This page shows the pre-commit working store (the raw extraction under review). This case was committed to OntServe on 2026-07-25 15:29; 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 127: Employment—Questioning Ability Of Former Employer

23 entities 4 actions 2 events 8 causal chains 8 temporal relations
Timeline Overview
Action Event 13 sequenced markers
Firm Departure Beginning of the case timeline, one month before the recruitment of Engineer C
Precedent Case No. 77-11, after leaving the employ of the firm
Precedent Case No. 79-10, while the employing firm was winding down its operations
Precedent Case 79-10 timeline
Precedent Case No. 86-5, after the city approached them
Soon after the proposal was submitted to the city (precedent Case 86-5)
After the city learned who developed the proposal (precedent Case 86-5)
Precedent Case 97-2 timeline
Non-Competition Representation At the time of Engineer A's departure from Firm X
Employment Offer Approximately one month after Engineer A's departure from Firm X
Client Solicitation Soon after the employment offer to Engineer C
Employment Offer Discovery A month after Engineer A departs from Firm X
Client Solicitation Discovery Soon after learning of the employment offer
OWL-Time Temporal Structure 8 relations time: = w3.org/2006/time
Engineer A's client solicitation time:intervalBefore Engineer C's departure from Firm X
Engineer A's non-compete representation time:intervalBefore Engineer A's client solicitation on behalf of Firm Y
Engineer A's employment at Firm X time:intervalBefore operation of Firm Y
Engineer A's representation that he would start a one-person firm and not compete with Firm X time:intervalMeets Engineer A's departure from Firm X
Engineer A's departure from Firm X time:intervalBefore Engineer B learning of the job offer to Engineer C
Engineer A's offer of a position to Engineer C time:intervalBefore Engineer B learning of that offer
Engineer B learning of the job offer to Engineer C time:intervalBefore Engineer B learning of Engineer A's client solicitation
Prior BER cases (77-11, 79-10, 86-5, 97-2) time:intervalBefore Board's review of the present case
Extracted Actions (4)
Volitional professional decisions with intentions and ethical context

Description: At the time of his departure from Firm X, Engineer A represented that he would start a one-person consulting firm, Firm Y, and would not be in a position of competing with Firm X.

Temporal Marker: At the time of Engineer A's departure from Firm X instant

Fluent Transitions:
Initiates (1)
  • Non-Competition Assurance in Effect

Mental State: deliberate

Intended Outcome: Provide Firm X an assurance about his post-departure business plans and secure amicable departure treatment

Foreseen Unintended Effects:

  • Firm X would rely on the assurance in the manner it treated Engineer A during his departure
Guided By Principles:
  • Truthfulness and Honesty
Required Capabilities:
Professional communication
Within Competence: Yes
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • guidedByPrinciple: Truthfulness and Honesty
  • requiresCapability: Professional communication
  • initiates: Non-Competition Assurance in Effect
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • description content: At the time of his departure from Firm X, Engineer A represented that he would start a one-person consulting firm, Firm Y, and would not be in a position of competing with Firm X.
  • hasAgent content: Engineer A
  • temporalMarker content: At the time of Engineer A's departure from Firm X
  • eventRoleContext content: departing employed engineer, Firm X
  • hasMentalState content: deliberate
  • intendedOutcome content: Provide Firm X an assurance about his post-departure business plans and secure amicable departure treatment
  • foreseenUnintendedEffects content: Firm X would rely on the assurance in the manner it treated Engineer A during his departure
  • textReferences content: Engineer A had represented that he was going to start his own one-person consulting firm, Firm Y, and that he would not be in the position of competing with Firm X.; one must assume that Engineer A intended the statement to be a truthful and honest statement of fact
  • temporalExtent content: instant
  • temporalSequence content: 1
  • withinCompetence assessment: True
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/127#",
    "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/127#Action_Non-Competition_Representation",
  "@type": "proeth:Action",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-13T14:38:50.170621+00:00",
  "proeth:description": "At the time of his departure from Firm X, Engineer A represented that he would start a one-person consulting firm, Firm Y, and would not be in a position of competing with Firm X.",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "facts",
  "proeth:eventRoleContext": "departing employed engineer, Firm X",
  "proeth:foreseenUnintendedEffects": [
    "Firm X would rely on the assurance in the manner it treated Engineer A during his departure"
  ],
  "proeth:guidedByPrinciple": [
    "Truthfulness and Honesty"
  ],
  "proeth:hasAgent": "Engineer A",
  "proeth:hasMentalState": "deliberate",
  "proeth:initiates": [
    "Non-Competition Assurance in Effect"
  ],
  "proeth:intendedOutcome": "Provide Firm X an assurance about his post-departure business plans and secure amicable departure treatment",
  "proeth:requiresCapability": [
    "Professional communication"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalExtent": "instant",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "At the time of Engineer A\u0027s departure from Firm X",
  "proeth:temporalSequence": 1,
  "proeth:textReferences": [
    "Engineer A had represented that he was going to start his own one-person consulting firm, Firm Y, and that he would not be in the position of competing with Firm X.",
    "one must assume that Engineer A intended the statement to be a truthful and honest statement of fact"
  ],
  "proeth:withinCompetence": true,
  "rdfs:label": "Non-Competition Representation"
}

Description: Engineer A left the employment of Firm X and established his own consulting firm, Firm Y.

Temporal Marker: Beginning of the case timeline, one month before the recruitment of Engineer C instant

Fluent Transitions:
Initiates (1)
  • Firm Y in Operation
Terminates (1)
  • Engineer A Employed by Firm X

Mental State: deliberate

Intended Outcome: Establish an independent one-person engineering consulting business

Foreseen Unintended Effects:

  • Disruption and cost to the former employer's operations
Guided By Principles:
  • Individual Initiative and Ambition
Required Capabilities:
Independent engineering practice Business establishment
Within Competence: Yes
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • guidedByPrinciple: Individual Initiative and Ambition
  • requiresCapability: Independent engineering practice; Business establishment
  • initiates: Firm Y in Operation
  • terminates: Engineer A Employed by Firm X
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • description content: Engineer A left the employment of Firm X and established his own consulting firm, Firm Y.
  • hasAgent content: Engineer A
  • temporalMarker content: Beginning of the case timeline, one month before the recruitment of Engineer C
  • eventRoleContext content: professional engineer, formerly of Firm X
  • hasMentalState content: deliberate
  • intendedOutcome content: Establish an independent one-person engineering consulting business
  • foreseenUnintendedEffects content: Disruption and cost to the former employer's operations
  • textReferences content: Engineer A, a professional engineer working for a small private practice firm, leaves the employment of Firm X.; the basic right of an individual engineer to demonstrate individual initiative and ambition in establishing an independent engineering business entity
  • temporalExtent content: instant
  • temporalSequence content: 2
  • withinCompetence assessment: True
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/127#",
    "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/127#Action_Firm_Departure",
  "@type": "proeth:Action",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-13T14:38:50.171191+00:00",
  "proeth:description": "Engineer A left the employment of Firm X and established his own consulting firm, Firm Y.",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "facts",
  "proeth:eventRoleContext": "professional engineer, formerly of Firm X",
  "proeth:foreseenUnintendedEffects": [
    "Disruption and cost to the former employer\u0027s operations"
  ],
  "proeth:guidedByPrinciple": [
    "Individual Initiative and Ambition"
  ],
  "proeth:hasAgent": "Engineer A",
  "proeth:hasMentalState": "deliberate",
  "proeth:initiates": [
    "Firm Y in Operation"
  ],
  "proeth:intendedOutcome": "Establish an independent one-person engineering consulting business",
  "proeth:requiresCapability": [
    "Independent engineering practice",
    "Business establishment"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalExtent": "instant",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "Beginning of the case timeline, one month before the recruitment of Engineer C",
  "proeth:temporalSequence": 2,
  "proeth:terminates": [
    "Engineer A Employed by Firm X"
  ],
  "proeth:textReferences": [
    "Engineer A, a professional engineer working for a small private practice firm, leaves the employment of Firm X.",
    "the basic right of an individual engineer to demonstrate individual initiative and ambition in establishing an independent engineering business entity"
  ],
  "proeth:withinCompetence": true,
  "rdfs:label": "Firm Departure"
}

Description: Engineer A contacted Engineer C, a current employee of Firm X, and offered her a position with Firm Y. The Board found this action was not in and of itself unethical.

Temporal Marker: Approximately one month after Engineer A's departure from Firm X instant

Fluent Transitions:
Initiates (1)
  • Employment Offer Pending to Engineer C

Mental State: deliberate

Intended Outcome: Recruit Engineer C to staff Firm Y

Foreseen Unintended Effects:

  • Loss of an employee for Firm X
  • Disruption to Firm X's project performance
Guided By Principles:
  • Freedom of Employment Mobility
Required Capabilities:
Recruitment and hiring judgment
Within Competence: Yes
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • guidedByPrinciple: Freedom of Employment Mobility
  • requiresCapability: Recruitment and hiring judgment
  • initiates: Employment Offer Pending to Engineer C
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • description content: Engineer A contacted Engineer C, a current employee of Firm X, and offered her a position with Firm Y. The Board found this action was not in and of itself unethical.
  • hasAgent content: Engineer A
  • temporalMarker content: Approximately one month after Engineer A's departure from Firm X
  • eventRoleContext content: principal, Firm Y
  • hasMentalState content: deliberate
  • intendedOutcome content: Recruit Engineer C to staff Firm Y
  • foreseenUnintendedEffects content: Loss of an employee for Firm X; Disruption to Firm X's project performance
  • textReferences content: Engineer A has contacted one of Firm X’s employees, Engineer C, and offered her a position with Firm Y; the Board believes that Engineer A’s actions in offering a position to Engineer C was not in and of itself unethical; most engineers understand that in the absence of a written agreement or other restriction, an employed engineer has the freedom to move from one engineering position to another
  • 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/127#",
    "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/127#Action_Employment_Offer",
  "@type": "proeth:Action",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-13T14:38:50.171273+00:00",
  "proeth:description": "Engineer A contacted Engineer C, a current employee of Firm X, and offered her a position with Firm Y. The Board found this action was not in and of itself unethical.",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "facts",
  "proeth:eventRoleContext": "principal, Firm Y",
  "proeth:foreseenUnintendedEffects": [
    "Loss of an employee for Firm X",
    "Disruption to Firm X\u0027s project performance"
  ],
  "proeth:guidedByPrinciple": [
    "Freedom of Employment Mobility"
  ],
  "proeth:hasAgent": "Engineer A",
  "proeth:hasMentalState": "deliberate",
  "proeth:initiates": [
    "Employment Offer Pending to Engineer C"
  ],
  "proeth:intendedOutcome": "Recruit Engineer C to staff Firm Y",
  "proeth:requiresCapability": [
    "Recruitment and hiring judgment"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalExtent": "instant",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "Approximately one month after Engineer A\u0027s departure from Firm X",
  "proeth:temporalSequence": 3,
  "proeth:textReferences": [
    "Engineer A has contacted one of Firm X\u2019s employees, Engineer C, and offered her a position with Firm Y",
    "the Board believes that Engineer A\u2019s actions in offering a position to Engineer C was not in and of itself unethical",
    "most engineers understand that in the absence of a written agreement or other restriction, an employed engineer has the freedom to move from one engineering position to another"
  ],
  "proeth:withinCompetence": true,
  "rdfs:label": "Employment Offer"
}

Description: Engineer A contacted Firm X's clients, represented that Firm X would be hard pressed to perform successfully on its projects because of Engineer C's pending departure, and urged the clients to hire Firm Y instead. The Board concluded this conduct fell below ethical standards.

Temporal Marker: Soon after the employment offer to Engineer C interval

Fluent Transitions:
Initiates (1)
  • Client Misrepresentation Regarding Firm X
Terminates (1)
  • Non-Competition Assurance in Effect

Mental State: deliberate

Intended Outcome: Obtain professional engagements for Firm Y by drawing clients away from Firm X

Foreseen Unintended Effects:

  • Injury to Firm X's professional reputation and business goodwill with its clients
  • Direct conflict with his earlier non-competition assurance
Obligation Engagement:
Violates (2)
  • Prohibition on Untruthful Criticism of Other Engineers
  • Prohibition on Malicious or False Injury to Professional Reputation
Required Capabilities:
Client communication Business development
Within Competence: Yes
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • violatesObligation: Prohibition on Untruthful Criticism of Other Engineers; Prohibition on Malicious or False Injury to Professional Reputation
  • requiresCapability: Client communication; Business development
  • initiates: Client Misrepresentation Regarding Firm X
  • terminates: Non-Competition Assurance in Effect
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • description content: Engineer A contacted Firm X's clients, represented that Firm X would be hard pressed to perform successfully on its projects because of Engineer C's pending departure, and urged the clients to hire Firm Y instead. The Board concluded this conduct fell below ethical standards.
  • hasAgent content: Engineer A
  • temporalMarker content: Soon after the employment offer to Engineer C
  • eventRoleContext content: principal, Firm Y
  • hasMentalState content: deliberate
  • intendedOutcome content: Obtain professional engagements for Firm Y by drawing clients away from Firm X
  • foreseenUnintendedEffects content: Injury to Firm X's professional reputation and business goodwill with its clients; Direct conflict with his earlier non-competition assurance
  • textReferences content: Engineer A has contacted Firm X’s clients and is making representations that because Engineer C is going to be leaving Firm X to work for Firm Y, Firm X will be “hard pressed” to perform successfully on its projects and that Firm X’s clients should hire Firm Y to perform engineering services; engineers shall not attempt to obtain employment or advancement or professional engagements by untruthfully criticizing other engineers; the Board must conclude that Engineer A’s actions fell below the standards of appropriate ethical conduct
  • temporalExtent content: interval
  • temporalSequence content: 5
  • withinCompetence assessment: True
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/127#",
    "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/127#Action_Client_Solicitation",
  "@type": "proeth:Action",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-13T14:38:50.171308+00:00",
  "proeth:description": "Engineer A contacted Firm X\u0027s clients, represented that Firm X would be hard pressed to perform successfully on its projects because of Engineer C\u0027s pending departure, and urged the clients to hire Firm Y instead. The Board concluded this conduct fell below ethical standards.",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "facts",
  "proeth:eventRoleContext": "principal, Firm Y",
  "proeth:foreseenUnintendedEffects": [
    "Injury to Firm X\u0027s professional reputation and business goodwill with its clients",
    "Direct conflict with his earlier non-competition assurance"
  ],
  "proeth:fulfillsObligation": [],
  "proeth:hasAgent": "Engineer A",
  "proeth:hasMentalState": "deliberate",
  "proeth:initiates": [
    "Client Misrepresentation Regarding Firm X"
  ],
  "proeth:intendedOutcome": "Obtain professional engagements for Firm Y by drawing clients away from Firm X",
  "proeth:raisesObligation": [],
  "proeth:requiresCapability": [
    "Client communication",
    "Business development"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalExtent": "interval",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "Soon after the employment offer to Engineer C",
  "proeth:temporalSequence": 5,
  "proeth:terminates": [
    "Non-Competition Assurance in Effect"
  ],
  "proeth:textReferences": [
    "Engineer A has contacted Firm X\u2019s clients and is making representations that because Engineer C is going to be leaving Firm X to work for Firm Y, Firm X will be \u201chard pressed\u201d to perform successfully on its projects and that Firm X\u2019s clients should hire Firm Y to perform engineering services",
    "engineers shall not attempt to obtain employment or advancement or professional engagements by untruthfully criticizing other engineers",
    "the Board must conclude that Engineer A\u2019s actions fell below the standards of appropriate ethical conduct"
  ],
  "proeth:violatesObligation": [
    "Prohibition on Untruthful Criticism of Other Engineers",
    "Prohibition on Malicious or False Injury to Professional Reputation"
  ],
  "proeth:withinCompetence": true,
  "rdfs:label": "Client Solicitation"
}
Extracted Events (2)
Occurrences that trigger ethical considerations and state changes

Description: Engineer B, a principal in Firm X, learns that Engineer A has contacted Firm X employee Engineer C and offered her a position with Firm Y.

Temporal Marker: A month after Engineer A departs from Firm X instant

Fluent Transitions:
Initiates (2)
  • Firm X Aware of Recruitment
  • Engineer C Pending Departure Known

Caused By Action: Action_Employment_Offer

Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • causedByAction: http://proethica.org/ontology/case/127#Action_Employment_Offer
  • initiates: Firm X Aware of Recruitment; Engineer C Pending Departure Known
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • description content: Engineer B, a principal in Firm X, learns that Engineer A has contacted Firm X employee Engineer C and offered her a position with Firm Y.
  • temporalMarker content: A month after Engineer A departs from Firm X
  • textReferences content: A month after Engineer A departs from Firm X, Engineer B, a principal in Firm X learns that Engineer A has contacted one of Firm X’s employees, Engineer C, and offered her a position with Firm Y.
  • eventType content: outcome
  • temporalExtent content: instant
  • temporalSequence content: 4
  • confidence assessment: 0.95
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/127#",
    "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/127#Event_Employment_Offer_Discovery",
  "@type": "proeth:Event",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-13T14:38:50.171401+00:00",
  "proeth:causedByAction": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/127#Action_Employment_Offer",
  "proeth:confidence": "0.95",
  "proeth:description": "Engineer B, a principal in Firm X, learns that Engineer A has contacted Firm X employee Engineer C and offered her a position with Firm Y.",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "facts",
  "proeth:eventType": "outcome",
  "proeth:initiates": [
    "Firm X Aware of Recruitment",
    "Engineer C Pending Departure Known"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalExtent": "instant",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "A month after Engineer A departs from Firm X",
  "proeth:temporalSequence": 4,
  "proeth:textReferences": [
    "A month after Engineer A departs from Firm X, Engineer B, a principal in Firm X learns that Engineer A has contacted one of Firm X\u2019s employees, Engineer C, and offered her a position with Firm Y."
  ],
  "rdfs:label": "Employment Offer Discovery"
}

Description: Engineer B learns that Engineer A has been contacting Firm X's clients, claiming Firm X will be hard pressed to perform because of Engineer C's departure and urging the clients to hire Firm Y.

Temporal Marker: Soon after learning of the employment offer instant

Fluent Transitions:
Initiates (2)
  • Firm X Aware of Client Solicitation
  • Non-Competition Representation Contradicted

Caused By Action: Action_Client_Solicitation

Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • causedByAction: http://proethica.org/ontology/case/127#Action_Client_Solicitation
  • initiates: Firm X Aware of Client Solicitation; Non-Competition Representation Contradicted
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • description content: Engineer B learns that Engineer A has been contacting Firm X's clients, claiming Firm X will be hard pressed to perform because of Engineer C's departure and urging the clients to hire Firm Y.
  • temporalMarker content: Soon after learning of the employment offer
  • textReferences content: Soon thereafter, Engineer B learns that Engineer A has contacted Firm X’s clients and is making representations that because Engineer C is going to be leaving Firm X to work for Firm Y, Firm X will be “hard pressed” to perform successfully on its projects and that Firm X’s clients should hire Firm Y to perform engineering services.
  • eventType content: outcome
  • temporalExtent content: instant
  • temporalSequence content: 6
  • confidence assessment: 0.95
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/127#",
    "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/127#Event_Client_Solicitation_Discovery",
  "@type": "proeth:Event",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-13T14:38:50.171440+00:00",
  "proeth:causedByAction": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/127#Action_Client_Solicitation",
  "proeth:confidence": "0.95",
  "proeth:description": "Engineer B learns that Engineer A has been contacting Firm X\u0027s clients, claiming Firm X will be hard pressed to perform because of Engineer C\u0027s departure and urging the clients to hire Firm Y.",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "facts",
  "proeth:eventType": "outcome",
  "proeth:initiates": [
    "Firm X Aware of Client Solicitation",
    "Non-Competition Representation Contradicted"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalExtent": "instant",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "Soon after learning of the employment offer",
  "proeth:temporalSequence": 6,
  "proeth:textReferences": [
    "Soon thereafter, Engineer B learns that Engineer A has contacted Firm X\u2019s clients and is making representations that because Engineer C is going to be leaving Firm X to work for Firm Y, Firm X will be \u201chard pressed\u201d to perform successfully on its projects and that Firm X\u2019s clients should hire Firm Y to perform engineering services."
  ],
  "rdfs:label": "Client Solicitation Discovery"
}
Causal Chains (8)
NESS test analysis: Necessary Element of Sufficient Set

Causal Language: Engineer A’s statement clearly could have a significant impact on the manner in which Firm X treated Engineer A during Engineer A’s departure from Firm X.

Necessary Factors (NESS):
  • Engineer A's stated intention to start a one-person consulting firm
  • Engineer A's assurance that he would not compete with Firm X
  • Firm X's reliance on the truthfulness of the representation
Sufficient Factors:
  • The representation of non-competition combined with Firm X's acceptance of it was enough to secure an unimpeded, amicable departure
Counterfactual Test: Without the non-competition representation, Firm X may have treated Engineer A's departure differently, potentially imposing restrictions or handling the transition more guardedly
Responsibility Attribution:

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

Causal Sequence:
  1. Non-Competition Representation
    Engineer A represents he will start a one-person firm and not compete with Firm X
  2. Firm X Reliance
    Firm X accepts the representation as a truthful and honest statement of fact
  3. Firm Departure
    Engineer A departs Firm X and establishes Firm Y without restriction or conflict
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • cause: Non-Competition Representation
  • effect: Firm Departure
  • responsibleAgent: Engineer A
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • causalLanguage content: Engineer A’s statement clearly could have a significant impact on the manner in which Firm X treated Engineer A during Engineer A’s departure from Firm X.
  • necessaryFactors content: Engineer A's stated intention to start a one-person consulting firm; Engineer A's assurance that he would not compete with Firm X; Firm X's reliance on the truthfulness of the representation
  • sufficientFactors content: The representation of non-competition combined with Firm X's acceptance of it was enough to secure an unimpeded, amicable departure
  • counterfactual content: Without the non-competition representation, Firm X may have treated Engineer A's departure differently, potentially imposing restrictions or handling the transition more guardedly
  • agentKnowledge content: Engineer A knew his statement would shape how Firm X treated him during his departure; he was not ethically obligated to make it, but it was assumed to be truthful
  • interveningFactors content: Absence of any written non-compete agreement; Firm X's trust in the representation
  • causalSequence content: {'proeth:step': 1, 'proeth:element': 'Non-Competition Representation', 'proeth:description': 'Engineer A represents he will start a one-person firm and not compete with Firm X'}; {'proeth:step': 2, 'proeth:element': 'Firm X Reliance', 'proeth:description': 'Firm X accepts the representation as a truthful and honest statement of fact'}; {'proeth:step': 3, 'proeth:element': 'Firm Departure', 'proeth:description': 'Engineer A departs Firm X and establishes Firm Y without restriction or conflict'}
  • responsibilityType assessment: direct
  • withinAgentControl assessment: True
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/127#",
    "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/127#CausalChain_1",
  "@type": "proeth:CausalChain",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-13T14:38:50.171503+00:00",
  "proeth:agentKnowledge": "Engineer A knew his statement would shape how Firm X treated him during his departure; he was not ethically obligated to make it, but it was assumed to be truthful",
  "proeth:causalLanguage": "Engineer A\u2019s statement clearly could have a significant impact on the manner in which Firm X treated Engineer A during Engineer A\u2019s departure from Firm X.",
  "proeth:causalSequence": [
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer A represents he will start a one-person firm and not compete with Firm X",
      "proeth:element": "Non-Competition Representation",
      "proeth:step": 1
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Firm X accepts the representation as a truthful and honest statement of fact",
      "proeth:element": "Firm X Reliance",
      "proeth:step": 2
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer A departs Firm X and establishes Firm Y without restriction or conflict",
      "proeth:element": "Firm Departure",
      "proeth:step": 3
    }
  ],
  "proeth:cause": "Non-Competition Representation",
  "proeth:counterfactual": "Without the non-competition representation, Firm X may have treated Engineer A\u0027s departure differently, potentially imposing restrictions or handling the transition more guardedly",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "discussion",
  "proeth:effect": "Firm Departure",
  "proeth:interveningFactors": [
    "Absence of any written non-compete agreement",
    "Firm X\u0027s trust in the representation"
  ],
  "proeth:necessaryFactors": [
    "Engineer A\u0027s stated intention to start a one-person consulting firm",
    "Engineer A\u0027s assurance that he would not compete with Firm X",
    "Firm X\u0027s reliance on the truthfulness of the representation"
  ],
  "proeth:responsibilityType": "direct",
  "proeth:responsibleAgent": "Engineer A",
  "proeth:sufficientFactors": [
    "The representation of non-competition combined with Firm X\u0027s acceptance of it was enough to secure an unimpeded, amicable departure"
  ],
  "proeth:withinAgentControl": true
}

Causal Language: A month after Engineer A departs from Firm X, Engineer B, a principal in Firm X learns that Engineer A has contacted one of Firm X’s employees, Engineer C, and offered her a position with Firm Y.

Necessary Factors (NESS):
  • Engineer A's departure from Firm X and formation of Firm Y
  • Firm Y's existence as a hiring entity
  • Engineer C's status as an at-will employee free to move positions
Sufficient Factors:
  • Formation of Firm Y combined with Engineer A's knowledge of and access to Engineer C was enough to enable the offer
Counterfactual Test: Without leaving Firm X and forming Firm Y, Engineer A would have had no independent firm and no position to offer Engineer C
Responsibility Attribution:

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

Causal Sequence:
  1. Firm Departure
    Engineer A leaves Firm X and establishes Firm Y
  2. Staffing Need
    Firm Y, a new one-person firm, requires personnel to compete for engineering work
  3. Employment Offer
    Engineer A contacts Engineer C and offers her a position with Firm Y
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • cause: Firm Departure
  • effect: Employment Offer
  • responsibleAgent: Engineer A
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • causalLanguage content: A month after Engineer A departs from Firm X, Engineer B, a principal in Firm X learns that Engineer A has contacted one of Firm X’s employees, Engineer C, and offered her a position with Firm Y.
  • necessaryFactors content: Engineer A's departure from Firm X and formation of Firm Y; Firm Y's existence as a hiring entity; Engineer C's status as an at-will employee free to move positions
  • sufficientFactors content: Formation of Firm Y combined with Engineer A's knowledge of and access to Engineer C was enough to enable the offer
  • counterfactual content: Without leaving Firm X and forming Firm Y, Engineer A would have had no independent firm and no position to offer Engineer C
  • agentKnowledge content: Engineer A knew Engineer C was a current Firm X employee and knew of his own prior assurance not to compete with Firm X
  • interveningFactors content: Absence of a written agreement restricting Engineer C's mobility; Common marketplace practice of employment offers
  • causalSequence content: {'proeth:step': 1, 'proeth:element': 'Firm Departure', 'proeth:description': 'Engineer A leaves Firm X and establishes Firm Y'}; {'proeth:step': 2, 'proeth:element': 'Staffing Need', 'proeth:description': 'Firm Y, a new one-person firm, requires personnel to compete for engineering work'}; {'proeth:step': 3, 'proeth:element': 'Employment Offer', 'proeth:description': 'Engineer A contacts Engineer C and offers her a position with Firm Y'}
  • responsibilityType assessment: direct
  • withinAgentControl assessment: True
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/127#",
    "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/127#CausalChain_2",
  "@type": "proeth:CausalChain",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-13T14:38:50.171535+00:00",
  "proeth:agentKnowledge": "Engineer A knew Engineer C was a current Firm X employee and knew of his own prior assurance not to compete with Firm X",
  "proeth:causalLanguage": "A month after Engineer A departs from Firm X, Engineer B, a principal in Firm X learns that Engineer A has contacted one of Firm X\u2019s employees, Engineer C, and offered her a position with Firm Y.",
  "proeth:causalSequence": [
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer A leaves Firm X and establishes Firm Y",
      "proeth:element": "Firm Departure",
      "proeth:step": 1
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Firm Y, a new one-person firm, requires personnel to compete for engineering work",
      "proeth:element": "Staffing Need",
      "proeth:step": 2
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer A contacts Engineer C and offers her a position with Firm Y",
      "proeth:element": "Employment Offer",
      "proeth:step": 3
    }
  ],
  "proeth:cause": "Firm Departure",
  "proeth:counterfactual": "Without leaving Firm X and forming Firm Y, Engineer A would have had no independent firm and no position to offer Engineer C",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "facts",
  "proeth:effect": "Employment Offer",
  "proeth:interveningFactors": [
    "Absence of a written agreement restricting Engineer C\u0027s mobility",
    "Common marketplace practice of employment offers"
  ],
  "proeth:necessaryFactors": [
    "Engineer A\u0027s departure from Firm X and formation of Firm Y",
    "Firm Y\u0027s existence as a hiring entity",
    "Engineer C\u0027s status as an at-will employee free to move positions"
  ],
  "proeth:responsibilityType": "direct",
  "proeth:responsibleAgent": "Engineer A",
  "proeth:sufficientFactors": [
    "Formation of Firm Y combined with Engineer A\u0027s knowledge of and access to Engineer C was enough to enable the offer"
  ],
  "proeth:withinAgentControl": true
}

Causal Language: A month after Engineer A departs from Firm X, Engineer B, a principal in Firm X learns that Engineer A has contacted one of Firm X’s employees, Engineer C, and offered her a position with Firm Y.

Necessary Factors (NESS):
  • Engineer A's contact with Engineer C
  • The offer of a position at Firm Y
  • Information flow within the small firm environment reaching Engineer B
Sufficient Factors:
  • The offer to a current Firm X employee within a small private practice firm was enough to come to a principal's attention
Counterfactual Test: Had no offer been made to Engineer C, there would have been nothing for Engineer B to discover
Responsibility Attribution:

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

Causal Sequence:
  1. Employment Offer
    Engineer A contacts Engineer C and offers her a position with Firm Y
  2. Information Reaches Firm X
    News of the contact and offer circulates to Firm X leadership
  3. Employment Offer Discovery
    Engineer B, a principal in Firm X, learns of the offer to Engineer C
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • cause: Employment Offer
  • effect: Employment Offer Discovery
  • responsibleAgent: Engineer A
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • causalLanguage content: A month after Engineer A departs from Firm X, Engineer B, a principal in Firm X learns that Engineer A has contacted one of Firm X’s employees, Engineer C, and offered her a position with Firm Y.
  • necessaryFactors content: Engineer A's contact with Engineer C; The offer of a position at Firm Y; Information flow within the small firm environment reaching Engineer B
  • sufficientFactors content: The offer to a current Firm X employee within a small private practice firm was enough to come to a principal's attention
  • counterfactual content: Had no offer been made to Engineer C, there would have been nothing for Engineer B to discover
  • agentKnowledge content: Engineer A knew he was soliciting a current employee of his former employer
  • interveningFactors content: Small firm size making concealment unlikely; Engineer C's communications within Firm X
  • causalSequence content: {'proeth:step': 1, 'proeth:element': 'Employment Offer', 'proeth:description': 'Engineer A contacts Engineer C and offers her a position with Firm Y'}; {'proeth:step': 2, 'proeth:element': 'Information Reaches Firm X', 'proeth:description': 'News of the contact and offer circulates to Firm X leadership'}; {'proeth:step': 3, 'proeth:element': 'Employment Offer Discovery', 'proeth:description': 'Engineer B, a principal in Firm X, learns of the offer to Engineer C'}
  • responsibilityType assessment: direct
  • withinAgentControl assessment: True
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/127#",
    "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/127#CausalChain_3",
  "@type": "proeth:CausalChain",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-13T14:38:50.171557+00:00",
  "proeth:agentKnowledge": "Engineer A knew he was soliciting a current employee of his former employer",
  "proeth:causalLanguage": "A month after Engineer A departs from Firm X, Engineer B, a principal in Firm X learns that Engineer A has contacted one of Firm X\u2019s employees, Engineer C, and offered her a position with Firm Y.",
  "proeth:causalSequence": [
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer A contacts Engineer C and offers her a position with Firm Y",
      "proeth:element": "Employment Offer",
      "proeth:step": 1
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "News of the contact and offer circulates to Firm X leadership",
      "proeth:element": "Information Reaches Firm X",
      "proeth:step": 2
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer B, a principal in Firm X, learns of the offer to Engineer C",
      "proeth:element": "Employment Offer Discovery",
      "proeth:step": 3
    }
  ],
  "proeth:cause": "Employment Offer",
  "proeth:counterfactual": "Had no offer been made to Engineer C, there would have been nothing for Engineer B to discover",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "facts",
  "proeth:effect": "Employment Offer Discovery",
  "proeth:interveningFactors": [
    "Small firm size making concealment unlikely",
    "Engineer C\u0027s communications within Firm X"
  ],
  "proeth:necessaryFactors": [
    "Engineer A\u0027s contact with Engineer C",
    "The offer of a position at Firm Y",
    "Information flow within the small firm environment reaching Engineer B"
  ],
  "proeth:responsibilityType": "direct",
  "proeth:responsibleAgent": "Engineer A",
  "proeth:sufficientFactors": [
    "The offer to a current Firm X employee within a small private practice firm was enough to come to a principal\u0027s attention"
  ],
  "proeth:withinAgentControl": true
}

Causal Language: Engineer A has made at least one statement to the clients of Firm X stating or implying that Firm X might be incapable of fulfilling its professional obligations to them because of Engineer C’s pending departure.

Necessary Factors (NESS):
  • Engineer C's pending departure resulting from the offer
  • Engineer A's knowledge of Firm X's client base
  • Engineer A's motive to obtain professional engagements for Firm Y
Sufficient Factors:
  • Engineer C's anticipated departure combined with Engineer A's intent to capture Firm X's clients was enough to generate the 'hard pressed' representation
Counterfactual Test: Without the offer to Engineer C and her pending departure, Engineer A would have had no factual premise for claiming Firm X would be 'hard pressed' to perform
Responsibility Attribution:

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

Causal Sequence:
  1. Employment Offer
    Engineer A offers Engineer C a position with Firm Y
  2. Pending Departure of Engineer C
    Engineer C's anticipated move creates a claimed capacity gap at Firm X
  3. Client Solicitation
    Engineer A tells Firm X's clients that Firm X will be 'hard pressed' to perform and that they should hire Firm Y
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • cause: Employment Offer
  • effect: Client Solicitation
  • responsibleAgent: Engineer A
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • causalLanguage content: Engineer A has made at least one statement to the clients of Firm X stating or implying that Firm X might be incapable of fulfilling its professional obligations to them because of Engineer C’s pending departure.
  • necessaryFactors content: Engineer C's pending departure resulting from the offer; Engineer A's knowledge of Firm X's client base; Engineer A's motive to obtain professional engagements for Firm Y
  • sufficientFactors content: Engineer C's anticipated departure combined with Engineer A's intent to capture Firm X's clients was enough to generate the 'hard pressed' representation
  • counterfactual content: Without the offer to Engineer C and her pending departure, Engineer A would have had no factual premise for claiming Firm X would be 'hard pressed' to perform
  • agentKnowledge content: Engineer A knew he had previously assured Firm X he would not compete, and knew his solicitation criticized Firm X's capacity to perform
  • interveningFactors content: No client impetus, unlike BER Case No. 97-2, that would mitigate the actions
  • causalSequence content: {'proeth:step': 1, 'proeth:element': 'Employment Offer', 'proeth:description': 'Engineer A offers Engineer C a position with Firm Y'}; {'proeth:step': 2, 'proeth:element': 'Pending Departure of Engineer C', 'proeth:description': "Engineer C's anticipated move creates a claimed capacity gap at Firm X"}; {'proeth:step': 3, 'proeth:element': 'Client Solicitation', 'proeth:description': "Engineer A tells Firm X's clients that Firm X will be 'hard pressed' to perform and that they should hire Firm Y"}
  • responsibilityType assessment: direct
  • withinAgentControl assessment: True
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/127#",
    "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/127#CausalChain_4",
  "@type": "proeth:CausalChain",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-13T14:38:50.171577+00:00",
  "proeth:agentKnowledge": "Engineer A knew he had previously assured Firm X he would not compete, and knew his solicitation criticized Firm X\u0027s capacity to perform",
  "proeth:causalLanguage": "Engineer A has made at least one statement to the clients of Firm X stating or implying that Firm X might be incapable of fulfilling its professional obligations to them because of Engineer C\u2019s pending departure.",
  "proeth:causalSequence": [
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer A offers Engineer C a position with Firm Y",
      "proeth:element": "Employment Offer",
      "proeth:step": 1
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer C\u0027s anticipated move creates a claimed capacity gap at Firm X",
      "proeth:element": "Pending Departure of Engineer C",
      "proeth:step": 2
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer A tells Firm X\u0027s clients that Firm X will be \u0027hard pressed\u0027 to perform and that they should hire Firm Y",
      "proeth:element": "Client Solicitation",
      "proeth:step": 3
    }
  ],
  "proeth:cause": "Employment Offer",
  "proeth:counterfactual": "Without the offer to Engineer C and her pending departure, Engineer A would have had no factual premise for claiming Firm X would be \u0027hard pressed\u0027 to perform",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "discussion",
  "proeth:effect": "Client Solicitation",
  "proeth:interveningFactors": [
    "No client impetus, unlike BER Case No. 97-2, that would mitigate the actions"
  ],
  "proeth:necessaryFactors": [
    "Engineer C\u0027s pending departure resulting from the offer",
    "Engineer A\u0027s knowledge of Firm X\u0027s client base",
    "Engineer A\u0027s motive to obtain professional engagements for Firm Y"
  ],
  "proeth:responsibilityType": "direct",
  "proeth:responsibleAgent": "Engineer A",
  "proeth:sufficientFactors": [
    "Engineer C\u0027s anticipated departure combined with Engineer A\u0027s intent to capture Firm X\u0027s clients was enough to generate the \u0027hard pressed\u0027 representation"
  ],
  "proeth:withinAgentControl": true
}

Causal Language: Soon thereafter, Engineer B learns that Engineer A has contacted Firm X’s clients and is making representations that because Engineer C is going to be leaving Firm X to work for Firm Y, Firm X will be “hard pressed” to perform successfully on its projects and that Firm X’s clients should hire Firm Y to perform engineering services.

Necessary Factors (NESS):
  • Engineer A's actual contact with Firm X's clients
  • The disparaging 'hard pressed' representation being communicated
  • Client communications back to Firm X
Sufficient Factors:
  • Solicitation of multiple existing clients of Firm X was enough for word to reach Engineer B, a principal
Counterfactual Test: Had Engineer A not contacted Firm X's clients with the representation, there would have been no discovery by Engineer B and no basis for the ethics complaint
Responsibility Attribution:

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

Causal Sequence:
  1. Client Solicitation
    Engineer A contacts Firm X's clients, disparaging Firm X's capacity and pitching Firm Y
  2. Client Communication
    Information about the solicitation flows back to Firm X
  3. Client Solicitation Discovery
    Engineer B learns of the 'hard pressed' representations to Firm X's clients
  4. Ethics Review
    The Board concludes Engineer A's actions fell below the standards of appropriate ethical conduct
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • cause: Client Solicitation
  • effect: Client Solicitation Discovery
  • responsibleAgent: Engineer A
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • causalLanguage content: Soon thereafter, Engineer B learns that Engineer A has contacted Firm X’s clients and is making representations that because Engineer C is going to be leaving Firm X to work for Firm Y, Firm X will be “hard pressed” to perform successfully on its projects and that Firm X’s clients should hire Firm Y to perform engineering services.
  • necessaryFactors content: Engineer A's actual contact with Firm X's clients; The disparaging 'hard pressed' representation being communicated; Client communications back to Firm X
  • sufficientFactors content: Solicitation of multiple existing clients of Firm X was enough for word to reach Engineer B, a principal
  • counterfactual content: Had Engineer A not contacted Firm X's clients with the representation, there would have been no discovery by Engineer B and no basis for the ethics complaint
  • agentKnowledge content: Engineer A knew his statements directly contradicted his earlier non-competition representation and implied Firm X might be incapable of fulfilling its obligations
  • interveningFactors content: Clients' ongoing relationships and communications with Firm X
  • causalSequence content: {'proeth:step': 1, 'proeth:element': 'Client Solicitation', 'proeth:description': "Engineer A contacts Firm X's clients, disparaging Firm X's capacity and pitching Firm Y"}; {'proeth:step': 2, 'proeth:element': 'Client Communication', 'proeth:description': 'Information about the solicitation flows back to Firm X'}; {'proeth:step': 3, 'proeth:element': 'Client Solicitation Discovery', 'proeth:description': "Engineer B learns of the 'hard pressed' representations to Firm X's clients"}; {'proeth:step': 4, 'proeth:element': 'Ethics Review', 'proeth:description': "The Board concludes Engineer A's actions fell below the standards of appropriate ethical conduct"}
  • responsibilityType assessment: direct
  • withinAgentControl assessment: True
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/127#",
    "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/127#CausalChain_5",
  "@type": "proeth:CausalChain",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-13T14:38:50.171596+00:00",
  "proeth:agentKnowledge": "Engineer A knew his statements directly contradicted his earlier non-competition representation and implied Firm X might be incapable of fulfilling its obligations",
  "proeth:causalLanguage": "Soon thereafter, Engineer B learns that Engineer A has contacted Firm X\u2019s clients and is making representations that because Engineer C is going to be leaving Firm X to work for Firm Y, Firm X will be \u201chard pressed\u201d to perform successfully on its projects and that Firm X\u2019s clients should hire Firm Y to perform engineering services.",
  "proeth:causalSequence": [
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer A contacts Firm X\u0027s clients, disparaging Firm X\u0027s capacity and pitching Firm Y",
      "proeth:element": "Client Solicitation",
      "proeth:step": 1
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Information about the solicitation flows back to Firm X",
      "proeth:element": "Client Communication",
      "proeth:step": 2
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer B learns of the \u0027hard pressed\u0027 representations to Firm X\u0027s clients",
      "proeth:element": "Client Solicitation Discovery",
      "proeth:step": 3
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "The Board concludes Engineer A\u0027s actions fell below the standards of appropriate ethical conduct",
      "proeth:element": "Ethics Review",
      "proeth:step": 4
    }
  ],
  "proeth:cause": "Client Solicitation",
  "proeth:counterfactual": "Had Engineer A not contacted Firm X\u0027s clients with the representation, there would have been no discovery by Engineer B and no basis for the ethics complaint",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "facts",
  "proeth:effect": "Client Solicitation Discovery",
  "proeth:interveningFactors": [
    "Clients\u0027 ongoing relationships and communications with Firm X"
  ],
  "proeth:necessaryFactors": [
    "Engineer A\u0027s actual contact with Firm X\u0027s clients",
    "The disparaging \u0027hard pressed\u0027 representation being communicated",
    "Client communications back to Firm X"
  ],
  "proeth:responsibilityType": "direct",
  "proeth:responsibleAgent": "Engineer A",
  "proeth:sufficientFactors": [
    "Solicitation of multiple existing clients of Firm X was enough for word to reach Engineer B, a principal"
  ],
  "proeth:withinAgentControl": true
}

Causal Language: Soon thereafter, the city learned that Engineers X, Y, and Z were the engineers who actually developed the proposal for the firm and a city official approached Engineers X, Y, and Z and asked if they would agree to a contract as consultants, independent of Engineer A’s firm.

Necessary Factors (NESS):
  • The city's discovery that Engineers X, Y, and Z actually authored the proposal
  • The city's interest in the proposal's substance
  • The city's right to retain the engineering firm of its choice
Sufficient Factors:
  • Knowledge of the true authors combined with the city's desire for those specific engineers was enough to prompt the independent contract inquiry
Counterfactual Test: Had the city not learned who actually developed the proposal, it would have had no basis to approach Engineers X, Y, and Z independently
Responsibility Attribution:

Agent: City official (precedent Case 86-5)
Type: direct
Within Agent Control: Yes

Causal Sequence:
  1. Proposal Authorship Discovery
    The city learns Engineers X, Y, and Z actually developed the proposal
  2. City Official Approach
    A city official asks Engineers X, Y, and Z to contract independently of Engineer A's firm
  3. Disclosure and Resignation
    Engineers X, Y, and Z disclose the facts to Engineer A, resign, and negotiate with the city
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • cause: Proposal Authorship Discovery
  • effect: City Official Approach
  • responsibleAgent: City official (precedent Case 86-5)
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • causalLanguage content: Soon thereafter, the city learned that Engineers X, Y, and Z were the engineers who actually developed the proposal for the firm and a city official approached Engineers X, Y, and Z and asked if they would agree to a contract as consultants, independent of Engineer A’s firm.
  • necessaryFactors content: The city's discovery that Engineers X, Y, and Z actually authored the proposal; The city's interest in the proposal's substance; The city's right to retain the engineering firm of its choice
  • sufficientFactors content: Knowledge of the true authors combined with the city's desire for those specific engineers was enough to prompt the independent contract inquiry
  • counterfactual content: Had the city not learned who actually developed the proposal, it would have had no basis to approach Engineers X, Y, and Z independently
  • agentKnowledge content: The city official knew Engineers X, Y, and Z had developed the proposal while employed by Engineer A's firm
  • interveningFactors content: Client's recognized right to retain the firm of its choice
  • causalSequence content: {'proeth:step': 1, 'proeth:element': 'Proposal Authorship Discovery', 'proeth:description': 'The city learns Engineers X, Y, and Z actually developed the proposal'}; {'proeth:step': 2, 'proeth:element': 'City Official Approach', 'proeth:description': "A city official asks Engineers X, Y, and Z to contract independently of Engineer A's firm"}; {'proeth:step': 3, 'proeth:element': 'Disclosure and Resignation', 'proeth:description': 'Engineers X, Y, and Z disclose the facts to Engineer A, resign, and negotiate with the city'}
  • responsibilityType assessment: direct
  • withinAgentControl assessment: True
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/127#",
    "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/127#CausalChain_6",
  "@type": "proeth:CausalChain",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-13T14:38:50.171614+00:00",
  "proeth:agentKnowledge": "The city official knew Engineers X, Y, and Z had developed the proposal while employed by Engineer A\u0027s firm",
  "proeth:causalLanguage": "Soon thereafter, the city learned that Engineers X, Y, and Z were the engineers who actually developed the proposal for the firm and a city official approached Engineers X, Y, and Z and asked if they would agree to a contract as consultants, independent of Engineer A\u2019s firm.",
  "proeth:causalSequence": [
    {
      "proeth:description": "The city learns Engineers X, Y, and Z actually developed the proposal",
      "proeth:element": "Proposal Authorship Discovery",
      "proeth:step": 1
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "A city official asks Engineers X, Y, and Z to contract independently of Engineer A\u0027s firm",
      "proeth:element": "City Official Approach",
      "proeth:step": 2
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineers X, Y, and Z disclose the facts to Engineer A, resign, and negotiate with the city",
      "proeth:element": "Disclosure and Resignation",
      "proeth:step": 3
    }
  ],
  "proeth:cause": "Proposal Authorship Discovery",
  "proeth:counterfactual": "Had the city not learned who actually developed the proposal, it would have had no basis to approach Engineers X, Y, and Z independently",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "discussion",
  "proeth:effect": "City Official Approach",
  "proeth:interveningFactors": [
    "Client\u0027s recognized right to retain the firm of its choice"
  ],
  "proeth:necessaryFactors": [
    "The city\u0027s discovery that Engineers X, Y, and Z actually authored the proposal",
    "The city\u0027s interest in the proposal\u0027s substance",
    "The city\u0027s right to retain the engineering firm of its choice"
  ],
  "proeth:responsibilityType": "direct",
  "proeth:responsibleAgent": "City official (precedent Case 86-5)",
  "proeth:sufficientFactors": [
    "Knowledge of the true authors combined with the city\u0027s desire for those specific engineers was enough to prompt the independent contract inquiry"
  ],
  "proeth:withinAgentControl": true
}

Causal Language: Engineers X, Y, and Z disclosed the facts to Engineer A, resigned from the firm, and entered into negotiations with the city.

Necessary Factors (NESS):
  • The city official's independent contract inquiry
  • Engineers X, Y, and Z's willingness to consider the opportunity
  • Their freedom to leave the firm
Sufficient Factors:
  • The concrete offer of an independent consulting contract from the client was enough to induce disclosure and resignation
Counterfactual Test: Without the city official's approach, Engineers X, Y, and Z would have had no independent engagement prompting their resignation
Responsibility Attribution:

Agent: Engineers X, Y, and Z (precedent Case 86-5)
Type: shared
Within Agent Control: Yes

Causal Sequence:
  1. City Official Approach
    City official asks Engineers X, Y, and Z about contracting independently
  2. Disclosure
    Engineers X, Y, and Z disclose the facts to Engineer A
  3. Resignation and Negotiation
    They resign from the firm and enter negotiations with the city
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • cause: City Official Approach
  • effect: Disclosure and Resignation
  • responsibleAgent: Engineers X, Y, and Z (precedent Case 86-5)
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • causalLanguage content: Engineers X, Y, and Z disclosed the facts to Engineer A, resigned from the firm, and entered into negotiations with the city.
  • necessaryFactors content: The city official's independent contract inquiry; Engineers X, Y, and Z's willingness to consider the opportunity; Their freedom to leave the firm
  • sufficientFactors content: The concrete offer of an independent consulting contract from the client was enough to induce disclosure and resignation
  • counterfactual content: Without the city official's approach, Engineers X, Y, and Z would have had no independent engagement prompting their resignation
  • agentKnowledge content: They knew the proposal was submitted by their employer and that the city was seeking them independently; they chose to disclose the facts to Engineer A before resigning
  • interveningFactors content: Client-initiated impetus; Client's right to retain the firm of its choice
  • causalSequence content: {'proeth:step': 1, 'proeth:element': 'City Official Approach', 'proeth:description': 'City official asks Engineers X, Y, and Z about contracting independently'}; {'proeth:step': 2, 'proeth:element': 'Disclosure', 'proeth:description': 'Engineers X, Y, and Z disclose the facts to Engineer A'}; {'proeth:step': 3, 'proeth:element': 'Resignation and Negotiation', 'proeth:description': 'They resign from the firm and enter negotiations with the city'}
  • responsibilityType assessment: shared
  • withinAgentControl assessment: True
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/127#",
    "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/127#CausalChain_7",
  "@type": "proeth:CausalChain",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-13T14:38:50.171635+00:00",
  "proeth:agentKnowledge": "They knew the proposal was submitted by their employer and that the city was seeking them independently; they chose to disclose the facts to Engineer A before resigning",
  "proeth:causalLanguage": "Engineers X, Y, and Z disclosed the facts to Engineer A, resigned from the firm, and entered into negotiations with the city.",
  "proeth:causalSequence": [
    {
      "proeth:description": "City official asks Engineers X, Y, and Z about contracting independently",
      "proeth:element": "City Official Approach",
      "proeth:step": 1
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineers X, Y, and Z disclose the facts to Engineer A",
      "proeth:element": "Disclosure",
      "proeth:step": 2
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "They resign from the firm and enter negotiations with the city",
      "proeth:element": "Resignation and Negotiation",
      "proeth:step": 3
    }
  ],
  "proeth:cause": "City Official Approach",
  "proeth:counterfactual": "Without the city official\u0027s approach, Engineers X, Y, and Z would have had no independent engagement prompting their resignation",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "discussion",
  "proeth:effect": "Disclosure and Resignation",
  "proeth:interveningFactors": [
    "Client-initiated impetus",
    "Client\u0027s right to retain the firm of its choice"
  ],
  "proeth:necessaryFactors": [
    "The city official\u0027s independent contract inquiry",
    "Engineers X, Y, and Z\u0027s willingness to consider the opportunity",
    "Their freedom to leave the firm"
  ],
  "proeth:responsibilityType": "shared",
  "proeth:responsibleAgent": "Engineers X, Y, and Z (precedent Case 86-5)",
  "proeth:sufficientFactors": [
    "The concrete offer of an independent consulting contract from the client was enough to induce disclosure and resignation"
  ],
  "proeth:withinAgentControl": true
}

Causal Language: In Case No. 79-10 , the BER determined that an engineer employed by a firm that was winding down its operations, and who sought to offer his services to complete projects under his own responsibility and risk without the concurrence of the principal of his employing firm, was ethical.

Necessary Factors (NESS):
  • The employing firm's winding down of operations
  • Existence of incomplete projects needing completion
  • The engineer's willingness to assume responsibility and risk
Sufficient Factors:
  • The firm's wind down combined with unfinished client projects was enough to motivate the engineer's independent offer
Counterfactual Test: Had the firm continued normal operations, the engineer would have lacked the circumstances justifying an independent offer to complete its projects
Responsibility Attribution:

Agent: Engineer (precedent Case 79-10)
Type: direct
Within Agent Control: Yes

Causal Sequence:
  1. Firm Wind Down
    The employing firm winds down its operations, leaving projects incomplete
  2. Independent Service Offer
    The engineer offers to complete projects under his own responsibility and risk
  3. Board Determination
    The BER determines the engineer's conduct was ethical, informing the balancing framework applied in the present case
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • cause: Firm Wind Down
  • effect: Independent Service Offer
  • responsibleAgent: Engineer (precedent Case 79-10)
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • causalLanguage content: In Case No. 79-10 , the BER determined that an engineer employed by a firm that was winding down its operations, and who sought to offer his services to complete projects under his own responsibility and risk without the concurrence of the principal of his employing firm, was ethical.
  • necessaryFactors content: The employing firm's winding down of operations; Existence of incomplete projects needing completion; The engineer's willingness to assume responsibility and risk
  • sufficientFactors content: The firm's wind down combined with unfinished client projects was enough to motivate the engineer's independent offer
  • counterfactual content: Had the firm continued normal operations, the engineer would have lacked the circumstances justifying an independent offer to complete its projects
  • agentKnowledge content: The engineer knew the firm was winding down and acted without the concurrence of the principal, assuming his own responsibility and risk
  • interveningFactors content: Firm's business decision to wind down; Clients' interest in project completion
  • causalSequence content: {'proeth:step': 1, 'proeth:element': 'Firm Wind Down', 'proeth:description': 'The employing firm winds down its operations, leaving projects incomplete'}; {'proeth:step': 2, 'proeth:element': 'Independent Service Offer', 'proeth:description': 'The engineer offers to complete projects under his own responsibility and risk'}; {'proeth:step': 3, 'proeth:element': 'Board Determination', 'proeth:description': "The BER determines the engineer's conduct was ethical, informing the balancing framework applied in the present case"}
  • responsibilityType assessment: direct
  • withinAgentControl assessment: True
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/127#",
    "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/127#CausalChain_8",
  "@type": "proeth:CausalChain",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-13T14:38:50.171653+00:00",
  "proeth:agentKnowledge": "The engineer knew the firm was winding down and acted without the concurrence of the principal, assuming his own responsibility and risk",
  "proeth:causalLanguage": "In Case No. 79-10 , the BER determined that an engineer employed by a firm that was winding down its operations, and who sought to offer his services to complete projects under his own responsibility and risk without the concurrence of the principal of his employing firm, was ethical.",
  "proeth:causalSequence": [
    {
      "proeth:description": "The employing firm winds down its operations, leaving projects incomplete",
      "proeth:element": "Firm Wind Down",
      "proeth:step": 1
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "The engineer offers to complete projects under his own responsibility and risk",
      "proeth:element": "Independent Service Offer",
      "proeth:step": 2
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "The BER determines the engineer\u0027s conduct was ethical, informing the balancing framework applied in the present case",
      "proeth:element": "Board Determination",
      "proeth:step": 3
    }
  ],
  "proeth:cause": "Firm Wind Down",
  "proeth:counterfactual": "Had the firm continued normal operations, the engineer would have lacked the circumstances justifying an independent offer to complete its projects",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "discussion",
  "proeth:effect": "Independent Service Offer",
  "proeth:interveningFactors": [
    "Firm\u0027s business decision to wind down",
    "Clients\u0027 interest in project completion"
  ],
  "proeth:necessaryFactors": [
    "The employing firm\u0027s winding down of operations",
    "Existence of incomplete projects needing completion",
    "The engineer\u0027s willingness to assume responsibility and risk"
  ],
  "proeth:responsibilityType": "direct",
  "proeth:responsibleAgent": "Engineer (precedent Case 79-10)",
  "proeth:sufficientFactors": [
    "The firm\u0027s wind down combined with unfinished client projects was enough to motivate the engineer\u0027s independent offer"
  ],
  "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
Engineer A's client solicitation before
Entity1 is before Entity2 		Engineer C's departure from Firm X time:intervalBefore
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#intervalBefore 		making representations that because Engineer C is going to be leaving Firm X to work for Firm Y, Fir... [more]
Engineer A's non-compete representation before
Entity1 is before Entity2 		Engineer A's client solicitation on behalf of Firm Y time:intervalBefore
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#intervalBefore 		it is apparent that Engineer A's subsequent actions were in direct conflict with his statement
Engineer A's employment at Firm X before
Entity1 is before Entity2 		operation of Firm Y time:intervalBefore
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#intervalBefore 		Engineer A, a professional engineer working for a small private practice firm, leaves the employment... [more]
Engineer A's representation that he would start a one-person firm and not compete with Firm X meets
Entity1 ends exactly when Entity2 begins 		Engineer A's departure from Firm X time:intervalMeets
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#intervalMeets 		Engineer A made it clear at the time of his departure from Firm X that he was going to start his own... [more]
Engineer A's departure from Firm X before
Entity1 is before Entity2 		Engineer B learning of the job offer to Engineer C time:intervalBefore
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#intervalBefore 		A month after Engineer A departs from Firm X, Engineer B, a principal in Firm X learns that Engineer... [more]
Engineer A's offer of a position to Engineer C before
Entity1 is before Entity2 		Engineer B learning of that offer time:intervalBefore
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#intervalBefore 		Engineer B... learns that Engineer A has contacted one of Firm X's employees, Engineer C, and offere... [more]
Engineer B learning of the job offer to Engineer C before
Entity1 is before Entity2 		Engineer B learning of Engineer A's client solicitation time:intervalBefore
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#intervalBefore 		Soon thereafter, Engineer B learns that Engineer A has contacted Firm X's clients and is making repr... [more]
Prior BER cases (77-11, 79-10, 86-5, 97-2) before
Entity1 is before Entity2 		Board's review of the present case time:intervalBefore
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#intervalBefore 		has been examined by the NSPE Board of Ethical Review on earlier occasions... Considering all factor... [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