This page shows the pre-commit working store (the raw extraction under review). This case was committed to OntServe on 2026-07-13 03:44; 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 135: Engineer Misstating Professional Achievements on Resume

26 entities 4 actions 4 events 10 causal chains 7 temporal relations
Timeline Overview
Action Event 14 sequenced markers
Patent Issuance During Engineer A's employment with Employer X, before the resume submission
Historical precedent, Case 72-11, after many months of unsuccessful job seeking
Precedent Case 72-11, after many months of job seeking
Precedent Case 72-11, after twelve years of employment
Precedent Case 72-11, after Doe devised his new resume
Code Language Expansion Between the decisions in Case 72-11 and Case 79-5
Historical precedent, Case 79-5, after receiving the Ph.D. in 1960
Code Modification After the decision in Case 79-5, before the present case
1960, precedent Case 79-5
Team Design Participation During employment with Employer X, prior to job search
Resume Submission During job search with Employer Y, after leaving or while employed at Employer X
Team Credit Omission At the time of drafting and submitting the resume to Employer Y
Code Interpretation Ruling Present adjudication of the case
Code Provision Removal After the Board's decision in the present case
OWL-Time Temporal Structure 7 relations time: = w3.org/2006/time
Engineer A's employment at Employer X time:intervalBefore Engineer A's resume submission to Employer Y
team design of patented products time:intervalDuring Engineer A's employment at Employer X
engineer's Bachelor of Science degree (1940) time:intervalBefore engineer's registration as professional engineer in two states
engineer's registration as professional engineer time:intervalBefore award of the earned Professional Degree
engineer's Professional Degree time:intervalBefore engineer's diploma-mill Ph.D. (1960)
modification of NSPE Code (Section II.5.a) time:intervalBefore Board's evaluation of Engineer A's resume
existence of Section III.10.a time:intervalBefore the added note about the current Code
Extracted Actions (4)
Volitional professional decisions with intentions and ethical context

Description: Engineer A, as one of six equal-rank staff engineers at Employer X, participated in and was credited with the joint design of a series of patented products.

Temporal Marker: During employment with Employer X, prior to job search interval

Fluent Transitions:
Initiates (1)
  • Joint Team Design Credit

Mental State: deliberate

Intended Outcome: Contribute to the design of the team's patented products as part of assigned responsibilities

Obligation Engagement:
Fulfills (1)
  • Obligation to Perform Assigned Design Work
Required Capabilities:
Product design expertise Team collaboration
Within Competence: Yes
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • fulfillsObligation: Obligation to Perform Assigned Design Work
  • requiresCapability: Product design expertise; Team collaboration
  • initiates: Joint Team Design Credit
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • description content: Engineer A, as one of six equal-rank staff engineers at Employer X, participated in and was credited with the joint design of a series of patented products.
  • hasAgent content: Engineer A
  • temporalMarker content: During employment with Employer X, prior to job search
  • eventRoleContext content: Staff Engineer, Employer X
  • hasMentalState content: deliberate
  • intendedOutcome content: Contribute to the design of the team's patented products as part of assigned responsibilities
  • textReferences content: While working for Employer X, Engineer A along with five other engineers in his team participated in and was credited with the design of a series of patented products.
  • temporalExtent content: interval
  • temporalSequence content: 2
  • withinCompetence assessment: True
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/135#",
    "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/135#Action_Team_Design_Participation",
  "@type": "proeth:Action",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-12T20:43:21.139020+00:00",
  "proeth:description": "Engineer A, as one of six equal-rank staff engineers at Employer X, participated in and was credited with the joint design of a series of patented products.",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "facts",
  "proeth:eventRoleContext": "Staff Engineer, Employer X",
  "proeth:fulfillsObligation": [
    "Obligation to Perform Assigned Design Work"
  ],
  "proeth:hasAgent": "Engineer A",
  "proeth:hasMentalState": "deliberate",
  "proeth:initiates": [
    "Joint Team Design Credit"
  ],
  "proeth:intendedOutcome": "Contribute to the design of the team\u0027s patented products as part of assigned responsibilities",
  "proeth:raisesObligation": [],
  "proeth:requiresCapability": [
    "Product design expertise",
    "Team collaboration"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalExtent": "interval",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "During employment with Employer X, prior to job search",
  "proeth:temporalSequence": 2,
  "proeth:textReferences": [
    "While working for Employer X, Engineer A along with five other engineers in his team participated in and was credited with the design of a series of patented products."
  ],
  "proeth:violatesObligation": [],
  "proeth:withinCompetence": true,
  "rdfs:label": "Team Design Participation"
}

Description: Engineer A failed to express on his resume that the design work was performed as a team effort, omitting due credit to the five other staff engineers who worked with him.

Temporal Marker: At the time of drafting and submitting the resume to Employer Y instant

Fluent Transitions:
Initiates (1)
  • Uncredited Team Contribution

Mental State: intentional obscuring of the collaborative nature of the work

Intended Outcome: Present the design achievements as an individual effort to strengthen his candidacy

Foreseen Unintended Effects:

  • The five other staff engineers' contributions going unacknowledged
Obligation Engagement:
At stake (1)
  • Obligation to Give Due Credit to Others (Section III.10.a)
Required Capabilities:
Accurate representation of work history
Within Competence: Yes
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • requiresCapability: Accurate representation of work history
  • initiates: Uncredited Team Contribution
  • raisesObligation: Obligation to Give Due Credit to Others (Section III.10.a)
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • description content: Engineer A failed to express on his resume that the design work was performed as a team effort, omitting due credit to the five other staff engineers who worked with him.
  • hasAgent content: Engineer A
  • temporalMarker content: At the time of drafting and submitting the resume to Employer Y
  • eventRoleContext content: Staff Engineer seeking employment
  • hasMentalState content: intentional obscuring of the collaborative nature of the work
  • intendedOutcome content: Present the design achievements as an individual effort to strengthen his candidacy
  • foreseenUnintendedEffects content: The five other staff engineers' contributions going unacknowledged
  • textReferences content: Engineer A appears to have been in violation of Section III.10.a. by failing to provide due credit to those five other staff engineers who worked with Engineer A in designing certain products; Engineer A has an obligation to express the fact that the design work was performed as a result of a team effort as opposed to an individual effort
  • 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/135#",
    "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/135#Action_Team_Credit_Omission",
  "@type": "proeth:Action",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-12T20:43:21.139298+00:00",
  "proeth:description": "Engineer A failed to express on his resume that the design work was performed as a team effort, omitting due credit to the five other staff engineers who worked with him.",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "discussion",
  "proeth:eventRoleContext": "Staff Engineer seeking employment",
  "proeth:foreseenUnintendedEffects": [
    "The five other staff engineers\u0027 contributions going unacknowledged"
  ],
  "proeth:fulfillsObligation": [],
  "proeth:hasAgent": "Engineer A",
  "proeth:hasMentalState": "intentional obscuring of the collaborative nature of the work",
  "proeth:initiates": [
    "Uncredited Team Contribution"
  ],
  "proeth:intendedOutcome": "Present the design achievements as an individual effort to strengthen his candidacy",
  "proeth:raisesObligation": [
    "Obligation to Give Due Credit to Others (Section III.10.a)"
  ],
  "proeth:requiresCapability": [
    "Accurate representation of work history"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalExtent": "instant",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "At the time of drafting and submitting the resume to Employer Y",
  "proeth:temporalSequence": 5,
  "proeth:textReferences": [
    "Engineer A appears to have been in violation of Section III.10.a. by failing to provide due credit to those five other staff engineers who worked with Engineer A in designing certain products",
    "Engineer A has an obligation to express the fact that the design work was performed as a result of a team effort as opposed to an individual effort"
  ],
  "proeth:violatesObligation": [],
  "proeth:withinCompetence": true,
  "rdfs:label": "Team Credit Omission"
}

Description: Engineer A submitted a resume to Employer Y implying he was personally responsible for the design of products that were actually designed through a joint team effort.

Temporal Marker: During job search with Employer Y, after leaving or while employed at Employer X instant

Fluent Transitions:
Initiates (2)
  • Resume Misrepresentation
  • Prospective Employer Deception Risk

Mental State: intentional, designed to mislead by obscuring the truth

Intended Outcome: Improve his chances of being hired by Employer Y by appearing personally responsible for the patented product designs

Foreseen Unintended Effects:

  • Employer Y being deceived as to the true nature of his individual contribution
Obligation Engagement:
Violates (2)
  • Obligation Not to Misrepresent Professional Qualifications (Section II.5.a)
  • Obligation to Give Due Credit to Others (Section III.10.a)
Required Capabilities:
Resume preparation Professional self-presentation
Within Competence: Yes
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • violatesObligation: Obligation Not to Misrepresent Professional Qualifications (Section II.5.a); Obligation to Give Due Credit to Others (Section III.10.a)
  • requiresCapability: Resume preparation; Professional self-presentation
  • initiates: Resume Misrepresentation; Prospective Employer Deception Risk
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • description content: Engineer A submitted a resume to Employer Y implying he was personally responsible for the design of products that were actually designed through a joint team effort.
  • hasAgent content: Engineer A
  • temporalMarker content: During job search with Employer Y, after leaving or while employed at Employer X
  • eventRoleContext content: Staff Engineer seeking employment
  • hasMentalState content: intentional, designed to mislead by obscuring the truth
  • intendedOutcome content: Improve his chances of being hired by Employer Y by appearing personally responsible for the patented product designs
  • foreseenUnintendedEffects content: Employer Y being deceived as to the true nature of his individual contribution
  • textReferences content: Engineer A submits his resume to Employer Y and on it implies that he personally was responsible for the design of products which were actually designed through a joint effort of the members of the team.
  • 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/135#",
    "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/135#Action_Resume_Submission",
  "@type": "proeth:Action",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-12T20:43:21.139252+00:00",
  "proeth:description": "Engineer A submitted a resume to Employer Y implying he was personally responsible for the design of products that were actually designed through a joint team effort.",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "facts",
  "proeth:eventRoleContext": "Staff Engineer seeking employment",
  "proeth:foreseenUnintendedEffects": [
    "Employer Y being deceived as to the true nature of his individual contribution"
  ],
  "proeth:fulfillsObligation": [],
  "proeth:hasAgent": "Engineer A",
  "proeth:hasMentalState": "intentional, designed to mislead by obscuring the truth",
  "proeth:initiates": [
    "Resume Misrepresentation",
    "Prospective Employer Deception Risk"
  ],
  "proeth:intendedOutcome": "Improve his chances of being hired by Employer Y by appearing personally responsible for the patented product designs",
  "proeth:raisesObligation": [],
  "proeth:requiresCapability": [
    "Resume preparation",
    "Professional self-presentation"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalExtent": "instant",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "During job search with Employer Y, after leaving or while employed at Employer X",
  "proeth:temporalSequence": 6,
  "proeth:textReferences": [
    "Engineer A submits his resume to Employer Y and on it implies that he personally was responsible for the design of products which were actually designed through a joint effort of the members of the team."
  ],
  "proeth:violatesObligation": [
    "Obligation Not to Misrepresent Professional Qualifications (Section II.5.a)",
    "Obligation to Give Due Credit to Others (Section III.10.a)"
  ],
  "proeth:withinCompetence": true,
  "rdfs:label": "Resume Submission"
}

Description: The Board interpreted Section II.5.a's term 'misrepresentation' to include intentional implications that obscure truth, finding Engineer A's resume conduct prohibited and also finding a violation of Section III.10.a for failing to credit the team.

Temporal Marker: Present adjudication of the case instant

Fluent Transitions:
Initiates (1)
  • Violation Finding Against Engineer A

Mental State: deliberative adjudication

Intended Outcome: Protect prospective employers from deception and clarify the scope of misrepresentation under the current Code

Foreseen Unintended Effects:

  • Restricting the latitude engineers have in emphasizing qualifications on resumes
Required Capabilities:
Ethical code interpretation Precedent analysis
Within Competence: Yes
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • requiresCapability: Ethical code interpretation; Precedent analysis
  • initiates: Violation Finding Against Engineer A
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • description content: The Board interpreted Section II.5.a's term 'misrepresentation' to include intentional implications that obscure truth, finding Engineer A's resume conduct prohibited and also finding a violation of Section III.10.a for failing to credit the team.
  • hasAgent content: Board of Ethical Review
  • temporalMarker content: Present adjudication of the case
  • hasMentalState content: deliberative adjudication
  • intendedOutcome content: Protect prospective employers from deception and clarify the scope of misrepresentation under the current Code
  • foreseenUnintendedEffects content: Restricting the latitude engineers have in emphasizing qualifications on resumes
  • textReferences content: we interpret Section II.5.a. to prohibit Engineer A to imply on his resume that he was personally responsible for the design of products which were actually designed through the joint efforts of the members of the design team; we interpret the term "misrepresentation" in Section II.5.a. to include implications which are intended to obscure truth to a client, members of the public, or prospective employers for that matter
  • 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/135#",
    "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/135#Action_Code_Interpretation_Ruling",
  "@type": "proeth:Action",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-12T20:43:21.139384+00:00",
  "proeth:description": "The Board interpreted Section II.5.a\u0027s term \u0027misrepresentation\u0027 to include intentional implications that obscure truth, finding Engineer A\u0027s resume conduct prohibited and also finding a violation of Section III.10.a for failing to credit the team.",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "discussion",
  "proeth:foreseenUnintendedEffects": [
    "Restricting the latitude engineers have in emphasizing qualifications on resumes"
  ],
  "proeth:hasAgent": "Board of Ethical Review",
  "proeth:hasMentalState": "deliberative adjudication",
  "proeth:initiates": [
    "Violation Finding Against Engineer A"
  ],
  "proeth:intendedOutcome": "Protect prospective employers from deception and clarify the scope of misrepresentation under the current Code",
  "proeth:requiresCapability": [
    "Ethical code interpretation",
    "Precedent analysis"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalExtent": "instant",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "Present adjudication of the case",
  "proeth:temporalSequence": 7,
  "proeth:textReferences": [
    "we interpret Section II.5.a. to prohibit Engineer A to imply on his resume that he was personally responsible for the design of products which were actually designed through the joint efforts of the members of the design team",
    "we interpret the term \"misrepresentation\" in Section II.5.a. to include implications which are intended to obscure truth to a client, members of the public, or prospective employers for that matter"
  ],
  "proeth:withinCompetence": true,
  "rdfs:label": "Code Interpretation Ruling"
}
Extracted Events (4)
Occurrences that trigger ethical considerations and state changes

Description: Between Case 72-11 and Case 79-5, the Code provision was expanded from prohibiting merely exaggerated statements of qualifications to embracing misleading, deceptive, or false statements regarding professional qualifications.

Temporal Marker: Between the decisions in Case 72-11 and Case 79-5 instant

Fluent Transitions:
Initiates (1)
  • Expanded Misrepresentation Prohibition State
Terminates (1)
  • Narrow Exaggeration Prohibition State
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • initiates: Expanded Misrepresentation Prohibition State
  • terminates: Narrow Exaggeration Prohibition State
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • description content: Between Case 72-11 and Case 79-5, the Code provision was expanded from prohibiting merely exaggerated statements of qualifications to embracing misleading, deceptive, or false statements regarding professional qualifications.
  • temporalMarker content: Between the decisions in Case 72-11 and Case 79-5
  • textReferences content: had since been expanded to embrace "misleading, deceptive or false statements regarding professional qualifications" rather than merely "exaggerated statements of qualifications."
  • eventType content: exogenous
  • temporalExtent content: instant
  • temporalSequence content: 1
  • confidence assessment: 0.9
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/135#",
    "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/135#Event_Code_Language_Expansion",
  "@type": "proeth:Event",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-12T20:43:21.139501+00:00",
  "proeth:confidence": "0.9",
  "proeth:description": "Between Case 72-11 and Case 79-5, the Code provision was expanded from prohibiting merely exaggerated statements of qualifications to embracing misleading, deceptive, or false statements regarding professional qualifications.",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "discussion",
  "proeth:eventType": "exogenous",
  "proeth:initiates": [
    "Expanded Misrepresentation Prohibition State"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalExtent": "instant",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "Between the decisions in Case 72-11 and Case 79-5",
  "proeth:temporalSequence": 1,
  "proeth:terminates": [
    "Narrow Exaggeration Prohibition State"
  ],
  "proeth:textReferences": [
    "had since been expanded to embrace \"misleading, deceptive or false statements regarding professional qualifications\" rather than merely \"exaggerated statements of qualifications.\""
  ],
  "rdfs:label": "Code Language Expansion"
}

Description: A series of products jointly designed by the six-member team at Employer X became patented, with all six engineers including Engineer A credited for the design.

Temporal Marker: During Engineer A's employment with Employer X, before the resume submission instant

Fluent Transitions:
Initiates (1)
  • Joint Design Credit State

Caused By Action: Action_Team_Design_Participation

Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • causedByAction: http://proethica.org/ontology/case/135#Action_Team_Design_Participation
  • initiates: Joint Design Credit State
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • description content: A series of products jointly designed by the six-member team at Employer X became patented, with all six engineers including Engineer A credited for the design.
  • temporalMarker content: During Engineer A's employment with Employer X, before the resume submission
  • textReferences content: Engineer A along with five other engineers in his team participated in and was credited with the design of a series of patented products
  • eventType content: automatic
  • temporalExtent content: instant
  • temporalSequence content: 3
  • confidence assessment: 0.85
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/135#",
    "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/135#Event_Patent_Issuance",
  "@type": "proeth:Event",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-12T20:43:21.139466+00:00",
  "proeth:causedByAction": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/135#Action_Team_Design_Participation",
  "proeth:confidence": "0.85",
  "proeth:description": "A series of products jointly designed by the six-member team at Employer X became patented, with all six engineers including Engineer A credited for the design.",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "facts",
  "proeth:eventType": "automatic",
  "proeth:initiates": [
    "Joint Design Credit State"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalExtent": "instant",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "During Engineer A\u0027s employment with Employer X, before the resume submission",
  "proeth:temporalSequence": 3,
  "proeth:textReferences": [
    "Engineer A along with five other engineers in his team participated in and was credited with the design of a series of patented products"
  ],
  "rdfs:label": "Patent Issuance"
}

Description: Since the decision in Case 79-5, the NSPE Code of Ethics was again modified, with new Section II.5.a further restricting the representations engineers may make in resumes, brochures, and correspondence.

Temporal Marker: After the decision in Case 79-5, before the present case instant

Fluent Transitions:
Initiates (1)
  • Section II.5.a In Effect State
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • initiates: Section II.5.a In Effect State
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • description content: Since the decision in Case 79-5, the NSPE Code of Ethics was again modified, with new Section II.5.a further restricting the representations engineers may make in resumes, brochures, and correspondence.
  • temporalMarker content: After the decision in Case 79-5, before the present case
  • textReferences content: Since our decision in Case 79-5 , the NSPE Code of Ethics has again been modified. The Code language appears to restrict even further the representations which engineers may make in resumes, brochures, correspondence, etc.
  • eventType content: exogenous
  • temporalExtent content: instant
  • temporalSequence content: 4
  • confidence assessment: 0.92
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/135#",
    "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/135#Event_Code_Modification",
  "@type": "proeth:Event",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-12T20:43:21.139527+00:00",
  "proeth:confidence": "0.92",
  "proeth:description": "Since the decision in Case 79-5, the NSPE Code of Ethics was again modified, with new Section II.5.a further restricting the representations engineers may make in resumes, brochures, and correspondence.",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "discussion",
  "proeth:eventType": "exogenous",
  "proeth:initiates": [
    "Section II.5.a In Effect State"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalExtent": "instant",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "After the decision in Case 79-5, before the present case",
  "proeth:temporalSequence": 4,
  "proeth:textReferences": [
    "Since our decision in Case 79-5 , the NSPE Code of Ethics has again been modified. The Code language appears to restrict even further the representations which engineers may make in resumes, brochures, correspondence, etc."
  ],
  "rdfs:label": "Code Modification"
}

Description: Section III.10.a of the Code, under which Engineer A was found to have failed to give due credit to his teammates, was later removed and no longer exists.

Temporal Marker: After the Board's decision in the present case instant

Fluent Transitions:
Terminates (1)
  • Section III.10.a In Effect State
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • terminates: Section III.10.a In Effect State
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • description content: Section III.10.a of the Code, under which Engineer A was found to have failed to give due credit to his teammates, was later removed and no longer exists.
  • temporalMarker content: After the Board's decision in the present case
  • textReferences content: Note: Code III.10.a no longer exists.
  • eventType content: exogenous
  • temporalExtent content: instant
  • temporalSequence content: 8
  • confidence assessment: 0.85
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/135#",
    "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/135#Event_Code_Provision_Removal",
  "@type": "proeth:Event",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-12T20:43:21.139563+00:00",
  "proeth:confidence": "0.85",
  "proeth:description": "Section III.10.a of the Code, under which Engineer A was found to have failed to give due credit to his teammates, was later removed and no longer exists.",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "discussion",
  "proeth:eventType": "exogenous",
  "proeth:temporalExtent": "instant",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "After the Board\u0027s decision in the present case",
  "proeth:temporalSequence": 8,
  "proeth:terminates": [
    "Section III.10.a In Effect State"
  ],
  "proeth:textReferences": [
    "Note: Code III.10.a no longer exists."
  ],
  "rdfs:label": "Code Provision Removal"
}
Causal Chains (10)
NESS test analysis: Necessary Element of Sufficient Set

Causal Language: While working for Employer X, Engineer A along with five other engineers in his team participated in and was credited with the design of a series of patented products.

Necessary Factors (NESS):
  • Six-member design team's joint effort on the products
  • Employer X's assignment of design responsibility to the team
  • Successful completion of patentable designs
Sufficient Factors:
  • Joint team design effort producing novel products submitted for patent protection
Counterfactual Test: Without the team's joint design effort, including Engineer A's participation, the patented product series would not have existed
Responsibility Attribution:

Agent: Engineer A and the five other staff engineers (design team)
Type: shared
Within Agent Control: Yes

Causal Sequence:
  1. Team Design Participation
    Six equal-rank staff engineers at Employer X jointly design certain products
  2. Joint Credit Attribution
    All team members, including Engineer A, are credited with the designs
  3. Patent Issuance
    The jointly designed products become a series of patented products
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • cause: Team Design Participation
  • effect: Patent Issuance
  • responsibleAgent: Engineer A and the five other staff engineers (design team)
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • causalLanguage content: While working for Employer X, Engineer A along with five other engineers in his team participated in and was credited with the design of a series of patented products.
  • necessaryFactors content: Six-member design team's joint effort on the products; Employer X's assignment of design responsibility to the team; Successful completion of patentable designs
  • sufficientFactors content: Joint team design effort producing novel products submitted for patent protection
  • counterfactual content: Without the team's joint design effort, including Engineer A's participation, the patented product series would not have existed
  • agentKnowledge content: All six engineers knew the design work was a joint team effort and each was credited accordingly
  • interveningFactors content: Employer X's product development priorities; Patent approval process
  • causalSequence content: {'proeth:step': 1, 'proeth:element': 'Team Design Participation', 'proeth:description': 'Six equal-rank staff engineers at Employer X jointly design certain products'}; {'proeth:step': 2, 'proeth:element': 'Joint Credit Attribution', 'proeth:description': 'All team members, including Engineer A, are credited with the designs'}; {'proeth:step': 3, 'proeth:element': 'Patent Issuance', 'proeth:description': 'The jointly designed products become a series of patented products'}
  • responsibilityType assessment: shared
  • withinAgentControl assessment: True
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/135#",
    "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/135#CausalChain_1",
  "@type": "proeth:CausalChain",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-12T20:43:21.139618+00:00",
  "proeth:agentKnowledge": "All six engineers knew the design work was a joint team effort and each was credited accordingly",
  "proeth:causalLanguage": "While working for Employer X, Engineer A along with five other engineers in his team participated in and was credited with the design of a series of patented products.",
  "proeth:causalSequence": [
    {
      "proeth:description": "Six equal-rank staff engineers at Employer X jointly design certain products",
      "proeth:element": "Team Design Participation",
      "proeth:step": 1
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "All team members, including Engineer A, are credited with the designs",
      "proeth:element": "Joint Credit Attribution",
      "proeth:step": 2
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "The jointly designed products become a series of patented products",
      "proeth:element": "Patent Issuance",
      "proeth:step": 3
    }
  ],
  "proeth:cause": "Team Design Participation",
  "proeth:counterfactual": "Without the team\u0027s joint design effort, including Engineer A\u0027s participation, the patented product series would not have existed",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "facts",
  "proeth:effect": "Patent Issuance",
  "proeth:interveningFactors": [
    "Employer X\u0027s product development priorities",
    "Patent approval process"
  ],
  "proeth:necessaryFactors": [
    "Six-member design team\u0027s joint effort on the products",
    "Employer X\u0027s assignment of design responsibility to the team",
    "Successful completion of patentable designs"
  ],
  "proeth:responsibilityType": "shared",
  "proeth:responsibleAgent": "Engineer A and the five other staff engineers (design team)",
  "proeth:sufficientFactors": [
    "Joint team design effort producing novel products submitted for patent protection"
  ],
  "proeth:withinAgentControl": true
}

Causal Language: In the context of the present case, we interpret Section II.5.a. to prohibit Engineer A to imply on his resume that he was personally responsible for the design of products which were actually designed through the joint efforts of the members of the design team.

Necessary Factors (NESS):
  • Engineer A's misleading resume implication placed before the Board
  • Existence of Section II.5.a addressing professional qualification misrepresentation
  • Board's determination that 'misrepresentation' includes intentional implications that obscure truth
Sufficient Factors:
  • A resume containing intentional implications designed to mislead a prospective employer, evaluated under the expanded Section II.5.a language
Counterfactual Test: Without Engineer A's misleading resume submission, the Board would have had no occasion to issue this interpretation of Section II.5.a in this case
Responsibility Attribution:

Agent: NSPE Board of Ethical Review (for the ruling); Engineer A (for triggering it)
Type: shared
Within Agent Control: Yes

Causal Sequence:
  1. Resume Submission
    Engineer A implies personal responsibility for jointly designed products
  2. Board Review
    The Board examines to what extent an engineer may engage in less than total candor on a resume
  3. Precedent Comparison
    The Board contrasts Case 72-11 (emphasis condoned) with Case 79-5 (misrepresentation prohibited)
  4. Code Interpretation Ruling
    The Board interprets 'misrepresentation' in Section II.5.a to include intentional implications that obscure truth
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • cause: Resume Submission
  • effect: Code Interpretation Ruling
  • responsibleAgent: NSPE Board of Ethical Review (for the ruling); Engineer A (for triggering it)
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • causalLanguage content: In the context of the present case, we interpret Section II.5.a. to prohibit Engineer A to imply on his resume that he was personally responsible for the design of products which were actually designed through the joint efforts of the members of the design team.
  • necessaryFactors content: Engineer A's misleading resume implication placed before the Board; Existence of Section II.5.a addressing professional qualification misrepresentation; Board's determination that 'misrepresentation' includes intentional implications that obscure truth
  • sufficientFactors content: A resume containing intentional implications designed to mislead a prospective employer, evaluated under the expanded Section II.5.a language
  • counterfactual content: Without Engineer A's misleading resume submission, the Board would have had no occasion to issue this interpretation of Section II.5.a in this case
  • agentKnowledge content: The Board knew the design was a joint effort and that Engineer A's implication was 'intentionally designed to mislead a potential employer by obscuring the truth'
  • interveningFactors content: Prior precedents in Case 72-11 and Case 79-5; Successive Code modifications
  • causalSequence content: {'proeth:step': 1, 'proeth:element': 'Resume Submission', 'proeth:description': 'Engineer A implies personal responsibility for jointly designed products'}; {'proeth:step': 2, 'proeth:element': 'Board Review', 'proeth:description': 'The Board examines to what extent an engineer may engage in less than total candor on a resume'}; {'proeth:step': 3, 'proeth:element': 'Precedent Comparison', 'proeth:description': 'The Board contrasts Case 72-11 (emphasis condoned) with Case 79-5 (misrepresentation prohibited)'}; {'proeth:step': 4, 'proeth:element': 'Code Interpretation Ruling', 'proeth:description': "The Board interprets 'misrepresentation' in Section II.5.a to include intentional implications that obscure truth"}
  • responsibilityType assessment: shared
  • withinAgentControl assessment: True
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/135#",
    "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/135#CausalChain_4",
  "@type": "proeth:CausalChain",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-12T20:43:21.139689+00:00",
  "proeth:agentKnowledge": "The Board knew the design was a joint effort and that Engineer A\u0027s implication was \u0027intentionally designed to mislead a potential employer by obscuring the truth\u0027",
  "proeth:causalLanguage": "In the context of the present case, we interpret Section II.5.a. to prohibit Engineer A to imply on his resume that he was personally responsible for the design of products which were actually designed through the joint efforts of the members of the design team.",
  "proeth:causalSequence": [
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer A implies personal responsibility for jointly designed products",
      "proeth:element": "Resume Submission",
      "proeth:step": 1
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "The Board examines to what extent an engineer may engage in less than total candor on a resume",
      "proeth:element": "Board Review",
      "proeth:step": 2
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "The Board contrasts Case 72-11 (emphasis condoned) with Case 79-5 (misrepresentation prohibited)",
      "proeth:element": "Precedent Comparison",
      "proeth:step": 3
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "The Board interprets \u0027misrepresentation\u0027 in Section II.5.a to include intentional implications that obscure truth",
      "proeth:element": "Code Interpretation Ruling",
      "proeth:step": 4
    }
  ],
  "proeth:cause": "Resume Submission",
  "proeth:counterfactual": "Without Engineer A\u0027s misleading resume submission, the Board would have had no occasion to issue this interpretation of Section II.5.a in this case",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "discussion",
  "proeth:effect": "Code Interpretation Ruling",
  "proeth:interveningFactors": [
    "Prior precedents in Case 72-11 and Case 79-5",
    "Successive Code modifications"
  ],
  "proeth:necessaryFactors": [
    "Engineer A\u0027s misleading resume implication placed before the Board",
    "Existence of Section II.5.a addressing professional qualification misrepresentation",
    "Board\u0027s determination that \u0027misrepresentation\u0027 includes intentional implications that obscure truth"
  ],
  "proeth:responsibilityType": "shared",
  "proeth:responsibleAgent": "NSPE Board of Ethical Review (for the ruling); Engineer A (for triggering it)",
  "proeth:sufficientFactors": [
    "A resume containing intentional implications designed to mislead a prospective employer, evaluated under the expanded Section II.5.a language"
  ],
  "proeth:withinAgentControl": true
}

Causal Language: Engineer A submits his resume to Employer Y and on it implies that he personally was responsible for the design of products which were actually designed through a joint effort of the members of the team.

Necessary Factors (NESS):
  • Engineer A's genuine participation in the team design work
  • Engineer A's desire for employment with Employer Y
  • Engineer A's decision to characterize joint work as personal accomplishment
Sufficient Factors:
  • Actual participation in credited design work combined with the volitional choice to imply sole responsibility on the resume
Counterfactual Test: Without having participated in the team design work, Engineer A would have had no factual basis on which to construct the misleading implication of personal responsibility
Responsibility Attribution:

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

Causal Sequence:
  1. Team Design Participation
    Engineer A participates in and is credited with joint team designs at Employer X
  2. Employment Seeking
    Engineer A seeks employment with Employer Y
  3. Resume Submission
    Engineer A submits a resume implying personal responsibility for the team's designs
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • cause: Team Design Participation
  • effect: Resume Submission
  • responsibleAgent: Engineer A
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • causalLanguage content: Engineer A submits his resume to Employer Y and on it implies that he personally was responsible for the design of products which were actually designed through a joint effort of the members of the team.
  • necessaryFactors content: Engineer A's genuine participation in the team design work; Engineer A's desire for employment with Employer Y; Engineer A's decision to characterize joint work as personal accomplishment
  • sufficientFactors content: Actual participation in credited design work combined with the volitional choice to imply sole responsibility on the resume
  • counterfactual content: Without having participated in the team design work, Engineer A would have had no factual basis on which to construct the misleading implication of personal responsibility
  • agentKnowledge content: Engineer A knew the designs were 'actually designed through a joint effort of the members of the team'
  • interveningFactors content: Highly competitive employment environment; Pressure on job applicants to make the best impression
  • causalSequence content: {'proeth:step': 1, 'proeth:element': 'Team Design Participation', 'proeth:description': 'Engineer A participates in and is credited with joint team designs at Employer X'}; {'proeth:step': 2, 'proeth:element': 'Employment Seeking', 'proeth:description': 'Engineer A seeks employment with Employer Y'}; {'proeth:step': 3, 'proeth:element': 'Resume Submission', 'proeth:description': "Engineer A submits a resume implying personal responsibility for the team's designs"}
  • responsibilityType assessment: direct
  • withinAgentControl assessment: True
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/135#",
    "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/135#CausalChain_2",
  "@type": "proeth:CausalChain",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-12T20:43:21.139647+00:00",
  "proeth:agentKnowledge": "Engineer A knew the designs were \u0027actually designed through a joint effort of the members of the team\u0027",
  "proeth:causalLanguage": "Engineer A submits his resume to Employer Y and on it implies that he personally was responsible for the design of products which were actually designed through a joint effort of the members of the team.",
  "proeth:causalSequence": [
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer A participates in and is credited with joint team designs at Employer X",
      "proeth:element": "Team Design Participation",
      "proeth:step": 1
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer A seeks employment with Employer Y",
      "proeth:element": "Employment Seeking",
      "proeth:step": 2
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer A submits a resume implying personal responsibility for the team\u0027s designs",
      "proeth:element": "Resume Submission",
      "proeth:step": 3
    }
  ],
  "proeth:cause": "Team Design Participation",
  "proeth:counterfactual": "Without having participated in the team design work, Engineer A would have had no factual basis on which to construct the misleading implication of personal responsibility",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "facts",
  "proeth:effect": "Resume Submission",
  "proeth:interveningFactors": [
    "Highly competitive employment environment",
    "Pressure on job applicants to make the best impression"
  ],
  "proeth:necessaryFactors": [
    "Engineer A\u0027s genuine participation in the team design work",
    "Engineer A\u0027s desire for employment with Employer Y",
    "Engineer A\u0027s decision to characterize joint work as personal accomplishment"
  ],
  "proeth:responsibilityType": "direct",
  "proeth:responsibleAgent": "Engineer A",
  "proeth:sufficientFactors": [
    "Actual participation in credited design work combined with the volitional choice to imply sole responsibility on the resume"
  ],
  "proeth:withinAgentControl": true
}

Causal Language: Finally, we note that by his conduct, Engineer A appears to have been in violation of Section III.10.a. by failing to provide due credit to those five other staff engineers who worked with Engineer A in designing certain products.

Necessary Factors (NESS):
  • Resume framing the design work as personal accomplishment
  • Absence of any indication of team effort on the resume
  • Existence of five co-contributing engineers deserving credit
Sufficient Factors:
  • Submitting a resume implying sole responsibility necessarily entails failing to express that the work was a team effort
Counterfactual Test: Had Engineer A expressed the fact that the design work was performed as a result of a team effort, no failure to give due credit would have occurred
Responsibility Attribution:

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

Causal Sequence:
  1. Resume Submission
    Engineer A submits a resume implying personal responsibility for team-designed products
  2. Team Credit Omission
    The resume fails to express that the design work resulted from a team effort
  3. Section III.10.a Violation Finding
    The Board finds Engineer A failed to provide due credit to the five other staff engineers
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • cause: Resume Submission
  • effect: Team Credit Omission
  • responsibleAgent: Engineer A
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • causalLanguage content: Finally, we note that by his conduct, Engineer A appears to have been in violation of Section III.10.a. by failing to provide due credit to those five other staff engineers who worked with Engineer A in designing certain products.
  • necessaryFactors content: Resume framing the design work as personal accomplishment; Absence of any indication of team effort on the resume; Existence of five co-contributing engineers deserving credit
  • sufficientFactors content: Submitting a resume implying sole responsibility necessarily entails failing to express that the work was a team effort
  • counterfactual content: Had Engineer A expressed the fact that the design work was performed as a result of a team effort, no failure to give due credit would have occurred
  • agentKnowledge content: Engineer A knew the five other staff engineers of equal rank shared credit for the designs
  • interveningFactors content: Resume conventions that do not require naming co-workers
  • causalSequence content: {'proeth:step': 1, 'proeth:element': 'Resume Submission', 'proeth:description': 'Engineer A submits a resume implying personal responsibility for team-designed products'}; {'proeth:step': 2, 'proeth:element': 'Team Credit Omission', 'proeth:description': 'The resume fails to express that the design work resulted from a team effort'}; {'proeth:step': 3, 'proeth:element': 'Section III.10.a Violation Finding', 'proeth:description': 'The Board finds Engineer A failed to provide due credit to the five other staff engineers'}
  • responsibilityType assessment: direct
  • withinAgentControl assessment: True
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/135#",
    "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/135#CausalChain_3",
  "@type": "proeth:CausalChain",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-12T20:43:21.139669+00:00",
  "proeth:agentKnowledge": "Engineer A knew the five other staff engineers of equal rank shared credit for the designs",
  "proeth:causalLanguage": "Finally, we note that by his conduct, Engineer A appears to have been in violation of Section III.10.a. by failing to provide due credit to those five other staff engineers who worked with Engineer A in designing certain products.",
  "proeth:causalSequence": [
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer A submits a resume implying personal responsibility for team-designed products",
      "proeth:element": "Resume Submission",
      "proeth:step": 1
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "The resume fails to express that the design work resulted from a team effort",
      "proeth:element": "Team Credit Omission",
      "proeth:step": 2
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "The Board finds Engineer A failed to provide due credit to the five other staff engineers",
      "proeth:element": "Section III.10.a Violation Finding",
      "proeth:step": 3
    }
  ],
  "proeth:cause": "Resume Submission",
  "proeth:counterfactual": "Had Engineer A expressed the fact that the design work was performed as a result of a team effort, no failure to give due credit would have occurred",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "discussion",
  "proeth:effect": "Team Credit Omission",
  "proeth:interveningFactors": [
    "Resume conventions that do not require naming co-workers"
  ],
  "proeth:necessaryFactors": [
    "Resume framing the design work as personal accomplishment",
    "Absence of any indication of team effort on the resume",
    "Existence of five co-contributing engineers deserving credit"
  ],
  "proeth:responsibilityType": "direct",
  "proeth:responsibleAgent": "Engineer A",
  "proeth:sufficientFactors": [
    "Submitting a resume implying sole responsibility necessarily entails failing to express that the work was a team effort"
  ],
  "proeth:withinAgentControl": true
}

Causal Language: Doe, who had been employed as a design engineer in an aerospace company for twelve years... was laid off when contracts with his company were terminated and new work was not forthcoming. After many months of seeking a new job in his specialized field with no success

Necessary Factors (NESS):
  • Loss of employment due to terminated contracts
  • Doe's need to seek new employment
  • Doe's resume showing a lack of managerial and administrative experience
Sufficient Factors:
  • Layoff forcing job search in a market where Doe's specialized resume repeatedly failed to secure positions
Counterfactual Test: Had Doe not been laid off, he would not have been in the job market to experience repeated rejections
Responsibility Attribution:

Agent: Employer's contract circumstances (external); no ethical fault attributed to Doe
Type: indirect
Within Agent Control: No

Causal Sequence:
  1. Contract Termination Layoff
    Doe is laid off when his company's contracts are terminated
  2. Specialized Job Search
    Doe spends many months seeking a job in his specialized field with no success
  3. Repeated Job Rejections
    Doe is turned down repeatedly because his resume showed a lack of managerial/administrative experience
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • cause: Contract Termination Layoff
  • effect: Repeated Job Rejections
  • responsibleAgent: Employer's contract circumstances (external); no ethical fault attributed to Doe
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • causalLanguage content: Doe, who had been employed as a design engineer in an aerospace company for twelve years... was laid off when contracts with his company were terminated and new work was not forthcoming. After many months of seeking a new job in his specialized field with no success
  • necessaryFactors content: Loss of employment due to terminated contracts; Doe's need to seek new employment; Doe's resume showing a lack of managerial and administrative experience
  • sufficientFactors content: Layoff forcing job search in a market where Doe's specialized resume repeatedly failed to secure positions
  • counterfactual content: Had Doe not been laid off, he would not have been in the job market to experience repeated rejections
  • agentKnowledge content: Doe knew his specialized design background was not securing offers in the available market
  • interveningFactors content: Terminated company contracts; New work not forthcoming; Employment market conditions
  • causalSequence content: {'proeth:step': 1, 'proeth:element': 'Contract Termination Layoff', 'proeth:description': "Doe is laid off when his company's contracts are terminated"}; {'proeth:step': 2, 'proeth:element': 'Specialized Job Search', 'proeth:description': 'Doe spends many months seeking a job in his specialized field with no success'}; {'proeth:step': 3, 'proeth:element': 'Repeated Job Rejections', 'proeth:description': 'Doe is turned down repeatedly because his resume showed a lack of managerial/administrative experience'}
  • responsibilityType assessment: indirect
  • withinAgentControl assessment: False
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/135#",
    "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/135#CausalChain_5",
  "@type": "proeth:CausalChain",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-12T20:43:21.139710+00:00",
  "proeth:agentKnowledge": "Doe knew his specialized design background was not securing offers in the available market",
  "proeth:causalLanguage": "Doe, who had been employed as a design engineer in an aerospace company for twelve years... was laid off when contracts with his company were terminated and new work was not forthcoming. After many months of seeking a new job in his specialized field with no success",
  "proeth:causalSequence": [
    {
      "proeth:description": "Doe is laid off when his company\u0027s contracts are terminated",
      "proeth:element": "Contract Termination Layoff",
      "proeth:step": 1
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Doe spends many months seeking a job in his specialized field with no success",
      "proeth:element": "Specialized Job Search",
      "proeth:step": 2
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Doe is turned down repeatedly because his resume showed a lack of managerial/administrative experience",
      "proeth:element": "Repeated Job Rejections",
      "proeth:step": 3
    }
  ],
  "proeth:cause": "Contract Termination Layoff",
  "proeth:counterfactual": "Had Doe not been laid off, he would not have been in the job market to experience repeated rejections",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "discussion",
  "proeth:effect": "Repeated Job Rejections",
  "proeth:interveningFactors": [
    "Terminated company contracts",
    "New work not forthcoming",
    "Employment market conditions"
  ],
  "proeth:necessaryFactors": [
    "Loss of employment due to terminated contracts",
    "Doe\u0027s need to seek new employment",
    "Doe\u0027s resume showing a lack of managerial and administrative experience"
  ],
  "proeth:responsibilityType": "indirect",
  "proeth:responsibleAgent": "Employer\u0027s contract circumstances (external); no ethical fault attributed to Doe",
  "proeth:sufficientFactors": [
    "Layoff forcing job search in a market where Doe\u0027s specialized resume repeatedly failed to secure positions"
  ],
  "proeth:withinAgentControl": false
}

Causal Language: After being turned down repeatedly for technical, managerial or administrative positions because his resume showed a lack of such experience, Doe devised a new resume which played down his technical design experience and expertise and emphasized his minor managerial and administrative function in his former employment as an important responsibility.

Necessary Factors (NESS):
  • Repeated rejections attributable to the resume's contents
  • Employment counselor's advice that Doe's opportunity lay in management/administration
  • Doe's actual (though minor) managerial and administrative experience
Sufficient Factors:
  • Persistent rejection plus counselor advice plus genuine underlying experience motivating and enabling the reframed resume
Counterfactual Test: Had Doe secured employment with his original resume, he would have had no motive to devise a new resume emphasizing managerial experience
Responsibility Attribution:

Agent: John Doe
Type: direct
Within Agent Control: Yes

Causal Sequence:
  1. Repeated Job Rejections
    Doe is turned down repeatedly because his resume showed a lack of managerial experience
  2. Counselor Advice
    An employment counselor advises Doe that his only opportunity lay in management and administration
  3. Resume Emphasis Adjustment
    Doe devises a new resume playing down technical design work and emphasizing his minor managerial function
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • cause: Repeated Job Rejections
  • effect: Resume Emphasis Adjustment
  • responsibleAgent: John Doe
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • causalLanguage content: After being turned down repeatedly for technical, managerial or administrative positions because his resume showed a lack of such experience, Doe devised a new resume which played down his technical design experience and expertise and emphasized his minor managerial and administrative function in his former employment as an important responsibility.
  • necessaryFactors content: Repeated rejections attributable to the resume's contents; Employment counselor's advice that Doe's opportunity lay in management/administration; Doe's actual (though minor) managerial and administrative experience
  • sufficientFactors content: Persistent rejection plus counselor advice plus genuine underlying experience motivating and enabling the reframed resume
  • counterfactual content: Had Doe secured employment with his original resume, he would have had no motive to devise a new resume emphasizing managerial experience
  • agentKnowledge content: Doe knew his managerial experience was 'of a minor nature' but felt he could perform satisfactorily at a higher level if given the opportunity
  • interveningFactors content: Employment counselor's advice; Prolonged unemployment pressure
  • causalSequence content: {'proeth:step': 1, 'proeth:element': 'Repeated Job Rejections', 'proeth:description': 'Doe is turned down repeatedly because his resume showed a lack of managerial experience'}; {'proeth:step': 2, 'proeth:element': 'Counselor Advice', 'proeth:description': 'An employment counselor advises Doe that his only opportunity lay in management and administration'}; {'proeth:step': 3, 'proeth:element': 'Resume Emphasis Adjustment', 'proeth:description': 'Doe devises a new resume playing down technical design work and emphasizing his minor managerial function'}
  • responsibilityType assessment: direct
  • withinAgentControl assessment: True
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/135#",
    "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/135#CausalChain_6",
  "@type": "proeth:CausalChain",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-12T20:43:21.139729+00:00",
  "proeth:agentKnowledge": "Doe knew his managerial experience was \u0027of a minor nature\u0027 but felt he could perform satisfactorily at a higher level if given the opportunity",
  "proeth:causalLanguage": "After being turned down repeatedly for technical, managerial or administrative positions because his resume showed a lack of such experience, Doe devised a new resume which played down his technical design experience and expertise and emphasized his minor managerial and administrative function in his former employment as an important responsibility.",
  "proeth:causalSequence": [
    {
      "proeth:description": "Doe is turned down repeatedly because his resume showed a lack of managerial experience",
      "proeth:element": "Repeated Job Rejections",
      "proeth:step": 1
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "An employment counselor advises Doe that his only opportunity lay in management and administration",
      "proeth:element": "Counselor Advice",
      "proeth:step": 2
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Doe devises a new resume playing down technical design work and emphasizing his minor managerial function",
      "proeth:element": "Resume Emphasis Adjustment",
      "proeth:step": 3
    }
  ],
  "proeth:cause": "Repeated Job Rejections",
  "proeth:counterfactual": "Had Doe secured employment with his original resume, he would have had no motive to devise a new resume emphasizing managerial experience",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "discussion",
  "proeth:effect": "Resume Emphasis Adjustment",
  "proeth:interveningFactors": [
    "Employment counselor\u0027s advice",
    "Prolonged unemployment pressure"
  ],
  "proeth:necessaryFactors": [
    "Repeated rejections attributable to the resume\u0027s contents",
    "Employment counselor\u0027s advice that Doe\u0027s opportunity lay in management/administration",
    "Doe\u0027s actual (though minor) managerial and administrative experience"
  ],
  "proeth:responsibilityType": "direct",
  "proeth:responsibleAgent": "John Doe",
  "proeth:sufficientFactors": [
    "Persistent rejection plus counselor advice plus genuine underlying experience motivating and enabling the reframed resume"
  ],
  "proeth:withinAgentControl": true
}

Causal Language: As a result, Doe was able to obtain a new job which involved responsibilities in his general field of technical expertise.

Necessary Factors (NESS):
  • The revised resume emphasizing managerial and administrative experience
  • Doe's truthful underlying degree of competence in those areas
  • An employer willing to hire based on the presented emphasis
Sufficient Factors:
  • The reframed resume, presenting a truthful degree of competence with strong emphasis, was enough to secure the position
Counterfactual Test: With the original resume, Doe had been rejected repeatedly; the Board's account indicates the new job resulted from the revised resume
Responsibility Attribution:

Agent: John Doe
Type: direct
Within Agent Control: Yes

Causal Sequence:
  1. Resume Emphasis Adjustment
    Doe devises a resume emphasizing managerial/administrative experience
  2. Employer Screening Passage
    The revised resume makes a favorable impression rather than screening Doe out
  3. New Job Obtainment
    Doe obtains a job with responsibilities in his general field of technical expertise
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • cause: Resume Emphasis Adjustment
  • effect: New Job Obtainment
  • responsibleAgent: John Doe
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • causalLanguage content: As a result, Doe was able to obtain a new job which involved responsibilities in his general field of technical expertise.
  • necessaryFactors content: The revised resume emphasizing managerial and administrative experience; Doe's truthful underlying degree of competence in those areas; An employer willing to hire based on the presented emphasis
  • sufficientFactors content: The reframed resume, presenting a truthful degree of competence with strong emphasis, was enough to secure the position
  • counterfactual content: With the original resume, Doe had been rejected repeatedly; the Board's account indicates the new job resulted from the revised resume
  • agentKnowledge content: Doe could truthfully show some degree of competence in the managerial and administrative technical areas even though he strongly emphasized its extent and level
  • interveningFactors content: Hiring employer's screening decision
  • causalSequence content: {'proeth:step': 1, 'proeth:element': 'Resume Emphasis Adjustment', 'proeth:description': 'Doe devises a resume emphasizing managerial/administrative experience'}; {'proeth:step': 2, 'proeth:element': 'Employer Screening Passage', 'proeth:description': 'The revised resume makes a favorable impression rather than screening Doe out'}; {'proeth:step': 3, 'proeth:element': 'New Job Obtainment', 'proeth:description': 'Doe obtains a job with responsibilities in his general field of technical expertise'}
  • responsibilityType assessment: direct
  • withinAgentControl assessment: True
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/135#",
    "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/135#CausalChain_7",
  "@type": "proeth:CausalChain",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-12T20:43:21.139747+00:00",
  "proeth:agentKnowledge": "Doe could truthfully show some degree of competence in the managerial and administrative technical areas even though he strongly emphasized its extent and level",
  "proeth:causalLanguage": "As a result, Doe was able to obtain a new job which involved responsibilities in his general field of technical expertise.",
  "proeth:causalSequence": [
    {
      "proeth:description": "Doe devises a resume emphasizing managerial/administrative experience",
      "proeth:element": "Resume Emphasis Adjustment",
      "proeth:step": 1
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "The revised resume makes a favorable impression rather than screening Doe out",
      "proeth:element": "Employer Screening Passage",
      "proeth:step": 2
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Doe obtains a job with responsibilities in his general field of technical expertise",
      "proeth:element": "New Job Obtainment",
      "proeth:step": 3
    }
  ],
  "proeth:cause": "Resume Emphasis Adjustment",
  "proeth:counterfactual": "With the original resume, Doe had been rejected repeatedly; the Board\u0027s account indicates the new job resulted from the revised resume",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "discussion",
  "proeth:effect": "New Job Obtainment",
  "proeth:interveningFactors": [
    "Hiring employer\u0027s screening decision"
  ],
  "proeth:necessaryFactors": [
    "The revised resume emphasizing managerial and administrative experience",
    "Doe\u0027s truthful underlying degree of competence in those areas",
    "An employer willing to hire based on the presented emphasis"
  ],
  "proeth:responsibilityType": "direct",
  "proeth:responsibleAgent": "John Doe",
  "proeth:sufficientFactors": [
    "The reframed resume, presenting a truthful degree of competence with strong emphasis, was enough to secure the position"
  ],
  "proeth:withinAgentControl": true
}

Causal Language: In 1960 he received a Ph.D. degree from an organization which awarded degrees on the basis of correspondence without requiring any form of personal attendance or study at the institution and was regarded by state authorities as a 'diploma mill.' The engineer listed his Ph.D. degree among his academic qualifications in brochures, correspondence, and otherwise without indicating its nature.

Necessary Factors (NESS):
  • Possession of the correspondence-based Ph.D. degree
  • The engineer's decision to list it among academic qualifications
  • Omission of any indication of the degree's nature
Sufficient Factors:
  • Receipt of the degree combined with the choice to present it without disclosure of its diploma-mill origin
Counterfactual Test: Without receiving the Ph.D. from the diploma mill, the engineer could not have listed it as an academic credential
Responsibility Attribution:

Agent: Engineer in Case 79-5
Type: direct
Within Agent Control: Yes

Causal Sequence:
  1. Diploma Mill Degree Receipt
    Engineer receives a Ph.D. in 1960 from a correspondence-based diploma mill
  2. Credential Listing
    Engineer lists the Ph.D. among academic qualifications without indicating its nature
  3. Unethical Conduct Finding
    The Board concludes the engineer was unethical in citing the Ph.D. as an academic qualification
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • cause: Diploma Mill Degree Receipt
  • effect: Credential Listing
  • responsibleAgent: Engineer in Case 79-5
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • causalLanguage content: In 1960 he received a Ph.D. degree from an organization which awarded degrees on the basis of correspondence without requiring any form of personal attendance or study at the institution and was regarded by state authorities as a 'diploma mill.' The engineer listed his Ph.D. degree among his academic qualifications in brochures, correspondence, and otherwise without indicating its nature.
  • necessaryFactors content: Possession of the correspondence-based Ph.D. degree; The engineer's decision to list it among academic qualifications; Omission of any indication of the degree's nature
  • sufficientFactors content: Receipt of the degree combined with the choice to present it without disclosure of its diploma-mill origin
  • counterfactual content: Without receiving the Ph.D. from the diploma mill, the engineer could not have listed it as an academic credential
  • agentKnowledge content: The engineer knew the degree was awarded on the basis of correspondence without personal attendance or study
  • interveningFactors content: The diploma mill's willingness to award degrees; Lack of external verification of credentials
  • causalSequence content: {'proeth:step': 1, 'proeth:element': 'Diploma Mill Degree Receipt', 'proeth:description': 'Engineer receives a Ph.D. in 1960 from a correspondence-based diploma mill'}; {'proeth:step': 2, 'proeth:element': 'Credential Listing', 'proeth:description': 'Engineer lists the Ph.D. among academic qualifications without indicating its nature'}; {'proeth:step': 3, 'proeth:element': 'Unethical Conduct Finding', 'proeth:description': 'The Board concludes the engineer was unethical in citing the Ph.D. as an academic qualification'}
  • responsibilityType assessment: direct
  • withinAgentControl assessment: True
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/135#",
    "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/135#CausalChain_8",
  "@type": "proeth:CausalChain",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-12T20:43:21.139766+00:00",
  "proeth:agentKnowledge": "The engineer knew the degree was awarded on the basis of correspondence without personal attendance or study",
  "proeth:causalLanguage": "In 1960 he received a Ph.D. degree from an organization which awarded degrees on the basis of correspondence without requiring any form of personal attendance or study at the institution and was regarded by state authorities as a \u0027diploma mill.\u0027 The engineer listed his Ph.D. degree among his academic qualifications in brochures, correspondence, and otherwise without indicating its nature.",
  "proeth:causalSequence": [
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer receives a Ph.D. in 1960 from a correspondence-based diploma mill",
      "proeth:element": "Diploma Mill Degree Receipt",
      "proeth:step": 1
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer lists the Ph.D. among academic qualifications without indicating its nature",
      "proeth:element": "Credential Listing",
      "proeth:step": 2
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "The Board concludes the engineer was unethical in citing the Ph.D. as an academic qualification",
      "proeth:element": "Unethical Conduct Finding",
      "proeth:step": 3
    }
  ],
  "proeth:cause": "Diploma Mill Degree Receipt",
  "proeth:counterfactual": "Without receiving the Ph.D. from the diploma mill, the engineer could not have listed it as an academic credential",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "discussion",
  "proeth:effect": "Credential Listing",
  "proeth:interveningFactors": [
    "The diploma mill\u0027s willingness to award degrees",
    "Lack of external verification of credentials"
  ],
  "proeth:necessaryFactors": [
    "Possession of the correspondence-based Ph.D. degree",
    "The engineer\u0027s decision to list it among academic qualifications",
    "Omission of any indication of the degree\u0027s nature"
  ],
  "proeth:responsibilityType": "direct",
  "proeth:responsibleAgent": "Engineer in Case 79-5",
  "proeth:sufficientFactors": [
    "Receipt of the degree combined with the choice to present it without disclosure of its diploma-mill origin"
  ],
  "proeth:withinAgentControl": true
}

Causal Language: In concluding that the engineer was unethical in citing his Ph.D. as an academic qualification under these circumstances, we noted that the earlier Case 72-11 had been decided under old Code provision 3(e) which had since been expanded to embrace 'misleading, deceptive or false statements regarding professional qualifications' rather than merely 'exaggerated statements of qualifications.'

Necessary Factors (NESS):
  • Expanded Code language prohibiting misleading, deceptive or false statements
  • The engineer's listing of the diploma-mill Ph.D. without indicating its nature
  • Board review of the conduct under the newer language
Sufficient Factors:
  • The credential listing evaluated under the broader Code language was sufficient to yield the unethical finding
Counterfactual Test: Under the older, narrower 'exaggerated statements' provision alone, the Board might not have reached the same prohibition; the expanded language was necessary to the holding as framed
Responsibility Attribution:

Agent: NSPE (Code drafters) for the standard; the Case 79-5 engineer for the conduct judged against it
Type: shared
Within Agent Control: No

Causal Sequence:
  1. Code Language Expansion
    Provision 3(e) is expanded to embrace misleading, deceptive or false statements regarding qualifications
  2. Credential Listing Review
    The Board evaluates the diploma-mill Ph.D. listing under the broader language
  3. Prohibition Holding
    The Board holds the newer language prohibits citing the Ph.D. as an academic credential
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • cause: Code Language Expansion
  • effect: Credential Listing
  • responsibleAgent: NSPE (Code drafters) for the standard; the Case 79-5 engineer for the conduct judged against it
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • causalLanguage content: In concluding that the engineer was unethical in citing his Ph.D. as an academic qualification under these circumstances, we noted that the earlier Case 72-11 had been decided under old Code provision 3(e) which had since been expanded to embrace 'misleading, deceptive or false statements regarding professional qualifications' rather than merely 'exaggerated statements of qualifications.'
  • necessaryFactors content: Expanded Code language prohibiting misleading, deceptive or false statements; The engineer's listing of the diploma-mill Ph.D. without indicating its nature; Board review of the conduct under the newer language
  • sufficientFactors content: The credential listing evaluated under the broader Code language was sufficient to yield the unethical finding
  • counterfactual content: Under the older, narrower 'exaggerated statements' provision alone, the Board might not have reached the same prohibition; the expanded language was necessary to the holding as framed
  • agentKnowledge content: The Board knew the Code had been broadened since Case 72-11 and applied the newer language
  • interveningFactors content: Evolution of professional ethical standards over time
  • causalSequence content: {'proeth:step': 1, 'proeth:element': 'Code Language Expansion', 'proeth:description': 'Provision 3(e) is expanded to embrace misleading, deceptive or false statements regarding qualifications'}; {'proeth:step': 2, 'proeth:element': 'Credential Listing Review', 'proeth:description': 'The Board evaluates the diploma-mill Ph.D. listing under the broader language'}; {'proeth:step': 3, 'proeth:element': 'Prohibition Holding', 'proeth:description': 'The Board holds the newer language prohibits citing the Ph.D. as an academic credential'}
  • responsibilityType assessment: shared
  • withinAgentControl assessment: False
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/135#",
    "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/135#CausalChain_9",
  "@type": "proeth:CausalChain",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-12T20:43:21.139783+00:00",
  "proeth:agentKnowledge": "The Board knew the Code had been broadened since Case 72-11 and applied the newer language",
  "proeth:causalLanguage": "In concluding that the engineer was unethical in citing his Ph.D. as an academic qualification under these circumstances, we noted that the earlier Case 72-11 had been decided under old Code provision 3(e) which had since been expanded to embrace \u0027misleading, deceptive or false statements regarding professional qualifications\u0027 rather than merely \u0027exaggerated statements of qualifications.\u0027",
  "proeth:causalSequence": [
    {
      "proeth:description": "Provision 3(e) is expanded to embrace misleading, deceptive or false statements regarding qualifications",
      "proeth:element": "Code Language Expansion",
      "proeth:step": 1
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "The Board evaluates the diploma-mill Ph.D. listing under the broader language",
      "proeth:element": "Credential Listing Review",
      "proeth:step": 2
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "The Board holds the newer language prohibits citing the Ph.D. as an academic credential",
      "proeth:element": "Prohibition Holding",
      "proeth:step": 3
    }
  ],
  "proeth:cause": "Code Language Expansion",
  "proeth:counterfactual": "Under the older, narrower \u0027exaggerated statements\u0027 provision alone, the Board might not have reached the same prohibition; the expanded language was necessary to the holding as framed",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "discussion",
  "proeth:effect": "Credential Listing",
  "proeth:interveningFactors": [
    "Evolution of professional ethical standards over time"
  ],
  "proeth:necessaryFactors": [
    "Expanded Code language prohibiting misleading, deceptive or false statements",
    "The engineer\u0027s listing of the diploma-mill Ph.D. without indicating its nature",
    "Board review of the conduct under the newer language"
  ],
  "proeth:responsibilityType": "shared",
  "proeth:responsibleAgent": "NSPE (Code drafters) for the standard; the Case 79-5 engineer for the conduct judged against it",
  "proeth:sufficientFactors": [
    "The credential listing evaluated under the broader Code language was sufficient to yield the unethical finding"
  ],
  "proeth:withinAgentControl": false
}

Causal Language: Since our decision in Case 79-5 , the NSPE Code of Ethics has again been modified. The Code language appears to restrict even further the representations which engineers may make in resumes, brochures, correspondence, etc. New Section II.5.a. specifically addresses the issue of professional qualification misrepresentation.

Necessary Factors (NESS):
  • Existence of new Section II.5.a addressing professional qualification misrepresentation
  • Engineer A's case presenting an implied (not stated) misrepresentation
  • Board's willingness to read 'misrepresentation' to include intentional implications
Sufficient Factors:
  • The modified Code language applied to Engineer A's intentionally misleading implication was sufficient to ground the prohibition
Counterfactual Test: Without Section II.5.a's further-restricting language, the Board's ruling could not have rested on this provision; earlier, narrower provisions might not have reached mere implications
Responsibility Attribution:

Agent: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
Type: direct
Within Agent Control: Yes

Causal Sequence:
  1. Code Modification
    The NSPE Code is modified after Case 79-5, adding Section II.5.a on qualification misrepresentation
  2. Case Presentation
    Engineer A's misleading resume implication comes before the Board
  3. Code Interpretation Ruling
    The Board interprets 'misrepresentation' to include implications intended to obscure truth, prohibiting Engineer A's conduct
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • cause: Code Modification
  • effect: Code Interpretation Ruling
  • responsibleAgent: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • causalLanguage content: Since our decision in Case 79-5 , the NSPE Code of Ethics has again been modified. The Code language appears to restrict even further the representations which engineers may make in resumes, brochures, correspondence, etc. New Section II.5.a. specifically addresses the issue of professional qualification misrepresentation.
  • necessaryFactors content: Existence of new Section II.5.a addressing professional qualification misrepresentation; Engineer A's case presenting an implied (not stated) misrepresentation; Board's willingness to read 'misrepresentation' to include intentional implications
  • sufficientFactors content: The modified Code language applied to Engineer A's intentionally misleading implication was sufficient to ground the prohibition
  • counterfactual content: Without Section II.5.a's further-restricting language, the Board's ruling could not have rested on this provision; earlier, narrower provisions might not have reached mere implications
  • agentKnowledge content: The Board knew Engineer A 'did not in fact state that he was personally responsible' but found the implication was intentionally designed to mislead
  • interveningFactors content: Precedents of Case 72-11 and Case 79-5; Progressive tightening of Code language
  • causalSequence content: {'proeth:step': 1, 'proeth:element': 'Code Modification', 'proeth:description': 'The NSPE Code is modified after Case 79-5, adding Section II.5.a on qualification misrepresentation'}; {'proeth:step': 2, 'proeth:element': 'Case Presentation', 'proeth:description': "Engineer A's misleading resume implication comes before the Board"}; {'proeth:step': 3, 'proeth:element': 'Code Interpretation Ruling', 'proeth:description': "The Board interprets 'misrepresentation' to include implications intended to obscure truth, prohibiting Engineer A's conduct"}
  • responsibilityType assessment: direct
  • withinAgentControl assessment: True
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/135#",
    "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/135#CausalChain_10",
  "@type": "proeth:CausalChain",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-12T20:43:21.139801+00:00",
  "proeth:agentKnowledge": "The Board knew Engineer A \u0027did not in fact state that he was personally responsible\u0027 but found the implication was intentionally designed to mislead",
  "proeth:causalLanguage": "Since our decision in Case 79-5 , the NSPE Code of Ethics has again been modified. The Code language appears to restrict even further the representations which engineers may make in resumes, brochures, correspondence, etc. New Section II.5.a. specifically addresses the issue of professional qualification misrepresentation.",
  "proeth:causalSequence": [
    {
      "proeth:description": "The NSPE Code is modified after Case 79-5, adding Section II.5.a on qualification misrepresentation",
      "proeth:element": "Code Modification",
      "proeth:step": 1
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer A\u0027s misleading resume implication comes before the Board",
      "proeth:element": "Case Presentation",
      "proeth:step": 2
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "The Board interprets \u0027misrepresentation\u0027 to include implications intended to obscure truth, prohibiting Engineer A\u0027s conduct",
      "proeth:element": "Code Interpretation Ruling",
      "proeth:step": 3
    }
  ],
  "proeth:cause": "Code Modification",
  "proeth:counterfactual": "Without Section II.5.a\u0027s further-restricting language, the Board\u0027s ruling could not have rested on this provision; earlier, narrower provisions might not have reached mere implications",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "discussion",
  "proeth:effect": "Code Interpretation Ruling",
  "proeth:interveningFactors": [
    "Precedents of Case 72-11 and Case 79-5",
    "Progressive tightening of Code language"
  ],
  "proeth:necessaryFactors": [
    "Existence of new Section II.5.a addressing professional qualification misrepresentation",
    "Engineer A\u0027s case presenting an implied (not stated) misrepresentation",
    "Board\u0027s willingness to read \u0027misrepresentation\u0027 to include intentional implications"
  ],
  "proeth:responsibilityType": "direct",
  "proeth:responsibleAgent": "NSPE Board of Ethical Review",
  "proeth:sufficientFactors": [
    "The modified Code language applied to Engineer A\u0027s intentionally misleading implication was sufficient to ground the prohibition"
  ],
  "proeth:withinAgentControl": true
}
Allen Temporal Relations (7)
Interval algebra relationships with OWL-Time standard properties
From Entity Allen Relation To Entity OWL-Time Property Evidence
Engineer A's employment at Employer X before
Entity1 is before Entity2 		Engineer A's resume submission to Employer Y time:intervalBefore
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#intervalBefore 		As an employee for Employer X, Engineer A was a staff engineer... Engineer A submits his resume to E... [more]
team design of patented products during
Entity1 occurs entirely within the duration of Entity2 		Engineer A's employment at Employer X time:intervalDuring
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#intervalDuring 		While working for Employer X, Engineer A along with five other engineers in his team participated in... [more]
engineer's Bachelor of Science degree (1940) before
Entity1 is before Entity2 		engineer's registration as professional engineer in two states time:intervalBefore
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#intervalBefore 		received a Bachelor of Science degree in 1940 from a recognized engineering curriculum and was subse... [more]
engineer's registration as professional engineer before
Entity1 is before Entity2 		award of the earned Professional Degree time:intervalBefore
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#intervalBefore 		was subsequently registered as a professional engineer in two states. Later he was awarded an earned... [more]
engineer's Professional Degree before
Entity1 is before Entity2 		engineer's diploma-mill Ph.D. (1960) time:intervalBefore
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#intervalBefore 		Later he was awarded an earned 'Professional Degree' from the same institution. In 1960 he received ... [more]
modification of NSPE Code (Section II.5.a) before
Entity1 is before Entity2 		Board's evaluation of Engineer A's resume time:intervalBefore
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#intervalBefore 		In the context of the present case, we interpret Section II.5.a. to prohibit Engineer A to imply on ... [more]
existence of Section III.10.a before
Entity1 is before Entity2 		the added note about the current Code time:intervalBefore
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#intervalBefore 		Engineer A appears to have been in violation of Section III.10.a... Note: Code III.10.a no longer ex... [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