{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/135#",
    "proeth-scenario": "http://proethica.org/ontology/scenario#",
    "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/cases/135#Action_Collaborative_Product_Design_Participation",
  "@type": "proeth:Action",
  "proeth-scenario:alternativeActions": [
    "Negotiate for named individual credit on specific sub-components of the patented designs from the outset",
    "Maintain detailed personal records documenting individual contributions to the team effort",
    "Request that Employer X establish a formal credit-attribution policy for team-designed patents"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:characterMotivation": "Engineer A sought stable professional employment and career development within a collaborative engineering team, fulfilling assigned duties and contributing expertise to shared organizational goals. At this stage, motivation was likely aligned with professional growth and organizational loyalty.",
  "proeth-scenario:consequencesIfAlternative": [
    "Clear documentation of individual contributions would have made later honest resume representation straightforward and defensible, reducing the temptation to overstate sole authorship",
    "Personal contribution records would have provided Engineer A with accurate, verifiable claims to include on a resume without misrepresentation, supporting both honesty and legitimate self-advocacy",
    "A formal employer policy on attribution would have protected all six engineers equally and created an institutional norm that discourages later misrepresentation by any team member"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:decisionSignificance": "Establishes the foundational context that collaborative work creates shared ownership of outcomes, and that engineers must internalize from the outset that team contributions will later require honest attribution. Students learn that ethical obligations around credit begin at the moment of collaboration, not at the moment of disclosure.",
  "proeth-scenario:ethicalTension": "Individual ambition and desire for recognition versus the collective nature of team-based engineering work; the tension between wanting personal credit for contributions and acknowledging that innovation is often inherently collaborative.",
  "proeth-scenario:isDecisionPoint": false,
  "proeth-scenario:narrativeRole": "inciting_incident",
  "proeth-scenario:stakes": "Professional reputation of all six engineers, integrity of patent attribution, organizational trust, and the implicit social contract of collaborative work. If collaborative norms are not respected from the beginning, downstream misrepresentation becomes more likely.",
  "proeth:description": "Engineer A actively participated as one of six equal-rank staff engineers in designing a series of patented products for Employer X. This was a professional commitment to team-based engineering work with shared credit and responsibility.",
  "proeth:foreseenUnintendedEffects": [
    "Credit for designs would be shared among six engineers, potentially limiting individual resume impact later"
  ],
  "proeth:fulfillsObligation": [
    "Competent performance of engineering duties",
    "Collaboration with peers",
    "Service to employer"
  ],
  "proeth:guidedByPrinciple": [
    "Professional competence",
    "Team contribution",
    "Faithful agency to employer"
  ],
  "proeth:hasAgent": "Engineer A (Staff Engineer, Employer X)",
  "proeth:hasMentalState": "deliberate",
  "proeth:intendedOutcome": "Contribute to successful product design and fulfill professional role at Employer X",
  "proeth:requiresCapability": [
    "Engineering design expertise",
    "Collaborative teamwork",
    "Technical problem-solving"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "During employment at Employer X, prior to job search",
  "proeth:withinCompetence": true,
  "rdfs:label": "Collaborative Product Design Participation"
}

{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/135#",
    "proeth-scenario": "http://proethica.org/ontology/scenario#",
    "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/cases/135#Action_Decision_to_Seek_New_Employment",
  "@type": "proeth:Action",
  "proeth-scenario:alternativeActions": [
    "Seek new employment while proactively planning to represent collaborative work accurately and transparently on application materials",
    "Consult NSPE ethics guidelines or a mentor before preparing resume materials to understand standards for representing team-based work",
    "Negotiate with Employer X for a reference or recommendation letter that accurately characterizes Engineer A\u0027s individual contributions to team projects"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:characterMotivation": "Engineer A sought career advancement, potentially better compensation, new technical challenges, or improved working conditions. The decision to seek new employment is a normal, legitimate professional choice reflecting personal agency and ambition.",
  "proeth-scenario:consequencesIfAlternative": [
    "Committing to accurate representation at the decision-to-seek point would have framed the entire subsequent resume process around honesty, making misrepresentation far less likely",
    "Consulting ethics guidelines before resume preparation would have surfaced the standards established in Case 79-5 and NSPE Code Section II.5.a, giving Engineer A clear guidance and removing any ambiguity about permissible emphasis",
    "A strong, accurate reference letter from Employer X would have provided independent corroboration of Engineer A\u0027s genuine contributions, reducing the felt need to overstate individual responsibility on the resume"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:decisionSignificance": "Illustrates that ethically neutral decisions \u2014 such as changing jobs \u2014 can become the gateway to ethical violations depending on how subsequent choices are made. Students learn that the job-seeking process itself is an ethically loaded context requiring heightened attention to honesty norms.",
  "proeth-scenario:ethicalTension": "The right to pursue career advancement versus the obligation to represent one\u0027s qualifications honestly to prospective employers; self-interest in securing the best possible position versus fairness to competing candidates who may represent themselves accurately.",
  "proeth-scenario:isDecisionPoint": true,
  "proeth-scenario:narrativeRole": "rising_action",
  "proeth-scenario:stakes": "Career trajectory of Engineer A, fairness to other job candidates, integrity of Employer Y\u0027s hiring process, and the downstream risk that ambition will override honesty in resume preparation.",
  "proeth:description": "Engineer A made the volitional decision to leave Employer X and pursue a position with Employer Y, initiating the job application process. This decision set in motion the subsequent resume preparation and submission.",
  "proeth:foreseenUnintendedEffects": [
    "Would need to represent collaborative work history on resume in a competitive job market"
  ],
  "proeth:fulfillsObligation": [
    "Lawful exercise of professional autonomy and career self-determination"
  ],
  "proeth:guidedByPrinciple": [
    "Professional self-advancement",
    "Career development"
  ],
  "proeth:hasAgent": "Engineer A (Staff Engineer, Employer X / Job Applicant)",
  "proeth:hasMentalState": "deliberate",
  "proeth:intendedOutcome": "Secure new professional employment with Employer Y to advance career",
  "proeth:requiresCapability": [
    "Professional self-assessment",
    "Career planning"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "Upon leaving or while still at Employer X, prior to resume submission",
  "proeth:withinCompetence": true,
  "rdfs:label": "Decision to Seek New Employment"
}

{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/135#",
    "proeth-scenario": "http://proethica.org/ontology/scenario#",
    "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/cases/135#Action_Implying_Sole_Resume_Authorship",
  "@type": "proeth:Action",
  "proeth-scenario:alternativeActions": [
    "Describe the patented designs as team achievements while specifically and accurately articulating Engineer A\u0027s individual role, responsibilities, and contributions within the team",
    "Use transparent language such as \u0027contributed to\u0027 or \u0027participated as one of six engineers in designing\u0027 to accurately convey collaborative authorship",
    "Contact the NSPE ethics hotline or a trusted senior engineer to review resume language for compliance before submission"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:characterMotivation": "Engineer A sought to maximize competitive advantage in the job market by presenting credentials in the most impressive light possible. The motivation was likely a combination of fear of appearing less accomplished than competitors, desire for higher compensation or title, and rationalization that individual contributions were significant enough to justify implied sole credit.",
  "proeth-scenario:consequencesIfAlternative": [
    "Accurate individual contribution framing would have satisfied both self-advocacy and honesty norms \u2014 a skilled resume writer can highlight genuine individual value within a team context without misrepresentation, and Employer Y would have received truthful information on which to base a hiring decision",
    "Transparent collaborative language would have fully complied with NSPE Code Section II.5.a, protected the reputations of co-engineers, and still allowed Engineer A to claim legitimate credit for participation in significant patented work",
    "Pre-submission ethics review would have identified the misleading framing before any harm occurred, potentially preventing the ethical violation entirely and modeling the kind of proactive ethics consultation that professional codes encourage"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:decisionSignificance": "This is the central ethical violation of the case and the primary teaching moment. Students learn the critical distinction between permissible emphasis of one\u0027s genuine contributions and impermissible framing that creates a false impression. The action demonstrates that deception does not require explicit falsehood \u2014 strategic omission and misleading framing are ethically equivalent to lying under professional codes.",
  "proeth-scenario:ethicalTension": "Legitimate self-advocacy and the pressure to stand out in a competitive job market versus the professional obligation not to deceive; the historical gray area acknowledged in Case 72-11 (some emphasis is permissible) versus the clearer prohibition in Case 79-5 and NSPE Code Section II.5.a against misleading statements; personal career interests versus fairness to five co-engineers whose equal contributions are being erased.",
  "proeth-scenario:isDecisionPoint": true,
  "proeth-scenario:narrativeRole": "climax",
  "proeth-scenario:stakes": "Engineer A\u0027s professional integrity and license, the reputations of five co-engineers whose work is being appropriated, Employer Y\u0027s ability to make an informed hiring decision, the trust that underlies the entire engineering profession\u0027s credentialing system, and potential legal exposure around misrepresentation.",
  "proeth:description": "Engineer A deliberately crafted his resume to imply personal, individual responsibility for the design of patented products that were in fact the result of a six-person team effort. Rather than stating an outright falsehood, Engineer A chose language and framing that obscured the collaborative nature of the work.",
  "proeth:foreseenUnintendedEffects": [
    "Employer Y would be misled about the actual scope of Engineer A\u0027s individual contributions",
    "Five co-engineers would be denied due credit for their equal contributions",
    "Employer Y might overestimate Engineer A\u0027s independent design capabilities"
  ],
  "proeth:guidedByPrinciple": [
    "Individual career advancement",
    "Competitive self-presentation"
  ],
  "proeth:hasAgent": "Engineer A (Job Applicant)",
  "proeth:hasCompetingPriorities": {
    "@type": "proeth:CompetingPriorities",
    "proeth:priorityConflict": "Individual career advancement and competitive self-presentation versus truthfulness, non-deception, and collegial credit attribution",
    "proeth:resolutionReasoning": "Engineer A chose individual career advantage over ethical obligations, crossing the line from permissible emphasis (as in Case 72-11) into intentional misleading implication (prohibited under Section II.5.a and Case 79-5). The Board found this resolution unethical, holding that Engineer A should have noted the team nature of the work while still being able to highlight his own participation."
  },
  "proeth:hasMentalState": "deliberate and intentional",
  "proeth:intendedOutcome": "Present credentials in the most individually impressive manner to maximize competitive advantage with Employer Y and increase likelihood of being hired",
  "proeth:requiresCapability": [
    "Resume writing",
    "Professional self-assessment",
    "Knowledge of ethical obligations regarding credential representation"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "Resume preparation phase, prior to submission to Employer Y",
  "proeth:violatesObligation": [
    "NSPE Code Section II.5.a \u2014 prohibition on misrepresentation of professional qualifications, including intentional implications designed to obscure truth",
    "NSPE Code Section III.10.a \u2014 obligation to give due credit to other engineers for their contributions to joint work",
    "General duty of honesty and non-deception toward prospective employers",
    "Duty not to deceive public or clients about professional competence and role"
  ],
  "proeth:withinCompetence": true,
  "rdfs:label": "Implying Sole Resume Authorship"
}

{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/135#",
    "proeth-scenario": "http://proethica.org/ontology/scenario#",
    "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/cases/135#Action_Submitting_Misleading_Resume",
  "@type": "proeth:Action",
  "proeth-scenario:alternativeActions": [
    "Withdraw the resume before submission and revise it to accurately represent collaborative authorship before resubmitting",
    "Submit the resume with a cover letter that proactively clarifies the collaborative nature of the patented work and Engineer A\u0027s specific role within the team",
    "Contact Employer Y directly to verbally clarify the team-based nature of the work before or concurrent with resume submission"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:characterMotivation": "Engineer A sought to complete the job application process and secure employment at Employer Y. Submission was the necessary final step to convert the resume from a private document into an active professional representation, motivated by the same career advancement goals that drove the prior decision to craft misleading language.",
  "proeth-scenario:consequencesIfAlternative": [
    "Pre-submission revision would have prevented the ethical violation entirely and resulted in a compliant, honest application \u2014 Employer Y would have evaluated Engineer A on accurate credentials, and no NSPE Code violation would have occurred",
    "A clarifying cover letter would have partially mitigated the misleading resume framing, potentially bringing the overall application into compliance and demonstrating good faith transparency to the prospective employer",
    "Direct verbal clarification would have ensured Employer Y\u0027s hiring team had accurate information regardless of resume framing, protecting the employer\u0027s decision-making integrity even if the resume itself remained problematic"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:decisionSignificance": "Teaches students that the moment of transmission is a final ethical decision point \u2014 a \u0027last chance\u0027 moment where prior bad decisions can still be corrected. Students learn about the concept of consummating acts in ethics: submission transforms a private ethical lapse into a public one with real-world consequences for a third party (Employer Y) who now possesses and will act on false information.",
  "proeth-scenario:ethicalTension": "The urgency of completing the application process versus the opportunity for last-minute ethical reconsideration; the irreversibility of submission versus the ease of correction before the document leaves Engineer A\u0027s hands; professional ambition versus the duty of honesty to a prospective employer who will rely on the document in good faith.",
  "proeth-scenario:isDecisionPoint": true,
  "proeth-scenario:narrativeRole": "climax",
  "proeth-scenario:stakes": "Employer Y\u0027s right to make an informed hiring decision, the integrity of the engineering profession\u0027s self-representation norms, Engineer A\u0027s professional license and standing, potential civil liability for misrepresentation in employment, and the precedent set for how the profession handles credential inflation.",
  "proeth:description": "Engineer A submitted the deliberately crafted resume to Employer Y, completing the act of misrepresentation by transmitting the document implying sole authorship of team-designed patented products to a prospective employer. This is the consummating volitional act that exposed Employer Y to deception.",
  "proeth:foreseenUnintendedEffects": [
    "Employer Y\u0027s hiring decision would be based on a materially inaccurate understanding of Engineer A\u0027s individual versus collaborative design capabilities",
    "If hired, Employer Y might assign Engineer A to independent design responsibilities exceeding his demonstrated individual capacity"
  ],
  "proeth:guidedByPrinciple": [
    "Competitive self-presentation",
    "Career advancement"
  ],
  "proeth:hasAgent": "Engineer A (Job Applicant)",
  "proeth:hasCompetingPriorities": {
    "@type": "proeth:CompetingPriorities",
    "proeth:priorityConflict": "Maximizing personal employment success versus protecting Employer Y from deception and honoring co-engineers\u0027 contributions",
    "proeth:resolutionReasoning": "Engineer A\u0027s submission of the resume completed an intentional act of misrepresentation by implication. The Board held this crosses the ethical line established by Section II.5.a and Case 79-5, distinguishing it from the permissible emphasis of Case 72-11 because Engineer A\u0027s implication was specifically designed to obscure the collaborative truth rather than merely to highlight genuine individual strengths."
  },
  "proeth:hasMentalState": "deliberate",
  "proeth:intendedOutcome": "Secure employment with Employer Y by presenting credentials that would make the strongest individual impression on hiring decision-makers",
  "proeth:requiresCapability": [
    "Professional communication",
    "Understanding of credential representation standards",
    "Ethical judgment in self-presentation"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "At point of application submission to Employer Y",
  "proeth:violatesObligation": [
    "NSPE Code Section II.5.a \u2014 prohibition on misrepresentation of professional qualifications through misleading implication",
    "NSPE Code Section III.10.a \u2014 failure to give due credit to five co-engineers",
    "Duty of candor and honesty in professional communications with prospective employers",
    "Obligation not to deceive employers about competence in ways that could lead to entrustment of work beyond demonstrated individual capability"
  ],
  "proeth:withinCompetence": true,
  "rdfs:label": "Submitting Misleading Resume"
}

{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/135#",
    "proeth-scenario": "http://proethica.org/ontology/scenario#",
    "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/cases/135#Action_Omitting_Team_Credit_Attribution",
  "@type": "proeth:Action",
  "proeth-scenario:alternativeActions": [
    "Explicitly name or acknowledge the team structure and Engineer A\u0027s role within it, while highlighting specific individual contributions that are genuinely attributable",
    "Include a statement such as \u0027as part of a six-engineer team, contributed to the design of patented products including specific responsibility for [component/phase]\u0027",
    "Reach out to co-engineers to discuss how team members were collectively representing the shared work on their individual resumes, establishing a consistent and honest group norm"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:characterMotivation": "Engineer A made a calculated omission, likely motivated by the belief that including team attribution would diminish perceived individual accomplishment and reduce competitiveness as a job candidate. The omission may also reflect a rationalization that the five co-engineers\u0027 contributions were less significant, or that industry norms permit such selective presentation.",
  "proeth-scenario:consequencesIfAlternative": [
    "Explicit team acknowledgment with individual contribution detail would have satisfied both the honesty requirement and legitimate self-advocacy, giving Employer Y accurate and still impressive information about Engineer A\u0027s capabilities",
    "Specific role-scoped language would have complied fully with NSPE Code Section II.5.a, protected the credit due to co-engineers, and still allowed Engineer A to claim meaningful participation in significant patented work \u2014 a genuinely strong credential",
    "Peer consultation about resume representation norms would have created collective accountability, potentially prevented misrepresentation by multiple team members, and modeled the kind of collegial ethical deliberation that professional communities depend on"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:decisionSignificance": "Highlights that omission is a form of deception \u2014 a critical lesson for engineering ethics education. Students learn that professional codes do not only prohibit false statements but also require affirmative disclosure of information necessary to prevent a misleading impression. This action also introduces the concept of duties to third parties (the five co-engineers) who are harmed by the misrepresentation even though they are not party to the transaction between Engineer A and Employer Y.",
  "proeth-scenario:ethicalTension": "The professional obligation to give proper credit to collaborators (a duty explicitly recognized in engineering ethics codes) versus the competitive incentive to maximize the apparent scope of individual achievement; respect for the professional dignity and reputations of five equal-rank colleagues versus self-interest; the historical ambiguity of Case 72-11 versus the clear prohibition established by Case 79-5 and codified in NSPE Code Section II.5.a.",
  "proeth-scenario:isDecisionPoint": true,
  "proeth-scenario:narrativeRole": "rising_action",
  "proeth-scenario:stakes": "The professional reputations and credit due to five co-engineers who contributed equally to the patented designs, the accuracy of Employer Y\u0027s assessment of Engineer A\u0027s actual capabilities and track record, the broader professional norm that engineers give proper credit to collaborators, and Engineer A\u0027s own integrity and standing under NSPE codes.",
  "proeth:description": "Engineer A made the specific decision to omit any acknowledgment that the patented product designs were the result of a six-person team effort, failing to give due credit to the five co-engineers of equal rank who contributed equally to the work. This omission was a distinct volitional choice embedded within the resume preparation process.",
  "proeth:foreseenUnintendedEffects": [
    "Five co-engineers would receive no acknowledgment of their equal contributions",
    "Employer Y would have no basis to understand that the design work reflected team rather than individual capability"
  ],
  "proeth:guidedByPrinciple": [
    "Individual self-promotion",
    "Competitive advantage in hiring"
  ],
  "proeth:hasAgent": "Engineer A (Job Applicant)",
  "proeth:hasCompetingPriorities": {
    "@type": "proeth:CompetingPriorities",
    "proeth:priorityConflict": "Individual credential maximization versus collegial duty to acknowledge equal co-contributors",
    "proeth:resolutionReasoning": "Engineer A chose to omit all team attribution to maximize individual credential impact. The Board found this violates Section III.10.a, while also clarifying that compliance did not require naming co-engineers \u2014 only acknowledging the collaborative nature of the work. A compliant resume could have noted team participation while still highlighting Engineer A\u0027s individual contributions within that team context."
  },
  "proeth:hasMentalState": "deliberate",
  "proeth:intendedOutcome": "Avoid diluting the apparent individual impact of the listed design achievements by omitting reference to the collaborative team structure",
  "proeth:requiresCapability": [
    "Ethical judgment in professional self-representation",
    "Understanding of credit attribution norms in engineering",
    "Resume composition"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "Resume preparation phase, prior to submission to Employer Y",
  "proeth:violatesObligation": [
    "NSPE Code Section III.10.a \u2014 obligation to give due credit to engineers for their contributions to engineering work",
    "Professional norm of collegial acknowledgment of shared intellectual contribution",
    "Duty of honesty regarding the nature and scope of one\u0027s individual professional contributions"
  ],
  "proeth:withinCompetence": true,
  "rdfs:label": "Omitting Team Credit Attribution"
}

{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/135#",
    "proeth-scenario": "http://proethica.org/ontology/scenario#",
    "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/cases/135#Event_Collaborative_Patent_Portfolio_Created",
  "@type": "proeth:Event",
  "proeth-scenario:crisisIdentification": false,
  "proeth-scenario:discussionPrompts": [
    "When multiple engineers contribute equally to a patented design, what are each engineer\u0027s ethical obligations when representing that work on a resume?",
    "Does the fact that all six engineers have an equal claim to the work make it more or less acceptable for one to claim sole credit?",
    "How should engineers document collaborative contributions during a project to protect both individual and collective credit?"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:dramaticTension": "low",
  "proeth-scenario:emotionalImpact": "Neutral and professional at the time of occurrence; team members likely felt collective pride in patented designs. The emotional significance only emerges retrospectively when Engineer A\u0027s resume misrepresents this shared achievement, potentially causing resentment among colleagues who are erased from the record.",
  "proeth-scenario:ethicalImplications": "Reveals the tension between individual career advancement and collective professional integrity; establishes that collaborative work creates lasting attribution obligations that cannot be unilaterally rewritten for personal gain.",
  "proeth-scenario:learningMoment": "Collaborative professional work creates shared ethical obligations that persist beyond the workplace relationship. The factual record of joint authorship does not disappear when an engineer moves on, and future representations must honor that record.",
  "proeth-scenario:narrativePacing": "slow_burn",
  "proeth-scenario:stakeholderConsequences": {
    "employer_x": "Holds a patent portfolio whose authorship record contradicts Engineer A\u0027s future resume claims",
    "employer_y": "Will receive a misleading account of who actually produced the patented work",
    "engineer_a": "Gains legitimate professional experience and co-credit for patented designs; later misrepresents this record",
    "engineering_profession": "The collaborative norm of shared credit is established but later violated",
    "team_members": "Contribute equally to patents but are later omitted from Engineer A\u0027s resume narrative, denying them reflected credit"
  },
  "proeth:activatesConstraint": [
    "Accurate_Credit_Attribution_Constraint",
    "Intellectual_Property_Honesty_Constraint"
  ],
  "proeth:causedByAction": "http://proethica.org/cases/135#Action_Collaborative_Product_Design_Participation",
  "proeth:causesStateChange": "A documented, patent-backed record of collaborative design work now exists; any future representation of this work by any team member is constrained by the factual record of shared authorship.",
  "proeth:createsObligation": [
    "Obligation_To_Accurately_Represent_Contributions",
    "Obligation_To_Credit_Team_Members",
    "Obligation_To_Disclose_Collaborative_Nature_Of_Work"
  ],
  "proeth:description": "A series of patented products was collectively designed and produced by a six-member team of equal-rank staff engineers at Employer X, resulting in a shared intellectual property record. This outcome established the factual basis for attributing design credit jointly to all team members.",
  "proeth:emergencyStatus": "routine",
  "proeth:eventType": "outcome",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "During Engineer A\u0027s tenure at Employer X (prior to job search)",
  "proeth:urgencyLevel": "low",
  "rdfs:label": "Collaborative Patent Portfolio Created"
}

{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/135#",
    "proeth-scenario": "http://proethica.org/ontology/scenario#",
    "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/cases/135#Event_Misleading_Resume_Received",
  "@type": "proeth:Event",
  "proeth-scenario:crisisIdentification": true,
  "proeth-scenario:discussionPrompts": [
    "At what point does resume \u0027emphasis\u0027 cross the line into deception, and who is harmed by that crossing?",
    "If Employer Y never discovers the misrepresentation and Engineer A performs well, does the ethical violation still matter? Why or why not?",
    "What responsibility, if any, do employers have to verify the collaborative versus individual nature of claimed design work?"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:dramaticTension": "high",
  "proeth-scenario:emotionalImpact": "Engineer A may feel anxiety about discovery or confidence in the deception; Employer Y\u0027s hiring personnel are unknowingly deceived, potentially feeling betrayed if the truth emerges later; team members at Employer X are unaware but would likely feel professionally wronged if they knew their contributions were erased.",
  "proeth-scenario:ethicalImplications": "Exposes the conflict between self-interest in competitive job markets and the foundational engineering ethics principle of honesty; demonstrates that deception in professional credentials is not victimless\u2014it corrupts the information environment on which hiring, public safety, and professional trust depend.",
  "proeth-scenario:learningMoment": "The moment a misleading professional document reaches a third party, the ethical violation is no longer merely internal\u2014it has real-world consequences for decision-making, resource allocation, and trust. The harm is not hypothetical once the deception is received and acted upon.",
  "proeth-scenario:narrativePacing": "escalation",
  "proeth-scenario:stakeholderConsequences": {
    "employer_y": "Makes hiring decisions based on false premises; may overpay or misallocate Engineer A based on inflated perceived competence",
    "engineer_a": "Short-term advantage in job competition; long-term risk of professional discipline, termination, and reputational damage if discovered",
    "engineering_profession": "Trust in professional credentials and resumes is undermined; the reliability of self-reported experience is called into question",
    "future_clients_of_employer_y": "May be exposed to an engineer whose actual solo capabilities are unknown and potentially overstated",
    "team_members_at_employer_x": "Their professional contributions are invisibilized in Engineer A\u0027s narrative without their knowledge or consent"
  },
  "proeth:activatesConstraint": [
    "Prohibition_On_Deceptive_Statements_Constraint",
    "NSPE_Code_Section_II_5a_Constraint",
    "Truthful_Professional_Representation_Constraint"
  ],
  "proeth:causedByAction": "http://proethica.org/cases/135#Action_Submitting_Misleading_Resume",
  "proeth:causesStateChange": "Employer Y now holds a materially false belief about Engineer A\u0027s individual design contributions; the employment decision-making process is corrupted by inaccurate information; a professional ethics violation is now complete and externally consequential.",
  "proeth:createsObligation": [
    "Obligation_Of_Employer_Y_To_Verify_Claims",
    "Obligation_Of_Engineer_A_To_Correct_False_Impression",
    "Potential_Obligation_Of_Third_Parties_To_Report_Misrepresentation"
  ],
  "proeth:description": "Employer Y received Engineer A\u0027s resume, which implied sole personal responsibility for designs that were in fact collaborative team efforts, thereby creating a false impression in the mind of a prospective employer. This outcome marks the point at which the misrepresentation moved from intent to concrete effect on a third party.",
  "proeth:emergencyStatus": "medium",
  "proeth:eventType": "outcome",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "During Engineer A\u0027s job application process to Employer Y",
  "proeth:urgencyLevel": "medium",
  "rdfs:label": "Misleading Resume Received"
}

{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/135#",
    "proeth-scenario": "http://proethica.org/ontology/scenario#",
    "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/cases/135#Event_1972_Precedent_Case_Established",
  "@type": "proeth:Event",
  "proeth-scenario:crisisIdentification": false,
  "proeth-scenario:discussionPrompts": [
    "Why might a professional ethics body initially tolerate resume emphasis, and what events or patterns would cause it to tighten that standard?",
    "Should engineers be held to the ethical standards current at the time of their conduct, or to the most recent standards available?",
    "How does the evolution of ethical precedent reflect changing societal values about honesty and professional integrity?"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:dramaticTension": "low",
  "proeth-scenario:emotionalImpact": "Largely neutral at the time of issuance; engineers of the era may have felt reassured that some self-promotion was permissible. In retrospect, the case represents a more permissive era whose loosening of standards contributed to ambiguity that engineers like Engineer A may have exploited.",
  "proeth-scenario:ethicalImplications": "Illustrates the living nature of professional ethics codes; reveals that tolerance of minor deception can create a slippery slope toward more serious misrepresentation; raises questions about the role of professional bodies in proactively setting versus reactively adjusting ethical norms.",
  "proeth-scenario:learningMoment": "Ethical standards in engineering are not static\u2014they evolve in response to observed harms and societal expectations. A precedent that seemed reasonable in 1972 was later found inadequate, illustrating that engineers must track current standards, not rely on outdated ones.",
  "proeth-scenario:narrativePacing": "slow_burn",
  "proeth-scenario:stakeholderConsequences": {
    "employers": "Faced a professional environment where resume claims were not held to the strictest standard of precision",
    "engineer_a": "The 1972 precedent forms part of the historical context that Engineer A might invoke (unsuccessfully) to justify resume framing",
    "engineers_generally": "Gained some latitude to frame their work favorably on resumes without immediate ethical sanction",
    "nspe_board": "Set a precedent it would later feel compelled to tighten, suggesting the 1972 standard was insufficient"
  },
  "proeth:activatesConstraint": [
    "Resume_Emphasis_Tolerance_Constraint_1972"
  ],
  "proeth:causesStateChange": "A formal ethical precedent now exists permitting limited resume emphasis; the normative standard for professional self-representation is partially defined but leaves ambiguity about the boundary between acceptable emphasis and prohibited misrepresentation.",
  "proeth:createsObligation": [
    "Obligation_Of_Future_Reviewers_To_Consider_Precedent"
  ],
  "proeth:description": "Case 72-11 was decided, establishing an early NSPE precedent that permitted some degree of emphasis or favorable framing on engineering resumes, creating a baseline tolerance for self-promotion in professional credentials. This exogenous event shaped the normative landscape within which later cases, including Engineer A\u0027s, would be evaluated.",
  "proeth:emergencyStatus": "low",
  "proeth:eventType": "exogenous",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "1972",
  "proeth:urgencyLevel": "low",
  "rdfs:label": "1972 Precedent Case Established"
}

{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/135#",
    "proeth-scenario": "http://proethica.org/ontology/scenario#",
    "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/cases/135#Event_1979_Stricter_Standard_Established",
  "@type": "proeth:Event",
  "proeth-scenario:crisisIdentification": false,
  "proeth-scenario:discussionPrompts": [
    "What distinguishes permissible \u0027resume emphasis\u0027 from a prohibited \u0027misleading statement\u0027\u2014where exactly is the line?",
    "Does the existence of a stricter 1979 standard eliminate any possible good-faith defense Engineer A might offer?",
    "How should professional organizations communicate standard changes to ensure engineers are aware of tightened obligations?"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:dramaticTension": "low",
  "proeth-scenario:emotionalImpact": "Engineers who had relied on the more permissive 1972 standard may have felt constrained or surprised; ethically conscientious engineers likely felt vindicated that the standard was tightened. The shift signals a profession taking its honesty obligations more seriously.",
  "proeth-scenario:ethicalImplications": "Demonstrates that professional self-regulation can and does evolve; raises questions about notice, fairness, and the engineer\u0027s duty to proactively know current standards; highlights the profession\u0027s growing recognition that even technically true but misleading statements constitute ethical violations.",
  "proeth-scenario:learningMoment": "Professional ethics bodies actively monitor and correct their own standards. Engineers cannot rely on outdated, more permissive precedents to justify conduct that later, stricter standards prohibit. Staying current with evolving professional codes is itself an ethical obligation.",
  "proeth-scenario:narrativePacing": "slow_burn",
  "proeth-scenario:stakeholderConsequences": {
    "employers_and_clients": "Greater assurance that professional credentials reflect accurate representations",
    "engineer_a": "Conducts resume misrepresentation after this stricter standard is in place, eliminating any defense based on the more permissive 1972 precedent",
    "engineers_generally": "Now held to a stricter standard of accuracy in professional credentials; less latitude for favorable but misleading framing",
    "nspe_board": "Demonstrates institutional capacity to self-correct and tighten ethical standards in response to observed problems"
  },
  "proeth:activatesConstraint": [
    "Prohibition_On_Misleading_Statements_Constraint_1979",
    "Prohibition_On_Deceptive_Statements_Constraint_1979"
  ],
  "proeth:causesStateChange": "The permissible range of resume representation is formally narrowed; misleading and deceptive statements are now explicitly prohibited under NSPE ethics, creating a clearer bright-line rule that precedes and informs the Code revision culminating in Section II.5.a.",
  "proeth:createsObligation": [
    "Obligation_To_Avoid_Misleading_Framing_In_Credentials",
    "Obligation_Of_Engineers_To_Know_Updated_Standards"
  ],
  "proeth:description": "Case 79-5 was decided, tightening the NSPE ethical standard for resume representation by explicitly prohibiting misleading or deceptive statements, narrowing the tolerance established by Case 72-11. This exogenous event marked a normative shift that directly constrained the kind of conduct Engineer A would later engage in.",
  "proeth:emergencyStatus": "low",
  "proeth:eventType": "exogenous",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "1979",
  "proeth:urgencyLevel": "low",
  "rdfs:label": "1979 Stricter Standard Established"
}

{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/135#",
    "proeth-scenario": "http://proethica.org/ontology/scenario#",
    "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/cases/135#Event_NSPE_Code_Section_II_5_a_Enacted",
  "@type": "proeth:Event",
  "proeth-scenario:crisisIdentification": false,
  "proeth-scenario:discussionPrompts": [
    "Does the codification of Section II.5.a make Engineer A\u0027s conduct clearly unethical in a way it might not have been under the 1972 standard alone?",
    "What is the ethical significance of a professional code that explicitly addresses collaborative work attribution\u2014what problem was it designed to solve?",
    "Should engineers be required to affirmatively certify that their resumes comply with Section II.5.a, or is passive awareness of the Code sufficient?"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:dramaticTension": "medium",
  "proeth-scenario:emotionalImpact": "For most engineers, Code revisions are routine professional updates. For Engineer A, the existence of this specific provision transforms conduct that might have seemed like mere resume puffery into a clear, codified ethical violation\u2014a shift that carries significant professional and emotional weight when the Board applies it.",
  "proeth-scenario:ethicalImplications": "Illustrates the role of formal codification in converting ethical norms into enforceable professional obligations; raises questions about the adequacy of general honesty principles versus specific rules; demonstrates that professional self-regulation can produce meaningful, enforceable standards that protect the integrity of professional credentials.",
  "proeth-scenario:learningMoment": "Codified professional rules provide clear notice and eliminate ambiguity defenses. When an engineer\u0027s conduct falls squarely within the scope of an explicit Code provision, the ethical finding is more straightforward\u2014and the professional consequences more certain. Engineers must know and follow the current Code, not just general ethical intuitions.",
  "proeth-scenario:narrativePacing": "slow_burn",
  "proeth-scenario:stakeholderConsequences": {
    "all_nspe_members": "Have clear, codified guidance on collaborative work representation obligations",
    "employers": "Can expect that NSPE-member engineers are bound by an explicit rule against credential misrepresentation",
    "engineer_a": "Is now subject to a clear, written rule that directly prohibits the resume conduct engaged in; cannot claim ignorance of a vague standard",
    "engineering_profession": "The codification signals a mature professional consensus that misrepresentation of collaborative work is categorically unacceptable",
    "nspe_board": "Has a clear textual basis for ethical findings, reducing reliance on case-by-case precedent interpretation"
  },
  "proeth:activatesConstraint": [
    "NSPE_Code_Section_II_5a_Constraint",
    "Prohibition_On_Credential_Misrepresentation_Constraint",
    "Collaborative_Credit_Disclosure_Constraint"
  ],
  "proeth:causesStateChange": "A binding, codified rule now exists within the NSPE Code explicitly governing the representation of collaborative work; the ethical standard is no longer merely precedent-based but formally codified, providing clear notice to all NSPE members and creating a definitive basis for ethical findings.",
  "proeth:createsObligation": [
    "Obligation_Of_All_NSPE_Members_To_Comply_With_Section_II_5a",
    "Obligation_To_Accurately_Represent_Collaborative_Versus_Individual_Contributions",
    "Obligation_Of_Board_To_Apply_Section_II_5a_In_Relevant_Cases"
  ],
  "proeth:description": "Subsequent revisions to the NSPE Code of Ethics culminated in the adoption of Section II.5.a, which explicitly prohibits engineers from misrepresenting their professional qualifications or falsely implying sole credit for collaborative work. This exogenous regulatory event established the formal rule that the Board applied to find Engineer A\u0027s conduct unethical.",
  "proeth:emergencyStatus": "low",
  "proeth:eventType": "exogenous",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "After 1979, prior to the Board\u0027s review of Engineer A\u0027s case",
  "proeth:urgencyLevel": "low",
  "rdfs:label": "NSPE Code Section II.5.a Enacted"
}

{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/135#",
    "proeth-scenario": "http://proethica.org/ontology/scenario#",
    "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/cases/135#Event_Ethical_Violation_Finding_Issued",
  "@type": "proeth:Event",
  "proeth-scenario:crisisIdentification": true,
  "proeth-scenario:discussionPrompts": [
    "What remedies, if any, should Engineer A be required to undertake following this finding\u2014should Employer Y be notified, and if so, by whom?",
    "Does a formal ethical violation finding by a professional body adequately address the harm caused, or are additional mechanisms needed?",
    "How should this case influence how engineering educators teach resume writing and professional self-representation to students entering the workforce?"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:dramaticTension": "high",
  "proeth-scenario:emotionalImpact": "Engineer A likely experiences shame, professional anxiety, and possible defensiveness; colleagues at Employer X may feel vindicated that their erased contributions are now officially recognized as having been wrongfully omitted; Employer Y may feel deceived and question the employment relationship; the broader engineering community may feel the profession\u0027s self-regulatory mechanisms are functioning appropriately.",
  "proeth-scenario:ethicalImplications": "Crystallizes the core tension between individual career ambition and the collective professional obligation of honesty; demonstrates that professional ethics enforcement protects not just individual victims but the systemic trustworthiness of engineering credentials; raises questions about proportionality of consequences, the role of intent versus effect in ethical findings, and the obligations of professional communities to enforce their own standards.",
  "proeth-scenario:learningMoment": "Formal ethical findings by professional bodies have real, lasting consequences. The case demonstrates that the engineering ethics system\u2014built through decades of precedent and Code revision\u2014functions to hold engineers accountable for misrepresentation even when the immediate harm may not be obvious. The finding also illustrates that the ethical violation was not merely technical but struck at the foundational professional value of honesty.",
  "proeth-scenario:narrativePacing": "aftermath",
  "proeth-scenario:stakeholderConsequences": {
    "employer_x": "The accurate record of collaborative patent authorship is professionally affirmed",
    "employer_y": "Must reassess the basis on which Engineer A was hired; may need to re-evaluate Engineer A\u0027s actual individual capabilities versus the inflated resume representation",
    "engineer_a": "Faces formal professional censure; potential damage to employment at Employer Y; possible loss of professional licensure or NSPE membership; long-term reputational harm in the engineering community",
    "engineering_profession": "The finding demonstrates that professional self-regulation functions to protect the integrity of credentials and the trust on which the profession depends",
    "future_engineers": "The case becomes a teaching precedent warning against resume misrepresentation",
    "team_members_at_employer_x": "Their collaborative contributions are implicitly vindicated by the finding, though they may never know the case occurred"
  },
  "proeth:activatesConstraint": [
    "Professional_Discipline_Consequence_Constraint",
    "Reputational_Accountability_Constraint",
    "Remediation_Obligation_Constraint"
  ],
  "proeth:causedByAction": "http://proethica.org/cases/135#Action_Submitting_Misleading_Resume",
  "proeth:causesStateChange": "Engineer A\u0027s conduct is now formally classified as an ethical violation under NSPE standards; the misrepresentation is a matter of professional record; Engineer A faces potential professional consequences including disciplinary action, reputational damage, and obligations to correct the record with Employer Y.",
  "proeth:createsObligation": [
    "Obligation_Of_Engineer_A_To_Correct_Misrepresentation",
    "Obligation_Of_Engineer_A_To_Notify_Employer_Y_Of_Accurate_Credit",
    "Obligation_Of_Professional_Community_To_Enforce_Standards"
  ],
  "proeth:description": "The NSPE Board of Ethical Review applied Section II.5.a of the NSPE Code to Engineer A\u0027s conduct and issued a formal finding that submitting a resume implying sole authorship of collaboratively designed patented products was unethical. This outcome represents the official professional judgment that Engineer A\u0027s actions violated binding ethical standards.",
  "proeth:emergencyStatus": "high",
  "proeth:eventType": "outcome",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "At the conclusion of the NSPE Board\u0027s review (present/case resolution)",
  "proeth:urgencyLevel": "high",
  "rdfs:label": "Ethical Violation Finding Issued"
}

{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/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/cases/135#CausalChain_d20cf09c",
  "@type": "proeth:CausalChain",
  "proeth:causalLanguage": "Engineer A actively participated as one of six equal-rank staff engineers in designing a series of patented products, contributing to the collective creation of the patent portfolio",
  "proeth:causalSequence": [
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer A joins five peers in a six-member equal-rank design team at Employer X",
      "proeth:element": "Collaborative Product Design Participation",
      "proeth:step": 1
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "All six engineers contribute collectively to product design work over time",
      "proeth:element": "Team Design Process",
      "proeth:step": 2
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Completed designs are submitted for and receive patent protection under Employer X",
      "proeth:element": "Patent Applications Filed",
      "proeth:step": 3
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "A series of patented products exists as the documented output of the six-member team",
      "proeth:element": "Collaborative Patent Portfolio Created",
      "proeth:step": 4
    }
  ],
  "proeth:cause": "Collaborative Product Design Participation",
  "proeth:counterfactual": "Without Engineer A\u0027s participation, the portfolio may still have been created by remaining team members, but Engineer A\u0027s specific contributions would be absent; without the full team, the portfolio as created would not exist in its current form",
  "proeth:effect": "Collaborative Patent Portfolio Created",
  "proeth:necessaryFactors": [
    "Participation of Engineer A as one team member",
    "Participation of five other equal-rank engineers",
    "Collective design effort across all six members",
    "Employer X\u0027s organizational structure enabling team-based design"
  ],
  "proeth:responsibilityType": "shared",
  "proeth:responsibleAgent": "Engineer A and five co-equal team members (shared collective)",
  "proeth:sufficientFactors": [
    "Six-member equal-rank team working collaboratively on product designs",
    "Successful completion of designs meeting patentability requirements"
  ],
  "proeth:withinAgentControl": true
}

{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/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/cases/135#CausalChain_65a81e27",
  "@type": "proeth:CausalChain",
  "proeth:causalLanguage": "Engineer A made the specific decision to omit any acknowledgment that the patented product designs were team efforts, which combined with deliberate framing caused the resume to imply personal, individual responsibility for the designs",
  "proeth:causalSequence": [
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer A decides to leave Employer X and pursue a position at Employer Y, triggering the need to prepare a resume",
      "proeth:element": "Decision to Seek New Employment",
      "proeth:step": 1
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer A consciously decides not to mention that the patented designs were produced by a six-member team",
      "proeth:element": "Omitting Team Credit Attribution",
      "proeth:step": 2
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Resume language is crafted in first-person singular terms that attribute the patent portfolio to Engineer A alone",
      "proeth:element": "Implying Sole Resume Authorship",
      "proeth:step": 3
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "The completed misleading resume is submitted to Employer Y",
      "proeth:element": "Submitting Misleading Resume",
      "proeth:step": 4
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Employer Y receives and relies upon a resume that falsely implies Engineer A was the sole designer of the patented products",
      "proeth:element": "Misleading Resume Received",
      "proeth:step": 5
    }
  ],
  "proeth:cause": "Omitting Team Credit Attribution",
  "proeth:counterfactual": "Had Engineer A included standard attribution language acknowledging team participation, the resume would not have implied sole authorship even if individual contributions were emphasized",
  "proeth:effect": "Implying Sole Resume Authorship",
  "proeth:necessaryFactors": [
    "Engineer A\u0027s knowledge that designs were collaborative",
    "Deliberate choice to exclude team attribution language",
    "Affirmative framing of contributions in first-person singular terms",
    "Engineer A\u0027s intent to present credentials favorably to Employer Y"
  ],
  "proeth:responsibilityType": "direct",
  "proeth:responsibleAgent": "Engineer A",
  "proeth:sufficientFactors": [
    "Omission of team credit combined with first-person singular framing of collaborative work",
    "No qualifying language such as \u0027as part of a team\u0027 or \u0027among six engineers\u0027"
  ],
  "proeth:withinAgentControl": true
}

{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/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/cases/135#CausalChain_902703ae",
  "@type": "proeth:CausalChain",
  "proeth:causalLanguage": "Engineer A submitted the deliberately crafted resume to Employer Y, completing the act of misrepresentation and directly causing Employer Y to receive a document implying sole personal responsibility for collaborative designs",
  "proeth:causalSequence": [
    {
      "proeth:description": "Misleading resume document is fully drafted with false attribution framing",
      "proeth:element": "Implying Sole Resume Authorship",
      "proeth:step": 1
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer A transmits the resume to Employer Y as part of the job application process",
      "proeth:element": "Submitting Misleading Resume",
      "proeth:step": 2
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Employer Y receives the resume and is exposed to materially false credential claims",
      "proeth:element": "Misleading Resume Received",
      "proeth:step": 3
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "The NSPE Board reviews the conduct and finds Engineer A in violation of Section II.5.a",
      "proeth:element": "Ethical Violation Finding Issued",
      "proeth:step": 4
    }
  ],
  "proeth:cause": "Submitting Misleading Resume",
  "proeth:counterfactual": "Without the act of submission, Employer Y would not have received the misleading document; without the misleading content, submission alone would cause no ethical harm",
  "proeth:effect": "Misleading Resume Received",
  "proeth:necessaryFactors": [
    "Prior creation of the misleading resume content",
    "Engineer A\u0027s volitional act of submission to Employer Y",
    "Employer Y\u0027s active recruitment or openness to receiving applications",
    "The resume\u0027s misleading framing remaining uncorrected at time of submission"
  ],
  "proeth:responsibilityType": "direct",
  "proeth:responsibleAgent": "Engineer A",
  "proeth:sufficientFactors": [
    "Submission of a completed resume containing materially misleading attribution claims to a prospective employer actively evaluating candidates"
  ],
  "proeth:withinAgentControl": true
}

{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/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/cases/135#CausalChain_a00f0e6f",
  "@type": "proeth:CausalChain",
  "proeth:causalLanguage": "Case 79-5 tightened the NSPE ethical standard for resume representation by explicitly prohibiting misleading implications, directly informing and precipitating the subsequent codification of this stricter standard in Section II.5.a of the NSPE Code of Ethics",
  "proeth:causalSequence": [
    {
      "proeth:description": "Case 72-11 permits some emphasis on individual contributions, creating a permissive baseline standard",
      "proeth:element": "1972 Precedent Case Established",
      "proeth:step": 1
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Case 79-5 identifies the ethical risk of misleading implications and tightens the standard explicitly",
      "proeth:element": "1979 Stricter Standard Established",
      "proeth:step": 2
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "NSPE undertakes formal code revision incorporating the stricter precedent into binding written standards",
      "proeth:element": "NSPE Code Revision Process",
      "proeth:step": 3
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Section II.5.a is formally adopted, prohibiting misleading resume representations by engineers",
      "proeth:element": "NSPE Code Section II.5.a Enacted",
      "proeth:step": 4
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Section II.5.a provides the binding standard under which Engineer A\u0027s conduct is evaluated and found to be a violation",
      "proeth:element": "Ethical Violation Finding Issued",
      "proeth:step": 5
    }
  ],
  "proeth:cause": "1979 Stricter Standard Established",
  "proeth:counterfactual": "Without Case 79-5 establishing the stricter precedent, Section II.5.a may not have been enacted in its current form, or may have retained the more permissive 1972 standard, potentially altering the ethical finding against Engineer A",
  "proeth:effect": "NSPE Code Section II.5.a Enacted",
  "proeth:necessaryFactors": [
    "Prior existence of the more permissive 1972 precedent (Case 72-11) creating a gap in ethical guidance",
    "Recognition by the NSPE Board that emphasis on individual contributions could cross into misrepresentation",
    "Institutional will within NSPE to revise and codify stricter standards",
    "The 1979 case presenting facts that exposed the inadequacy of the earlier standard"
  ],
  "proeth:responsibilityType": "direct",
  "proeth:responsibleAgent": "NSPE Board of Ethical Review (institutional)",
  "proeth:sufficientFactors": [
    "The 1979 ruling combined with NSPE\u0027s subsequent code revision process was sufficient to produce the formal codification of the prohibition in Section II.5.a"
  ],
  "proeth:withinAgentControl": true
}

{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/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/cases/135#CausalChain_01fbac29",
  "@type": "proeth:CausalChain",
  "proeth:causalLanguage": "The NSPE Board of Ethical Review applied Section II.5.a of the NSPE Code to Engineer A\u0027s conduct and issued a finding that the misleading resume representation constituted an ethical violation under the enacted standard",
  "proeth:causalSequence": [
    {
      "proeth:description": "Six-member team produces patented designs, establishing the factual basis for accurate attribution",
      "proeth:element": "Collaborative Patent Portfolio Created",
      "proeth:step": 1
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer A deliberately excludes team attribution from resume, creating the misleading document",
      "proeth:element": "Omitting Team Credit Attribution",
      "proeth:step": 2
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer A submits the misleading resume to Employer Y, completing the violative act",
      "proeth:element": "Submitting Misleading Resume",
      "proeth:step": 3
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "The binding ethical standard prohibiting misleading resume representations is in force and applicable to Engineer A\u0027s conduct",
      "proeth:element": "NSPE Code Section II.5.a Enacted",
      "proeth:step": 4
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "NSPE Board applies Section II.5.a to Engineer A\u0027s conduct and issues a formal finding of ethical violation",
      "proeth:element": "Ethical Violation Finding Issued",
      "proeth:step": 5
    }
  ],
  "proeth:cause": "NSPE Code Section II.5.a Enacted",
  "proeth:counterfactual": "Without Section II.5.a (i.e., if only the more permissive 1972 standard applied), the finding might not have been issued, or might have been limited; without Engineer A\u0027s misleading resume, there would be no conduct to evaluate under the standard",
  "proeth:effect": "Ethical Violation Finding Issued",
  "proeth:necessaryFactors": [
    "Existence of Section II.5.a as an enacted, binding ethical standard",
    "Engineer A\u0027s prior act of submitting a misleading resume",
    "The NSPE Board\u0027s jurisdiction to review Engineer A\u0027s professional conduct",
    "The factual record establishing that the resume implied sole authorship of collaborative work"
  ],
  "proeth:responsibilityType": "direct",
  "proeth:responsibleAgent": "Engineer A (primary); NSPE Board of Ethical Review (adjudicatory)",
  "proeth:sufficientFactors": [
    "Section II.5.a\u0027s prohibition on misleading resume representations, combined with the documented fact that Engineer A\u0027s resume implied sole authorship of a six-member team\u0027s work, was sufficient to support the violation finding"
  ],
  "proeth:withinAgentControl": true
}