpretation
  • initiates: Clarified Review Standard Holding
  • terminates: Literal Interpretation Standard Holding
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • description content: The Board modifies and clarifies its BER 86-2 conclusion, holding that sealing plans not personally prepared by the engineer is not unethical as long as those plans were checked and reviewed by the engineer in some detail.
  • hasAgent content: Board of Ethical Review
  • temporalMarker content: Present deliberation, during review of the instant case
  • hasMentalState content: deliberative
  • intendedOutcome content: Bring the Code's application into consonance with generally prevailing practices and avoid imposing an impossible standard upon practice
  • foreseenUnintendedEffects content: Being perceived as a reversal of the Board's decision in BER Case 86-2
  • textReferences content: 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 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
  • temporalExtent content: instant
  • temporalSequence content: 7
  • withinCompetence assessment: True
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/120#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#",
    "time": "http://www.w3.org/2006/time#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/120#Action_Precedent_Clarification",
  "@type": "proeth:Action",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-12T23:05:40.358110+00:00",
  "proeth:description": "The Board modifies and clarifies its BER 86-2 conclusion, holding that sealing plans not personally prepared by the engineer is not unethical as long as those plans were checked and reviewed by the engineer in some detail.",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "discussion",
  "proeth:foreseenUnintendedEffects": [
    "Being perceived as a reversal of the Board\u0027s decision in BER Case 86-2"
  ],
  "proeth:guidedByPrinciple": [
    "Consonance with Prevailing Practice"
  ],
  "proeth:hasAgent": "Board of Ethical Review",
  "proeth:hasMentalState": "deliberative",
  "proeth:initiates": [
    "Clarified Review Standard Holding"
  ],
  "proeth:intendedOutcome": "Bring the Code\u0027s application into consonance with generally prevailing practices and avoid imposing an impossible standard upon practice",
  "proeth:requiresCapability": [
    "Ethical adjudication",
    "Code interpretation"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalExtent": "instant",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "Present deliberation, during review of the instant case",
  "proeth:temporalSequence": 7,
  "proeth:terminates": [
    "Literal Interpretation Standard Holding"
  ],
  "proeth:textReferences": [
    "we think the Board\u0027s 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 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"
  ],
  "proeth:withinCompetence": true,
  "rdfs:label": "Precedent Clarification"
}

Description: The Board applies the clarified standard to the present facts and concludes that neither Engineer A nor Engineer B acted unethically in signing and sealing the drawings, provided the plans were checked and reviewed in some detail and the engineer assumes full responsibility.

Temporal Marker: Present deliberation, conclusion of the instant case instant

Fluent Transitions:
Initiates (1)
  • Conduct Adjudged Ethical

Mental State: deliberative

Intended Outcome: Resolve the two instant questions consistently with the clarified interpretation of the Code

Guided By Principles:
  • Full Responsibility for Work Product
  • Consonance with Prevailing Practice
Required Capabilities:
Ethical adjudication
Within Competence: Yes
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • guidedByPrinciple: Full Responsibility for Work Product; Consonance with Prevailing Practice
  • requiresCapability: Ethical adjudication
  • initiates: Conduct Adjudged Ethical
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • description content: The Board applies the clarified standard to the present facts and concludes that neither Engineer A nor Engineer B acted unethically in signing and sealing the drawings, provided the plans were checked and reviewed in some detail and the engineer assumes full responsibility.
  • hasAgent content: Board of Ethical Review
  • temporalMarker content: Present deliberation, conclusion of the instant case
  • hasMentalState content: deliberative
  • intendedOutcome content: Resolve the two instant questions consistently with the clarified interpretation of the Code
  • textReferences content: we believe logic would dictate that in either case 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; 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.
  • temporalExtent content: instant
  • temporalSequence content: 8
  • withinCompetence assessment: True
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/120#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#",
    "time": "http://www.w3.org/2006/time#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/120#Action_Standard_Application_Ruling",
  "@type": "proeth:Action",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-12T23:05:40.358141+00:00",
  "proeth:description": "The Board applies the clarified standard to the present facts and concludes that neither Engineer A nor Engineer B acted unethically in signing and sealing the drawings, provided the plans were checked and reviewed in some detail and the engineer assumes full responsibility.",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "discussion",
  "proeth:guidedByPrinciple": [
    "Full Responsibility for Work Product",
    "Consonance with Prevailing Practice"
  ],
  "proeth:hasAgent": "Board of Ethical Review",
  "proeth:hasMentalState": "deliberative",
  "proeth:initiates": [
    "Conduct Adjudged Ethical"
  ],
  "proeth:intendedOutcome": "Resolve the two instant questions consistently with the clarified interpretation of the Code",
  "proeth:requiresCapability": [
    "Ethical adjudication"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalExtent": "instant",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "Present deliberation, conclusion of the instant case",
  "proeth:temporalSequence": 8,
  "proeth:textReferences": [
    "we believe logic would dictate that in either case 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",
    "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\u0027s responsible charge."
  ],
  "proeth:withinCompetence": true,
  "rdfs:label": "Standard Application Ruling"
}
Extracted Events (3)
Occurrences that trigger ethical considerations and state changes

Description: The engineering profession experienced exponential growth in computer technology, transforming manual design techniques to CAD, then to CADD, with Artificial Intelligence anticipated in the near future.

Temporal Marker: In recent years, preceding and during the present case interval

Fluent Transitions:
Initiates (2)
  • CADD Use in Engineering Practice
  • Potential for CADD Overreliance
Terminates (1)
  • Manual Design Practice
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • initiates: CADD Use in Engineering Practice; Potential for CADD Overreliance
  • terminates: Manual Design Practice
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • description content: The engineering profession experienced exponential growth in computer technology, transforming manual design techniques to CAD, then to CADD, with Artificial Intelligence anticipated in the near future.
  • temporalMarker content: In recent years, preceding and during the present case
  • textReferences content: In recent years, the engineering profession has been "revolutionized" by exponential growth in new and innovative computer technological breakthroughs; the evolution that transformed yesterday's manual design techniques to Computer Aided Design (CAD), thence to Computer Assisted Drafting and Design (CADD) and soon Artificial Intelligence
  • eventType content: exogenous
  • temporalExtent content: interval
  • temporalSequence content: 1
  • confidence assessment: 0.9
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/120#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#",
    "time": "http://www.w3.org/2006/time#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/120#Event_Technological_Evolution",
  "@type": "proeth:Event",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-12T23:05:40.358232+00:00",
  "proeth:confidence": "0.9",
  "proeth:description": "The engineering profession experienced exponential growth in computer technology, transforming manual design techniques to CAD, then to CADD, with Artificial Intelligence anticipated in the near future.",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "discussion",
  "proeth:eventType": "exogenous",
  "proeth:initiates": [
    "CADD Use in Engineering Practice",
    "Potential for CADD Overreliance"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalExtent": "interval",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "In recent years, preceding and during the present case",
  "proeth:temporalSequence": 1,
  "proeth:terminates": [
    "Manual Design Practice"
  ],
  "proeth:textReferences": [
    "In recent years, the engineering profession has been \"revolutionized\" by exponential growth in new and innovative computer technological breakthroughs",
    "the evolution that transformed yesterday\u0027s manual design techniques to Computer Aided Design (CAD), thence to Computer Assisted Drafting and Design (CADD) and soon Artificial Intelligence"
  ],
  "rdfs:label": "Technological Evolution"
}

Description: In BER Case 86-2, because of the size of the organization and the large number of projects being designed at any one time, the chief engineer found it impossible to give a detailed review or check of the designs he sealed.

Temporal Marker: During the events of BER Case 86-2, prior to the Board's 1986 ruling interval

Fluent Transitions:
Initiates (1)
  • Review Capacity Exceeded
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • initiates: Review Capacity Exceeded
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • description content: In BER Case 86-2, because of the size of the organization and the large number of projects being designed at any one time, the chief engineer found it impossible to give a detailed review or check of the designs he sealed.
  • temporalMarker content: During the events of BER Case 86-2, prior to the Board's 1986 ruling
  • textReferences content: Because of the size of the organization and the large number of projects being designed at any one time, the engineer found it impossible to give a detailed review or check of the design.
  • eventType content: exogenous
  • temporalExtent content: interval
  • temporalSequence content: 2
  • confidence assessment: 0.8
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/120#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#",
    "time": "http://www.w3.org/2006/time#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/120#Event_Detailed_Review_Infeasibility",
  "@type": "proeth:Event",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-12T23:05:40.358872+00:00",
  "proeth:confidence": "0.8",
  "proeth:description": "In BER Case 86-2, because of the size of the organization and the large number of projects being designed at any one time, the chief engineer found it impossible to give a detailed review or check of the designs he sealed.",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "discussion",
  "proeth:eventType": "exogenous",
  "proeth:initiates": [
    "Review Capacity Exceeded"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalExtent": "interval",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "During the events of BER Case 86-2, prior to the Board\u0027s 1986 ruling",
  "proeth:temporalSequence": 2,
  "proeth:textReferences": [
    "Because of the size of the organization and the large number of projects being designed at any one time, the engineer found it impossible to give a detailed review or check of the design."
  ],
  "rdfs:label": "Detailed Review Infeasibility"
}

Description: The Board's opinion in BER Case 86-2 provoked considerable discussion within the engineering community because it appeared inconsistent with customary and generally prevailing practices and would place many practitioners in conflict with the Code.

Temporal Marker: Following the rendering of the Board's opinion in BER Case 86-2 (1986) interval

Fluent Transitions:
Initiates (2)
  • Perceived Code-Practice Inconsistency
  • Pressure to Revisit Precedent

Caused By Action: Action_Literal_Code_Interpretation_Ruling

Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • causedByAction: http://proethica.org/ontology/case/120#Action_Literal_Code_Interpretation_Ruling
  • initiates: Perceived Code-Practice Inconsistency; Pressure to Revisit Precedent
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • description content: The Board's opinion in BER Case 86-2 provoked considerable discussion within the engineering community because it appeared inconsistent with customary and generally prevailing practices and would place many practitioners in conflict with the Code.
  • temporalMarker content: Following the rendering of the Board's opinion in BER Case 86-2 (1986)
  • textReferences content: 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 and would therefore place a significant number of practitioners in conflict with the provisions of the Code.
  • eventType content: outcome
  • temporalExtent content: interval
  • temporalSequence content: 4
  • confidence assessment: 0.92
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/120#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#",
    "time": "http://www.w3.org/2006/time#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/120#Event_Community_Controversy",
  "@type": "proeth:Event",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-12T23:05:40.358832+00:00",
  "proeth:causedByAction": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/120#Action_Literal_Code_Interpretation_Ruling",
  "proeth:confidence": "0.92",
  "proeth:description": "The Board\u0027s opinion in BER Case 86-2 provoked considerable discussion within the engineering community because it appeared inconsistent with customary and generally prevailing practices and would place many practitioners in conflict with the Code.",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "discussion",
  "proeth:eventType": "outcome",
  "proeth:initiates": [
    "Perceived Code-Practice Inconsistency",
    "Pressure to Revisit Precedent"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalExtent": "interval",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "Following the rendering of the Board\u0027s opinion in BER Case 86-2 (1986)",
  "proeth:temporalSequence": 4,
  "proeth:textReferences": [
    "The rendering of the Board\u0027s 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 and would therefore place a significant number of practitioners in conflict with the provisions of the Code."
  ],
  "rdfs:label": "Community Controversy"
}
Causal Chains (7)
NESS test analysis: Necessary Element of Sufficient Set

Causal Language: In recent years, the engineering profession has been "revolutionized" by exponential growth in new and innovative computer technological breakthroughs. None have been more dynamic than the evolution that transformed yesterday's manual design techniques to Computer Aided Design (CAD), thence to Computer Assisted Drafting and Design (CADD) and soon Artificial Intelligence (AE).

Necessary Factors (NESS):
  • Availability of CADD systems in engineering practice
  • Engineer A's decision to use CADD for document preparation
  • Engineer A's status as a registered professional engineer able to sign and seal
Sufficient Factors:
  • Combination of CADD availability + Engineer A's personal preparation of documents + professional obligation to sign and seal
Counterfactual Test: Without the technological evolution to CADD, Engineer A would have prepared and sealed documents using manual design techniques; the specific CADD-based sealing question would not arise
Responsibility Attribution:

Agent: Engineer A
Type: direct
Within Agent Control: Yes

Causal Sequence:
  1. Technological Evolution
    Exponential growth in computer technology transforms manual design into CAD and then CADD
  2. CADD Adoption by Engineer A
    Engineer A prepares design documents using a CADD system
  3. Sign and Seal Own Work
    Engineer A signs and seals the documents he personally prepared
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • cause: Technological Evolution
  • effect: Sign and Seal Own Work
  • responsibleAgent: Engineer A
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • causalLanguage content: In recent years, the engineering profession has been "revolutionized" by exponential growth in new and innovative computer technological breakthroughs. None have been more dynamic than the evolution that transformed yesterday's manual design techniques to Computer Aided Design (CAD), thence to Computer Assisted Drafting and Design (CADD) and soon Artificial Intelligence (AE).
  • necessaryFactors content: Availability of CADD systems in engineering practice; Engineer A's decision to use CADD for document preparation; Engineer A's status as a registered professional engineer able to sign and seal
  • sufficientFactors content: Combination of CADD availability + Engineer A's personal preparation of documents + professional obligation to sign and seal
  • counterfactual content: Without the technological evolution to CADD, Engineer A would have prepared and sealed documents using manual design techniques; the specific CADD-based sealing question would not arise
  • agentKnowledge content: Knew he personally prepared the documents using a CADD system and was competent in the subject matter
  • interveningFactors content: Industry-wide adoption of computerized design tools
  • causalSequence content: {'proeth:step': 1, 'proeth:element': 'Technological Evolution', 'proeth:description': 'Exponential growth in computer technology transforms manual design into CAD and then CADD'}; {'proeth:step': 2, 'proeth:element': 'CADD Adoption by Engineer A', 'proeth:description': 'Engineer A prepares design documents using a CADD system'}; {'proeth:step': 3, 'proeth:element': 'Sign and Seal Own Work', 'proeth:description': 'Engineer A signs and seals the documents he personally prepared'}
  • responsibilityType assessment: direct
  • withinAgentControl assessment: True
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/120#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/120#CausalChain_1",
  "@type": "proeth:CausalChain",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-12T23:05:40.359070+00:00",
  "proeth:agentKnowledge": "Knew he personally prepared the documents using a CADD system and was competent in the subject matter",
  "proeth:causalLanguage": "In recent years, the engineering profession has been \"revolutionized\" by exponential growth in new and innovative computer technological breakthroughs. None have been more dynamic than the evolution that transformed yesterday\u0027s manual design techniques to Computer Aided Design (CAD), thence to Computer Assisted Drafting and Design (CADD) and soon Artificial Intelligence (AE).",
  "proeth:causalSequence": [
    {
      "proeth:description": "Exponential growth in computer technology transforms manual design into CAD and then CADD",
      "proeth:element": "Technological Evolution",
      "proeth:step": 1
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer A prepares design documents using a CADD system",
      "proeth:element": "CADD Adoption by Engineer A",
      "proeth:step": 2
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer A signs and seals the documents he personally prepared",
      "proeth:element": "Sign and Seal Own Work",
      "proeth:step": 3
    }
  ],
  "proeth:cause": "Technological Evolution",
  "proeth:counterfactual": "Without the technological evolution to CADD, Engineer A would have prepared and sealed documents using manual design techniques; the specific CADD-based sealing question would not arise",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "discussion",
  "proeth:effect": "Sign and Seal Own Work",
  "proeth:interveningFactors": [
    "Industry-wide adoption of computerized design tools"
  ],
  "proeth:necessaryFactors": [
    "Availability of CADD systems in engineering practice",
    "Engineer A\u0027s decision to use CADD for document preparation",
    "Engineer A\u0027s status as a registered professional engineer able to sign and seal"
  ],
  "proeth:responsibilityType": "direct",
  "proeth:responsibleAgent": "Engineer A",
  "proeth:sufficientFactors": [
    "Combination of CADD availability + Engineer A\u0027s personal preparation of documents + professional obligation to sign and seal"
  ],
  "proeth:withinAgentControl": true
}

Causal Language: 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 .

Necessary Factors (NESS):
  • Availability of CADD systems used by subordinate staff
  • Others performing CADD work under Engineer B's direction and control
  • Engineer B's decision to sign and seal the resulting documents
Sufficient Factors:
  • Combination of CADD-based production by others + Engineer B's supervisory role + sealing of the resulting documents
Counterfactual Test: Without CADD technology and delegated production, Engineer B would not have faced the question of sealing computer-produced work of others
Responsibility Attribution:

Agent: Engineer B
Type: direct
Within Agent Control: Yes

Causal Sequence:
  1. Technological Evolution
    CADD systems become standard tools in engineering document production
  2. Delegated CADD Production
    Others working under Engineer B's direction and control produce documents using CADD
  3. Sign and Seal Supervised Work
    Engineer B signs and seals the documents resulting from the supervised efforts
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • cause: Technological Evolution
  • effect: Sign and Seal Supervised Work
  • responsibleAgent: Engineer B
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • causalLanguage content: 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 .
  • necessaryFactors content: Availability of CADD systems used by subordinate staff; Others performing CADD work under Engineer B's direction and control; Engineer B's decision to sign and seal the resulting documents
  • sufficientFactors content: Combination of CADD-based production by others + Engineer B's supervisory role + sealing of the resulting documents
  • counterfactual content: Without CADD technology and delegated production, Engineer B would not have faced the question of sealing computer-produced work of others
  • agentKnowledge content: Knew the documents were produced by others under his direction and control using CADD
  • interveningFactors content: Subordinates' proficiency with the CADD system; Prevailing delegation practices in engineering firms
  • causalSequence content: {'proeth:step': 1, 'proeth:element': 'Technological Evolution', 'proeth:description': 'CADD systems become standard tools in engineering document production'}; {'proeth:step': 2, 'proeth:element': 'Delegated CADD Production', 'proeth:description': "Others working under Engineer B's direction and control produce documents using CADD"}; {'proeth:step': 3, 'proeth:element': 'Sign and Seal Supervised Work', 'proeth:description': 'Engineer B signs and seals the documents resulting from the supervised efforts'}
  • responsibilityType assessment: direct
  • withinAgentControl assessment: True
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/120#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/120#CausalChain_2",
  "@type": "proeth:CausalChain",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-12T23:05:40.359104+00:00",
  "proeth:agentKnowledge": "Knew the documents were produced by others under his direction and control using CADD",
  "proeth:causalLanguage": "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 .",
  "proeth:causalSequence": [
    {
      "proeth:description": "CADD systems become standard tools in engineering document production",
      "proeth:element": "Technological Evolution",
      "proeth:step": 1
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Others working under Engineer B\u0027s direction and control produce documents using CADD",
      "proeth:element": "Delegated CADD Production",
      "proeth:step": 2
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer B signs and seals the documents resulting from the supervised efforts",
      "proeth:element": "Sign and Seal Supervised Work",
      "proeth:step": 3
    }
  ],
  "proeth:cause": "Technological Evolution",
  "proeth:counterfactual": "Without CADD technology and delegated production, Engineer B would not have faced the question of sealing computer-produced work of others",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "discussion",
  "proeth:effect": "Sign and Seal Supervised Work",
  "proeth:interveningFactors": [
    "Subordinates\u0027 proficiency with the CADD system",
    "Prevailing delegation practices in engineering firms"
  ],
  "proeth:necessaryFactors": [
    "Availability of CADD systems used by subordinate staff",
    "Others performing CADD work under Engineer B\u0027s direction and control",
    "Engineer B\u0027s decision to sign and seal the resulting documents"
  ],
  "proeth:responsibilityType": "direct",
  "proeth:responsibleAgent": "Engineer B",
  "proeth:sufficientFactors": [
    "Combination of CADD-based production by others + Engineer B\u0027s supervisory role + sealing of the resulting documents"
  ],
  "proeth:withinAgentControl": true
}

Causal Language: Because of the size of the organization and the large number of projects being designed at any one time, the engineer found it impossible to give a detailed review or check of the design.

Necessary Factors (NESS):
  • Large organizational size and high project volume
  • Chief engineer's role requiring seals on many plans
  • Chief engineer's belief in the competence of his hires
Sufficient Factors:
  • Combination of workload exceeding personal review capacity + confidence in subordinates + decision to seal anyway
Counterfactual Test: Had detailed review been feasible (smaller workload or more review staff), the chief engineer could have checked plans before sealing and the ethical violation as originally framed would not have occurred
Responsibility Attribution:

Agent: Chief engineer in BER Case 86-2
Type: direct
Within Agent Control: Yes

Causal Sequence:
  1. Detailed Review Infeasibility
    Organizational size and project volume make detailed review impossible for the chief engineer
  2. Reliance on Subordinate Competence
    Chief engineer relies on confidence in registered and non-registered engineers under his general direction
  3. Seal Without Detailed Review
    Chief engineer affixes his seal to plans he did not prepare or check in detail
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • cause: Detailed Review Infeasibility
  • effect: Seal Without Detailed Review
  • responsibleAgent: Chief engineer in BER Case 86-2
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • causalLanguage content: Because of the size of the organization and the large number of projects being designed at any one time, the engineer found it impossible to give a detailed review or check of the design.
  • necessaryFactors content: Large organizational size and high project volume; Chief engineer's role requiring seals on many plans; Chief engineer's belief in the competence of his hires
  • sufficientFactors content: Combination of workload exceeding personal review capacity + confidence in subordinates + decision to seal anyway
  • counterfactual content: Had detailed review been feasible (smaller workload or more review staff), the chief engineer could have checked plans before sealing and the ethical violation as originally framed would not have occurred
  • agentKnowledge content: He believed that he was ethically and legally correct in not doing so because of his confidence in the ability of those he had hired
  • interveningFactors content: Size of the organization; Large number of concurrent projects
  • causalSequence content: {'proeth:step': 1, 'proeth:element': 'Detailed Review Infeasibility', 'proeth:description': 'Organizational size and project volume make detailed review impossible for the chief engineer'}; {'proeth:step': 2, 'proeth:element': 'Reliance on Subordinate Competence', 'proeth:description': 'Chief engineer relies on confidence in registered and non-registered engineers under his general direction'}; {'proeth:step': 3, 'proeth:element': 'Seal Without Detailed Review', 'proeth:description': 'Chief engineer affixes his seal to plans he did not prepare or check in detail'}
  • responsibilityType assessment: direct
  • withinAgentControl assessment: True
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/120#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/120#CausalChain_3",
  "@type": "proeth:CausalChain",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-12T23:05:40.359159+00:00",
  "proeth:agentKnowledge": "He believed that he was ethically and legally correct in not doing so because of his confidence in the ability of those he had hired",
  "proeth:causalLanguage": "Because of the size of the organization and the large number of projects being designed at any one time, the engineer found it impossible to give a detailed review or check of the design.",
  "proeth:causalSequence": [
    {
      "proeth:description": "Organizational size and project volume make detailed review impossible for the chief engineer",
      "proeth:element": "Detailed Review Infeasibility",
      "proeth:step": 1
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Chief engineer relies on confidence in registered and non-registered engineers under his general direction",
      "proeth:element": "Reliance on Subordinate Competence",
      "proeth:step": 2
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Chief engineer affixes his seal to plans he did not prepare or check in detail",
      "proeth:element": "Seal Without Detailed Review",
      "proeth:step": 3
    }
  ],
  "proeth:cause": "Detailed Review Infeasibility",
  "proeth:counterfactual": "Had detailed review been feasible (smaller workload or more review staff), the chief engineer could have checked plans before sealing and the ethical violation as originally framed would not have occurred",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "discussion",
  "proeth:effect": "Seal Without Detailed Review",
  "proeth:interveningFactors": [
    "Size of the organization",
    "Large number of concurrent projects"
  ],
  "proeth:necessaryFactors": [
    "Large organizational size and high project volume",
    "Chief engineer\u0027s role requiring seals on many plans",
    "Chief engineer\u0027s belief in the competence of his hires"
  ],
  "proeth:responsibilityType": "direct",
  "proeth:responsibleAgent": "Chief engineer in BER Case 86-2",
  "proeth:sufficientFactors": [
    "Combination of workload exceeding personal review capacity + confidence in subordinates + decision to seal anyway"
  ],
  "proeth:withinAgentControl": true
}

Causal Language: 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.

Necessary Factors (NESS):
  • Chief engineer's sealing of unreviewed plans presented as facts to the Board
  • Code language requiring plans be prepared under the engineer's direction and control
  • Board's decision to review the case
Sufficient Factors:
  • Combination of the sealing conduct + literal reading of the terms 'direction' and 'control'
Counterfactual Test: Without the chief engineer's conduct of sealing unreviewed plans, the Board would have had no occasion to render the literal interpretation in BER Case 86-2
Responsibility Attribution:

Agent: Board of Ethical Review (BER)
Type: direct
Within Agent Control: Yes

Causal Sequence:
  1. Seal Without Detailed Review
    Chief engineer seals plans he neither prepared nor checked in detail
  2. Case Referral to BER
    The conduct becomes the subject of BER Case 86-2 review
  3. Literal Code Interpretation Ruling
    Board reads Section II.2.b. quite literally and finds the sealing unethical
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • cause: Seal Without Detailed Review
  • effect: Literal Code Interpretation Ruling
  • responsibleAgent: Board of Ethical Review (BER)
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • causalLanguage content: 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.
  • necessaryFactors content: Chief engineer's sealing of unreviewed plans presented as facts to the Board; Code language requiring plans be prepared under the engineer's direction and control; Board's decision to review the case
  • sufficientFactors content: Combination of the sealing conduct + literal reading of the terms 'direction' and 'control'
  • counterfactual content: Without the chief engineer's conduct of sealing unreviewed plans, the Board would have had no occasion to render the literal interpretation in BER Case 86-2
  • agentKnowledge content: Board reviewed authoritative sources on the meaning of the terms 'direction' and 'control'
  • interveningFactors content: Ambiguity of the Code language in Section II.2.b.
  • causalSequence content: {'proeth:step': 1, 'proeth:element': 'Seal Without Detailed Review', 'proeth:description': 'Chief engineer seals plans he neither prepared nor checked in detail'}; {'proeth:step': 2, 'proeth:element': 'Case Referral to BER', 'proeth:description': 'The conduct becomes the subject of BER Case 86-2 review'}; {'proeth:step': 3, 'proeth:element': 'Literal Code Interpretation Ruling', 'proeth:description': 'Board reads Section II.2.b. quite literally and finds the sealing unethical'}
  • responsibilityType assessment: direct
  • withinAgentControl assessment: True
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/120#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/120#CausalChain_4",
  "@type": "proeth:CausalChain",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-12T23:05:40.359187+00:00",
  "proeth:agentKnowledge": "Board reviewed authoritative sources on the meaning of the terms \u0027direction\u0027 and \u0027control\u0027",
  "proeth:causalLanguage": "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.",
  "proeth:causalSequence": [
    {
      "proeth:description": "Chief engineer seals plans he neither prepared nor checked in detail",
      "proeth:element": "Seal Without Detailed Review",
      "proeth:step": 1
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "The conduct becomes the subject of BER Case 86-2 review",
      "proeth:element": "Case Referral to BER",
      "proeth:step": 2
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Board reads Section II.2.b. quite literally and finds the sealing unethical",
      "proeth:element": "Literal Code Interpretation Ruling",
      "proeth:step": 3
    }
  ],
  "proeth:cause": "Seal Without Detailed Review",
  "proeth:counterfactual": "Without the chief engineer\u0027s conduct of sealing unreviewed plans, the Board would have had no occasion to render the literal interpretation in BER Case 86-2",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "discussion",
  "proeth:effect": "Literal Code Interpretation Ruling",
  "proeth:interveningFactors": [
    "Ambiguity of the Code language in Section II.2.b."
  ],
  "proeth:necessaryFactors": [
    "Chief engineer\u0027s sealing of unreviewed plans presented as facts to the Board",
    "Code language requiring plans be prepared under the engineer\u0027s direction and control",
    "Board\u0027s decision to review the case"
  ],
  "proeth:responsibilityType": "direct",
  "proeth:responsibleAgent": "Board of Ethical Review (BER)",
  "proeth:sufficientFactors": [
    "Combination of the sealing conduct + literal reading of the terms \u0027direction\u0027 and \u0027control\u0027"
  ],
  "proeth:withinAgentControl": true
}

Causal Language: 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 and would therefore place a significant number of practitioners in conflict with the provisions of the Code.

Necessary Factors (NESS):
  • Board's literal ruling requiring engineers to perform all tasks personally
  • Widespread prevailing practice of delegation within engineering firms
  • Perceived conflict between the ruling and customary practice
Sufficient Factors:
  • Combination of a strict ruling + its inconsistency with generally prevailing practices affecting many practitioners
Counterfactual Test: Had the Board's ruling reflected customary practices from the outset, the considerable discussion within the engineering community would not have arisen
Responsibility Attribution:

Agent: Board of Ethical Review (BER)
Type: indirect
Within Agent Control: Yes

Causal Sequence:
  1. Literal Code Interpretation Ruling
    Board concludes an engineer must perform all preparation tasks to ethically affix his seal
  2. Practice Conflict Recognition
    Practitioners recognize the ruling conflicts with customary and prevailing delegation practices
  3. Community Controversy
    Considerable discussion arises within the engineering community about the ruling
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • cause: Literal Code Interpretation Ruling
  • effect: Community Controversy
  • responsibleAgent: Board of Ethical Review (BER)
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • causalLanguage content: 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 and would therefore place a significant number of practitioners in conflict with the provisions of the Code.
  • necessaryFactors content: Board's literal ruling requiring engineers to perform all tasks personally; Widespread prevailing practice of delegation within engineering firms; Perceived conflict between the ruling and customary practice
  • sufficientFactors content: Combination of a strict ruling + its inconsistency with generally prevailing practices affecting many practitioners
  • counterfactual content: Had the Board's ruling reflected customary practices from the outset, the considerable discussion within the engineering community would not have arisen
  • agentKnowledge content: The Board relied on authoritative sources for the terms 'direction' and 'control' but the standard proved inconsistent with prevailing practice
  • interveningFactors content: Customary and generally prevailing delegation practices within the engineering profession
  • causalSequence content: {'proeth:step': 1, 'proeth:element': 'Literal Code Interpretation Ruling', 'proeth:description': 'Board concludes an engineer must perform all preparation tasks to ethically affix his seal'}; {'proeth:step': 2, 'proeth:element': 'Practice Conflict Recognition', 'proeth:description': 'Practitioners recognize the ruling conflicts with customary and prevailing delegation practices'}; {'proeth:step': 3, 'proeth:element': 'Community Controversy', 'proeth:description': 'Considerable discussion arises within the engineering community about the ruling'}
  • responsibilityType assessment: indirect
  • withinAgentControl assessment: True
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/120#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/120#CausalChain_5",
  "@type": "proeth:CausalChain",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-12T23:05:40.359211+00:00",
  "proeth:agentKnowledge": "The Board relied on authoritative sources for the terms \u0027direction\u0027 and \u0027control\u0027 but the standard proved inconsistent with prevailing practice",
  "proeth:causalLanguage": "The rendering of the Board\u0027s 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 and would therefore place a significant number of practitioners in conflict with the provisions of the Code.",
  "proeth:causalSequence": [
    {
      "proeth:description": "Board concludes an engineer must perform all preparation tasks to ethically affix his seal",
      "proeth:element": "Literal Code Interpretation Ruling",
      "proeth:step": 1
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Practitioners recognize the ruling conflicts with customary and prevailing delegation practices",
      "proeth:element": "Practice Conflict Recognition",
      "proeth:step": 2
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Considerable discussion arises within the engineering community about the ruling",
      "proeth:element": "Community Controversy",
      "proeth:step": 3
    }
  ],
  "proeth:cause": "Literal Code Interpretation Ruling",
  "proeth:counterfactual": "Had the Board\u0027s ruling reflected customary practices from the outset, the considerable discussion within the engineering community would not have arisen",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "discussion",
  "proeth:effect": "Community Controversy",
  "proeth:interveningFactors": [
    "Customary and generally prevailing delegation practices within the engineering profession"
  ],
  "proeth:necessaryFactors": [
    "Board\u0027s literal ruling requiring engineers to perform all tasks personally",
    "Widespread prevailing practice of delegation within engineering firms",
    "Perceived conflict between the ruling and customary practice"
  ],
  "proeth:responsibilityType": "indirect",
  "proeth:responsibleAgent": "Board of Ethical Review (BER)",
  "proeth:sufficientFactors": [
    "Combination of a strict ruling + its inconsistency with generally prevailing practices affecting many practitioners"
  ],
  "proeth:withinAgentControl": true
}

Causal Language: 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.

Necessary Factors (NESS):
  • Considerable discussion in the engineering community over BER 86-2
  • Board's principle that the Code must reflect generally prevailing practices
  • A new case presenting the opportunity to revisit the precedent
Sufficient Factors:
  • Combination of community controversy + Board's stated principle that the Code must not impose an impossible or idealistic standard + the instant case as an occasion for revisiting
Counterfactual Test: Without the community controversy signaling that the ruling imposed an impossible standard, the Board would have had far less reason to modify its BER 86-2 conclusion
Responsibility Attribution:

Agent: Board of Ethical Review (BER)
Type: direct
Within Agent Control: Yes

Causal Sequence:
  1. Community Controversy
    Engineering community debates BER 86-2 as inconsistent with prevailing practice
  2. Recognition of Impossible Standard
    Board acknowledges the Code must not impose an impossible or idealistic standard upon engineers
  3. Precedent Clarification
    Board modifies BER 86-2: sealing plans not personally prepared is not unethical if checked and reviewed in some detail
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • cause: Community Controversy
  • effect: Precedent Clarification
  • responsibleAgent: Board of Ethical Review (BER)
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • causalLanguage content: 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.
  • necessaryFactors content: Considerable discussion in the engineering community over BER 86-2; Board's principle that the Code must reflect generally prevailing practices; A new case presenting the opportunity to revisit the precedent
  • sufficientFactors content: Combination of community controversy + Board's stated principle that the Code must not impose an impossible or idealistic standard + the instant case as an occasion for revisiting
  • counterfactual content: Without the community controversy signaling that the ruling imposed an impossible standard, the Board would have had far less reason to modify its BER 86-2 conclusion
  • agentKnowledge content: The Board knew the Code is not a static document and must be in consonance with generally prevailing practices
  • interveningFactors content: Passage of time and evolution of practice; Presentation of the current CADD case as an occasion to revisit
  • causalSequence content: {'proeth:step': 1, 'proeth:element': 'Community Controversy', 'proeth:description': 'Engineering community debates BER 86-2 as inconsistent with prevailing practice'}; {'proeth:step': 2, 'proeth:element': 'Recognition of Impossible Standard', 'proeth:description': 'Board acknowledges the Code must not impose an impossible or idealistic standard upon engineers'}; {'proeth:step': 3, 'proeth:element': 'Precedent Clarification', 'proeth:description': 'Board modifies BER 86-2: sealing plans not personally prepared is not unethical if checked and reviewed in some detail'}
  • responsibilityType assessment: direct
  • withinAgentControl assessment: True
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/120#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/120#CausalChain_6",
  "@type": "proeth:CausalChain",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-12T23:05:40.359232+00:00",
  "proeth:agentKnowledge": "The Board knew the Code is not a static document and must be in consonance with generally prevailing practices",
  "proeth:causalLanguage": "For that reason, we think the Board\u0027s 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.",
  "proeth:causalSequence": [
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineering community debates BER 86-2 as inconsistent with prevailing practice",
      "proeth:element": "Community Controversy",
      "proeth:step": 1
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Board acknowledges the Code must not impose an impossible or idealistic standard upon engineers",
      "proeth:element": "Recognition of Impossible Standard",
      "proeth:step": 2
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Board modifies BER 86-2: sealing plans not personally prepared is not unethical if checked and reviewed in some detail",
      "proeth:element": "Precedent Clarification",
      "proeth:step": 3
    }
  ],
  "proeth:cause": "Community Controversy",
  "proeth:counterfactual": "Without the community controversy signaling that the ruling imposed an impossible standard, the Board would have had far less reason to modify its BER 86-2 conclusion",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "discussion",
  "proeth:effect": "Precedent Clarification",
  "proeth:interveningFactors": [
    "Passage of time and evolution of practice",
    "Presentation of the current CADD case as an occasion to revisit"
  ],
  "proeth:necessaryFactors": [
    "Considerable discussion in the engineering community over BER 86-2",
    "Board\u0027s principle that the Code must reflect generally prevailing practices",
    "A new case presenting the opportunity to revisit the precedent"
  ],
  "proeth:responsibilityType": "direct",
  "proeth:responsibleAgent": "Board of Ethical Review (BER)",
  "proeth:sufficientFactors": [
    "Combination of community controversy + Board\u0027s stated principle that the Code must not impose an impossible or idealistic standard + the instant case as an occasion for revisiting"
  ],
  "proeth:withinAgentControl": true
}

Causal Language: Turning to the circumstances of the two instant questions, based upon our discussion clarifying BER Case 86-2 , we believe logic would dictate that in either case 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.

Necessary Factors (NESS):
  • Clarified standard from BER 86-2 (detailed check and review suffices)
  • Facts of Engineer A and Engineer B presented for review
  • Board's determination that the engineers possess sufficient competence and responsible charge
Sufficient Factors:
  • Combination of the clarified precedent + the instant facts involving CADD-prepared documents + logical application of the standard
Counterfactual Test: Without the clarification, applying the literal BER 86-2 standard could have rendered Engineer B's sealing of others' work unethical; the outcome for the instant case would likely differ
Responsibility Attribution:

Agent: Board of Ethical Review (BER)
Type: direct
Within Agent Control: Yes

Causal Sequence:
  1. Sign and Seal Supervised Work
    Engineer B seals documents produced by others under his direction and control using CADD
  2. Case Review by BER
    Board reviews the facts of Engineers A and B in light of prior precedent
  3. Precedent Clarification
    Board clarifies BER 86-2 to require checking and reviewing in some detail rather than personal preparation
  4. Standard Application Ruling
    Board concludes neither Engineer A nor Engineer B acted unethically, provided plans were checked and reviewed in some detail
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • cause: Precedent Clarification
  • effect: Standard Application Ruling
  • responsibleAgent: Board of Ethical Review (BER)
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • causalLanguage content: Turning to the circumstances of the two instant questions, based upon our discussion clarifying BER Case 86-2 , we believe logic would dictate that in either case 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.
  • necessaryFactors content: Clarified standard from BER 86-2 (detailed check and review suffices); Facts of Engineer A and Engineer B presented for review; Board's determination that the engineers possess sufficient competence and responsible charge
  • sufficientFactors content: Combination of the clarified precedent + the instant facts involving CADD-prepared documents + logical application of the standard
  • counterfactual content: Without the clarification, applying the literal BER 86-2 standard could have rendered Engineer B's sealing of others' work unethical; the outcome for the instant case would likely differ
  • agentKnowledge content: Board knew this was the first case involving computerized design and considered prior similar cases
  • interveningFactors content: Facts of Engineer A and Engineer B as presented; Code language requiring competence and direction and control
  • causalSequence content: {'proeth:step': 1, 'proeth:element': 'Sign and Seal Supervised Work', 'proeth:description': 'Engineer B seals documents produced by others under his direction and control using CADD'}; {'proeth:step': 2, 'proeth:element': 'Case Review by BER', 'proeth:description': 'Board reviews the facts of Engineers A and B in light of prior precedent'}; {'proeth:step': 3, 'proeth:element': 'Precedent Clarification', 'proeth:description': 'Board clarifies BER 86-2 to require checking and reviewing in some detail rather than personal preparation'}; {'proeth:step': 4, 'proeth:element': 'Standard Application Ruling', 'proeth:description': 'Board concludes neither Engineer A nor Engineer B acted unethically, provided plans were checked and reviewed in some detail'}
  • responsibilityType assessment: direct
  • withinAgentControl assessment: True
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/120#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/120#CausalChain_7",
  "@type": "proeth:CausalChain",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-12T23:05:40.359253+00:00",
  "proeth:agentKnowledge": "Board knew this was the first case involving computerized design and considered prior similar cases",
  "proeth:causalLanguage": "Turning to the circumstances of the two instant questions, based upon our discussion clarifying BER Case 86-2 , we believe logic would dictate that in either case 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.",
  "proeth:causalSequence": [
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer B seals documents produced by others under his direction and control using CADD",
      "proeth:element": "Sign and Seal Supervised Work",
      "proeth:step": 1
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Board reviews the facts of Engineers A and B in light of prior precedent",
      "proeth:element": "Case Review by BER",
      "proeth:step": 2
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Board clarifies BER 86-2 to require checking and reviewing in some detail rather than personal preparation",
      "proeth:element": "Precedent Clarification",
      "proeth:step": 3
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Board concludes neither Engineer A nor Engineer B acted unethically, provided plans were checked and reviewed in some detail",
      "proeth:element": "Standard Application Ruling",
      "proeth:step": 4
    }
  ],
  "proeth:cause": "Precedent Clarification",
  "proeth:counterfactual": "Without the clarification, applying the literal BER 86-2 standard could have rendered Engineer B\u0027s sealing of others\u0027 work unethical; the outcome for the instant case would likely differ",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "discussion",
  "proeth:effect": "Standard Application Ruling",
  "proeth:interveningFactors": [
    "Facts of Engineer A and Engineer B as presented",
    "Code language requiring competence and direction and control"
  ],
  "proeth:necessaryFactors": [
    "Clarified standard from BER 86-2 (detailed check and review suffices)",
    "Facts of Engineer A and Engineer B presented for review",
    "Board\u0027s determination that the engineers possess sufficient competence and responsible charge"
  ],
  "proeth:responsibilityType": "direct",
  "proeth:responsibleAgent": "Board of Ethical Review (BER)",
  "proeth:sufficientFactors": [
    "Combination of the clarified precedent + the instant facts involving CADD-prepared documents + logical application of the standard"
  ],
  "proeth:withinAgentControl": true
}
Allen Temporal Relations (8)
Interval algebra relationships with OWL-Time standard properties
From Entity Allen Relation To Entity OWL-Time Property Evidence
others preparing documents using CADD under Engineer B's direction before
Entity1 is before Entity2 		Engineer B signing and sealing documents time:intervalBefore
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#intervalBefore 		Engineer B ... signs and seals documents which are the results of the efforts of others using a CADD... [more]
engineer's detailed check and review of plans before
Entity1 is before Entity2 		engineer signing and sealing drawings time:intervalBefore
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#intervalBefore 		it would not be unethical for an engineer to sign and seal the drawings in question as long as those... [more]
others' work on CADD system during
Entity1 occurs entirely within the duration of Entity2 		Engineer B's direction and control time:intervalDuring
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#intervalDuring 		documents which are the results of the efforts of others using a CADD system working under Engineer ... [more]
Board's prior review of cases addressing similar issues before
Entity1 is before Entity2 		current review of computerized design case time:intervalBefore
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#intervalBefore 		This case is the first one in which this Board has had the opportunity to review facts involving the... [more]
manual design techniques era before
Entity1 is before Entity2 		Computer Aided Design (CAD) era time:intervalBefore
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#intervalBefore 		the evolution that transformed yesterday's manual design techniques to Computer Aided Design (CAD)
Computer Aided Design (CAD) era before
Entity1 is before Entity2 		Computer Assisted Drafting and Design (CADD) era time:intervalBefore
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#intervalBefore 		transformed yesterday's manual design techniques to Computer Aided Design (CAD), thence to Computer ... [more]
Computer Assisted Drafting and Design (CADD) era before
Entity1 is before Entity2 		Artificial Intelligence era time:intervalBefore
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#intervalBefore 		thence to Computer Assisted Drafting and Design (CADD) and soon Artificial Intelligence (AE)
Engineer A preparing documents using CADD before
Entity1 is before Entity2 		Engineer A signing and sealing documents time:intervalBefore
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#intervalBefore 		Engineer A, a registered professional engineer signs and seals documents he prepared using a CADD sy... [more]
About Allen Relations & OWL-Time

Allen's Interval Algebra provides 13 basic temporal relations between intervals. These relations are mapped to OWL-Time standard properties for interoperability with Semantic Web temporal reasoning systems and SPARQL queries.

Each relation includes both a ProEthica custom property and a time:* OWL-Time property for maximum compatibility.

Back to Extraction Continue to Step 4

© Licensed under the GNU GPL v3