Overview View Extraction
Draft Continue to Step 4

PASS 3: Temporal Dynamics

Case 14: Providing Incomplete, Self-Serving Advice

Extraction Complete
Total Entities: 14
Actions: 4
Events: 2
Causal Chains: 2
Allen Relations: 5
Timeline: 6
Timeline Overview
Note: The timeline includes only actions and events with clear temporal markers that could be sequenced chronologically.
Timeline Elements: 6
Actions on Timeline: 4 (of 4 extracted)
Events on Timeline: 2 (of 2 extracted)
Temporal Markers
  • Initial contact 1 elements
  • Following solicitation 1 elements
  • During memo preparation 1 elements
  • In memo submission 1 elements
  • After solicitation 1 elements
  • Following memo submission 1 elements
Temporal Consistency Check
Valid
Extracted Actions (4)
Volitional professional decisions with intentions and ethical context

Description: City Administrator requested Engineer A to provide professional advice on project delivery methods for wastewater improvements without establishing a formal contract.

Temporal Marker: Initial contact

Mental State: deliberate

Intended Outcome: Obtain expert guidance on delivery methods

Fulfills Obligations:
  • Due diligence for public project
Guided By Principles:
  • Public welfare
  • Professional competence
Required Capabilities:
Municipal administration
Within Competence: Yes
Scenario Metadata
Pedagogical context for interactive teaching scenarios

Character Motivation: Needed technical expertise for municipal project decision-making without budget for formal consulting contract

Ethical Tension: Public service efficiency vs proper procurement procedures

Learning Significance: Importance of establishing clear professional relationships and boundaries in public sector work

Stakes: Proper project delivery method selection, public funds allocation, procurement transparency

Decision Point: Yes - Story can branch here

Alternative Actions:
  • Issue formal RFP for consulting services
  • Seek internal engineering staff advice
  • Research delivery methods independently

Narrative Role: inciting_incident

RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/14#",
    "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/14#Action_Soliciting_Engineering_Advice",
  "@type": "proeth:Action",
  "proeth-scenario:alternativeActions": [
    "Issue formal RFP for consulting services",
    "Seek internal engineering staff advice",
    "Research delivery methods independently"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:characterMotivation": "Needed technical expertise for municipal project decision-making without budget for formal consulting contract",
  "proeth-scenario:consequencesIfAlternative": [
    "Delayed timeline but proper procurement",
    "Limited expertise but clear boundaries",
    "Potentially incomplete analysis but no conflicts"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:decisionSignificance": "Importance of establishing clear professional relationships and boundaries in public sector work",
  "proeth-scenario:ethicalTension": "Public service efficiency vs proper procurement procedures",
  "proeth-scenario:isDecisionPoint": true,
  "proeth-scenario:narrativeRole": "inciting_incident",
  "proeth-scenario:stakes": "Proper project delivery method selection, public funds allocation, procurement transparency",
  "proeth:description": "City Administrator requested Engineer A to provide professional advice on project delivery methods for wastewater improvements without establishing a formal contract.",
  "proeth:foreseenUnintendedEffects": [
    "Informal consultation arrangement"
  ],
  "proeth:fulfillsObligation": [
    "Due diligence for public project"
  ],
  "proeth:guidedByPrinciple": [
    "Public welfare",
    "Professional competence"
  ],
  "proeth:hasAgent": "City Administrator",
  "proeth:hasCompetingPriorities": {
    "@type": "proeth:CompetingPriorities",
    "proeth:priorityConflict": "Informal consultation vs formal procurement",
    "proeth:resolutionReasoning": "Chose informal approach for initial guidance"
  },
  "proeth:hasMentalState": "deliberate",
  "proeth:intendedOutcome": "Obtain expert guidance on delivery methods",
  "proeth:requiresCapability": [
    "Municipal administration"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "Initial contact",
  "proeth:withinCompetence": true,
  "rdfs:label": "Soliciting Engineering Advice"
}

Description: Engineer A decided to prepare and submit a professional memo analyzing delivery methods without establishing a formal service contract with the city.

Temporal Marker: Following solicitation

Mental State: deliberate

Intended Outcome: Provide helpful response and develop client relationship

Fulfills Obligations:
  • Responsive to client needs
Guided By Principles:
  • Professional competence
  • Public welfare
Required Capabilities:
Engineering analysis Project delivery expertise
Within Competence: Yes
Scenario Metadata
Pedagogical context for interactive teaching scenarios

Character Motivation: Opportunity to demonstrate expertise and build relationship with potential client while helping community

Ethical Tension: Professional service vs business development opportunity

Learning Significance: Need for clear contractual boundaries and conflict of interest disclosure in professional services

Stakes: Professional reputation, future business opportunities, public trust in engineering advice

Decision Point: Yes - Story can branch here

Alternative Actions:
  • Decline without formal contract
  • Provide general information only
  • Propose formal consulting agreement first

Narrative Role: rising_action

RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/14#",
    "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/14#Action_Providing_Uncontracted_Services",
  "@type": "proeth:Action",
  "proeth-scenario:alternativeActions": [
    "Decline without formal contract",
    "Provide general information only",
    "Propose formal consulting agreement first"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:characterMotivation": "Opportunity to demonstrate expertise and build relationship with potential client while helping community",
  "proeth-scenario:consequencesIfAlternative": [
    "Missed opportunity but clear boundaries",
    "Limited help but no conflicts",
    "Delayed response but proper framework"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:decisionSignificance": "Need for clear contractual boundaries and conflict of interest disclosure in professional services",
  "proeth-scenario:ethicalTension": "Professional service vs business development opportunity",
  "proeth-scenario:isDecisionPoint": true,
  "proeth-scenario:narrativeRole": "rising_action",
  "proeth-scenario:stakes": "Professional reputation, future business opportunities, public trust in engineering advice",
  "proeth:description": "Engineer A decided to prepare and submit a professional memo analyzing delivery methods without establishing a formal service contract with the city.",
  "proeth:foreseenUnintendedEffects": [
    "Professional liability exposure",
    "Potential business opportunity"
  ],
  "proeth:fulfillsObligation": [
    "Responsive to client needs"
  ],
  "proeth:guidedByPrinciple": [
    "Professional competence",
    "Public welfare"
  ],
  "proeth:hasAgent": "Engineer A",
  "proeth:hasCompetingPriorities": {
    "@type": "proeth:CompetingPriorities",
    "proeth:priorityConflict": "Formal contracted services vs informal consultation",
    "proeth:resolutionReasoning": "Prioritized responsiveness over formal procedures"
  },
  "proeth:hasMentalState": "deliberate",
  "proeth:intendedOutcome": "Provide helpful response and develop client relationship",
  "proeth:requiresCapability": [
    "Engineering analysis",
    "Project delivery expertise"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "Following solicitation",
  "proeth:violatesObligation": [
    "Professional service standards",
    "Proper contractual arrangements"
  ],
  "proeth:withinCompetence": true,
  "rdfs:label": "Providing Uncontracted Services"
}

Description: Engineer A deliberately excluded Construction-Manager-at-Risk and Design-Bid-Build delivery methods from the analysis despite their viability for the wastewater project.

Temporal Marker: During memo preparation

Mental State: deliberate

Intended Outcome: Steer selection toward preferred method

Guided By Principles:
  • Objectivity
  • Transparency
Required Capabilities:
Delivery method expertise Objective analysis
Within Competence: Yes
Scenario Metadata
Pedagogical context for interactive teaching scenarios

Character Motivation: Steering toward delivery method that would provide business opportunity for the firm

Ethical Tension: Complete professional analysis vs financial self-interest

Learning Significance: Core principle of providing honest and complete professional judgment regardless of personal gain

Stakes: Public receives incomplete advice, suboptimal project delivery, erosion of engineering profession integrity

Decision Point: Yes - Story can branch here

Alternative Actions:
  • Include all viable options with objective analysis
  • Disclose conflict of interest and recuse from recommendation
  • Limit analysis to general information without recommendations

Narrative Role: climax

RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/14#",
    "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/14#Action_Omitting_Viable_Options",
  "@type": "proeth:Action",
  "proeth-scenario:alternativeActions": [
    "Include all viable options with objective analysis",
    "Disclose conflict of interest and recuse from recommendation",
    "Limit analysis to general information without recommendations"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:characterMotivation": "Steering toward delivery method that would provide business opportunity for the firm",
  "proeth-scenario:consequencesIfAlternative": [
    "Complete advice but reduced business opportunity",
    "Transparent process but lost influence",
    "Helpful but incomplete guidance"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:decisionSignificance": "Core principle of providing honest and complete professional judgment regardless of personal gain",
  "proeth-scenario:ethicalTension": "Complete professional analysis vs financial self-interest",
  "proeth-scenario:isDecisionPoint": true,
  "proeth-scenario:narrativeRole": "climax",
  "proeth-scenario:stakes": "Public receives incomplete advice, suboptimal project delivery, erosion of engineering profession integrity",
  "proeth:description": "Engineer A deliberately excluded Construction-Manager-at-Risk and Design-Bid-Build delivery methods from the analysis despite their viability for the wastewater project.",
  "proeth:foreseenUnintendedEffects": [
    "Incomplete analysis",
    "Limited city options"
  ],
  "proeth:guidedByPrinciple": [
    "Objectivity",
    "Transparency"
  ],
  "proeth:hasAgent": "Engineer A",
  "proeth:hasCompetingPriorities": {
    "@type": "proeth:CompetingPriorities",
    "proeth:priorityConflict": "Complete objective information vs business interests",
    "proeth:resolutionReasoning": "Business interests prevailed over professional completeness"
  },
  "proeth:hasMentalState": "deliberate",
  "proeth:intendedOutcome": "Steer selection toward preferred method",
  "proeth:requiresCapability": [
    "Delivery method expertise",
    "Objective analysis"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "During memo preparation",
  "proeth:violatesObligation": [
    "Complete and objective analysis",
    "Professional honesty",
    "Public welfare"
  ],
  "proeth:withinCompetence": true,
  "rdfs:label": "Omitting Viable Options"
}

Description: Engineer A specifically recommended Progressive-Design-Build delivery method and included the firm's experience summary, positioning for future engagement on the project.

Temporal Marker: In memo submission

Mental State: deliberate

Intended Outcome: Secure future project work through preferred delivery method

Fulfills Obligations:
  • Providing a recommendation
Guided By Principles:
  • Public welfare
  • Professional integrity
Required Capabilities:
Engineering judgment Delivery method analysis
Within Competence: Yes
Scenario Metadata
Pedagogical context for interactive teaching scenarios

Character Motivation: Capitalizing on advisory position to secure future profitable work on the project

Ethical Tension: Business development vs fiduciary duty to client receiving advice

Learning Significance: Prohibition against using professional advisory roles for self-dealing and importance of transparent conflicts of interest

Stakes: Public procurement fairness, professional ethics standards, potential legal liability for conflict of interest

Narrative Role: falling_action

RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/14#",
    "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/14#Action_Recommending_Profitable_Method",
  "@type": "proeth:Action",
  "proeth-scenario:alternativeActions": [
    "Recommend method objectively without firm promotion",
    "Disclose potential conflict before making recommendation",
    "Provide analysis but exclude firm from consideration"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:characterMotivation": "Capitalizing on advisory position to secure future profitable work on the project",
  "proeth-scenario:consequencesIfAlternative": [
    "Maintains professional integrity but reduces business advantage",
    "Transparent but may eliminate advisory role",
    "Ethical advice but foregoes business opportunity"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:decisionSignificance": "Prohibition against using professional advisory roles for self-dealing and importance of transparent conflicts of interest",
  "proeth-scenario:ethicalTension": "Business development vs fiduciary duty to client receiving advice",
  "proeth-scenario:isDecisionPoint": false,
  "proeth-scenario:narrativeRole": "falling_action",
  "proeth-scenario:stakes": "Public procurement fairness, professional ethics standards, potential legal liability for conflict of interest",
  "proeth:description": "Engineer A specifically recommended Progressive-Design-Build delivery method and included the firm\u0027s experience summary, positioning for future engagement on the project.",
  "proeth:foreseenUnintendedEffects": [
    "Appearance of bias",
    "Self-serving recommendation"
  ],
  "proeth:fulfillsObligation": [
    "Providing a recommendation"
  ],
  "proeth:guidedByPrinciple": [
    "Public welfare",
    "Professional integrity"
  ],
  "proeth:hasAgent": "Engineer A",
  "proeth:hasCompetingPriorities": {
    "@type": "proeth:CompetingPriorities",
    "proeth:priorityConflict": "Objective professional advice vs business promotion",
    "proeth:resolutionReasoning": "Commercial interests influenced professional recommendation"
  },
  "proeth:hasMentalState": "deliberate",
  "proeth:intendedOutcome": "Secure future project work through preferred delivery method",
  "proeth:requiresCapability": [
    "Engineering judgment",
    "Delivery method analysis"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "In memo submission",
  "proeth:violatesObligation": [
    "Avoiding conflicts of interest",
    "Objective professional judgment",
    "Disclosure of interests"
  ],
  "proeth:withinCompetence": true,
  "rdfs:label": "Recommending Profitable Method"
}
Extracted Events (2)
Occurrences that trigger ethical considerations and state changes

Description: Engineer A's advisory memo containing limited delivery method options was formally submitted to the City Administrator. The memo became part of the city's decision-making process.

Temporal Marker: After solicitation

Activates Constraints:
  • Professional_Objectivity_Required
  • Complete_Disclosure_Constraint
Scenario Metadata
Pedagogical context for interactive teaching scenarios

Emotional Impact: City Administrator feels confident having received professional advice; Engineer A may feel satisfied with positioning; public unknowingly affected by incomplete analysis

Stakeholder Consequences:
  • city_administrator: Making decisions based on incomplete information, potential for suboptimal project outcomes
  • engineer_a: Positioned for potential profit but exposed to ethical violations and professional liability
  • public: May receive less cost-effective or appropriate infrastructure solution
  • engineering_profession: Professional standards undermined by biased advice

Learning Moment: Shows how incomplete information can compromise decision-making and demonstrates the cascading effects of ethical lapses in professional advice

Ethical Implications: Reveals tension between self-interest and professional duty; demonstrates how information asymmetry can be exploited; shows impact of biased advice on public decision-making

Discussion Prompts:
  • What obligations does submitting professional advice create?
  • How should conflicts of interest be handled in advisory relationships?
  • What are the consequences of incomplete technical recommendations?
Tension: medium Pacing: escalation
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/14#",
    "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/14#Event_Memo_Submission",
  "@type": "proeth:Event",
  "proeth-scenario:crisisIdentification": false,
  "proeth-scenario:discussionPrompts": [
    "What obligations does submitting professional advice create?",
    "How should conflicts of interest be handled in advisory relationships?",
    "What are the consequences of incomplete technical recommendations?"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:dramaticTension": "medium",
  "proeth-scenario:emotionalImpact": "City Administrator feels confident having received professional advice; Engineer A may feel satisfied with positioning; public unknowingly affected by incomplete analysis",
  "proeth-scenario:ethicalImplications": "Reveals tension between self-interest and professional duty; demonstrates how information asymmetry can be exploited; shows impact of biased advice on public decision-making",
  "proeth-scenario:learningMoment": "Shows how incomplete information can compromise decision-making and demonstrates the cascading effects of ethical lapses in professional advice",
  "proeth-scenario:narrativePacing": "escalation",
  "proeth-scenario:stakeholderConsequences": {
    "city_administrator": "Making decisions based on incomplete information, potential for suboptimal project outcomes",
    "engineer_a": "Positioned for potential profit but exposed to ethical violations and professional liability",
    "engineering_profession": "Professional standards undermined by biased advice",
    "public": "May receive less cost-effective or appropriate infrastructure solution"
  },
  "proeth:activatesConstraint": [
    "Professional_Objectivity_Required",
    "Complete_Disclosure_Constraint"
  ],
  "proeth:causedByAction": "http://proethica.org/cases/14#Action_Omitting_Viable_Options",
  "proeth:causesStateChange": "City now has incomplete information for decision-making; Engineer A\u0027s interests now conflict with objective advice",
  "proeth:createsObligation": [
    "Accurate_Technical_Advice",
    "Full_Option_Disclosure",
    "Conflict_Declaration"
  ],
  "proeth:description": "Engineer A\u0027s advisory memo containing limited delivery method options was formally submitted to the City Administrator. The memo became part of the city\u0027s decision-making process.",
  "proeth:emergencyStatus": "medium",
  "proeth:eventType": "outcome",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "After solicitation",
  "proeth:urgencyLevel": "medium",
  "rdfs:label": "Memo Submission"
}

Description: The city's project delivery method selection process became compromised due to incomplete information and undisclosed conflicts of interest. The integrity of municipal decision-making was undermined.

Temporal Marker: Following memo submission

Activates Constraints:
  • Public_Trust_Protection
  • Transparency_Required
  • Professional_Integrity_Constraint
Scenario Metadata
Pedagogical context for interactive teaching scenarios

Emotional Impact: City officials may feel betrayed if conflict discovered; Engineer A faces anxiety about exposure; public experiences erosion of trust in professional advice

Stakeholder Consequences:
  • city_administrator: Decision legitimacy questioned, potential for costly project changes or legal challenges
  • engineer_a: Professional reputation severely damaged, potential disciplinary action and legal liability
  • public: Confidence in municipal decision-making eroded, potentially suboptimal infrastructure investment
  • engineering_profession: Public trust in professional objectivity undermined

Learning Moment: Demonstrates how individual ethical failures can undermine entire institutional processes and shows the systemic effects of professional misconduct

Ethical Implications: Reveals how professional authority creates vulnerability to exploitation; shows tension between individual gain and institutional integrity; demonstrates duty to protect public decision-making processes

Discussion Prompts:
  • How do professional ethics violations affect public institutions?
  • What safeguards could prevent compromise of advisory relationships?
  • Who bears responsibility for ensuring objective professional advice?
Crisis / Turning Point Tension: high Pacing: crisis
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/14#",
    "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/14#Event_Decision_Process_Compromise",
  "@type": "proeth:Event",
  "proeth-scenario:crisisIdentification": true,
  "proeth-scenario:discussionPrompts": [
    "How do professional ethics violations affect public institutions?",
    "What safeguards could prevent compromise of advisory relationships?",
    "Who bears responsibility for ensuring objective professional advice?"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:dramaticTension": "high",
  "proeth-scenario:emotionalImpact": "City officials may feel betrayed if conflict discovered; Engineer A faces anxiety about exposure; public experiences erosion of trust in professional advice",
  "proeth-scenario:ethicalImplications": "Reveals how professional authority creates vulnerability to exploitation; shows tension between individual gain and institutional integrity; demonstrates duty to protect public decision-making processes",
  "proeth-scenario:learningMoment": "Demonstrates how individual ethical failures can undermine entire institutional processes and shows the systemic effects of professional misconduct",
  "proeth-scenario:narrativePacing": "crisis",
  "proeth-scenario:stakeholderConsequences": {
    "city_administrator": "Decision legitimacy questioned, potential for costly project changes or legal challenges",
    "engineer_a": "Professional reputation severely damaged, potential disciplinary action and legal liability",
    "engineering_profession": "Public trust in professional objectivity undermined",
    "public": "Confidence in municipal decision-making eroded, potentially suboptimal infrastructure investment"
  },
  "proeth:activatesConstraint": [
    "Public_Trust_Protection",
    "Transparency_Required",
    "Professional_Integrity_Constraint"
  ],
  "proeth:causedByAction": "http://proethica.org/cases/14#Action_Recommending_Profitable_Method",
  "proeth:causesStateChange": "Municipal decision-making integrity compromised; public trust at risk; professional standards violated",
  "proeth:createsObligation": [
    "Disclosure_Correction",
    "Process_Review",
    "Conflict_Management",
    "Professional_Accountability"
  ],
  "proeth:description": "The city\u0027s project delivery method selection process became compromised due to incomplete information and undisclosed conflicts of interest. The integrity of municipal decision-making was undermined.",
  "proeth:emergencyStatus": "high",
  "proeth:eventType": "outcome",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "Following memo submission",
  "proeth:urgencyLevel": "high",
  "rdfs:label": "Decision Process Compromise"
}
Causal Chains (2)
NESS test analysis: Necessary Element of Sufficient Set

Causal Language: Engineer A deliberately excluded Construction-Manager-at-Risk and Design-Bid-Build delivery methods, which caused the city's project delivery method selection process to become compromised due to incomplete information

Necessary Factors (NESS):
  • Deliberate exclusion of viable delivery methods
  • City's reliance on Engineer A's professional advice
  • Lack of independent verification of delivery options
Sufficient Factors:
  • Combination of incomplete professional advice + city's dependence on that advice + absence of alternative information sources
Counterfactual Test: If all viable delivery methods had been included, the city would have had complete information for proper decision-making
Responsibility Attribution:

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

Causal Sequence:
  1. Soliciting Engineering Advice
    City Administrator requests professional advice on project delivery methods from Engineer A
  2. Providing Uncontracted Services
    Engineer A decides to prepare advisory memo without establishing formal consulting relationship
  3. Omitting Viable Options
    Engineer A deliberately excludes Construction-Manager-at-Risk and Design-Bid-Build methods from analysis
  4. Memo Submission
    Incomplete advisory memo with limited delivery options submitted to city
  5. Decision Process Compromise
    City's selection process becomes compromised due to incomplete information basis
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/14#",
    "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/14#CausalChain_bba0518b",
  "@type": "proeth:CausalChain",
  "proeth:causalLanguage": "Engineer A deliberately excluded Construction-Manager-at-Risk and Design-Bid-Build delivery methods, which caused the city\u0027s project delivery method selection process to become compromised due to incomplete information",
  "proeth:causalSequence": [
    {
      "proeth:description": "City Administrator requests professional advice on project delivery methods from Engineer A",
      "proeth:element": "Soliciting Engineering Advice",
      "proeth:step": 1
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer A decides to prepare advisory memo without establishing formal consulting relationship",
      "proeth:element": "Providing Uncontracted Services",
      "proeth:step": 2
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer A deliberately excludes Construction-Manager-at-Risk and Design-Bid-Build methods from analysis",
      "proeth:element": "Omitting Viable Options",
      "proeth:step": 3
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Incomplete advisory memo with limited delivery options submitted to city",
      "proeth:element": "Memo Submission",
      "proeth:step": 4
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "City\u0027s selection process becomes compromised due to incomplete information basis",
      "proeth:element": "Decision Process Compromise",
      "proeth:step": 5
    }
  ],
  "proeth:cause": "Omitting Viable Options",
  "proeth:counterfactual": "If all viable delivery methods had been included, the city would have had complete information for proper decision-making",
  "proeth:effect": "Decision Process Compromise",
  "proeth:necessaryFactors": [
    "Deliberate exclusion of viable delivery methods",
    "City\u0027s reliance on Engineer A\u0027s professional advice",
    "Lack of independent verification of delivery options"
  ],
  "proeth:responsibilityType": "direct",
  "proeth:responsibleAgent": "Engineer A",
  "proeth:sufficientFactors": [
    "Combination of incomplete professional advice + city\u0027s dependence on that advice + absence of alternative information sources"
  ],
  "proeth:withinAgentControl": true
}

Causal Language: Engineer A specifically recommended Progressive-Design-Build delivery method and included the firm's qualifications, creating a conflict of interest that contributed to compromising the city's decision process

Necessary Factors (NESS):
  • Recommendation of method beneficial to Engineer A's firm
  • Inclusion of firm's qualifications in advisory memo
  • Absence of conflict of interest disclosure
Sufficient Factors:
  • Self-interested recommendation + promotional content + lack of transparency about potential benefits to recommending party
Counterfactual Test: Without the self-interested recommendation and firm promotion, the city would have received more objective professional advice
Responsibility Attribution:

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

Causal Sequence:
  1. Soliciting Engineering Advice
    City requests objective professional advice on delivery methods
  2. Providing Uncontracted Services
    Engineer A provides advice without formal ethical constraints or disclosure requirements
  3. Recommending Profitable Method
    Engineer A recommends Progressive-Design-Build method that benefits own firm and includes promotional content
  4. Memo Submission
    Self-interested recommendation submitted as professional advice without conflict disclosure
  5. Decision Process Compromise
    City's decision process compromised by biased professional advice presented as objective
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/14#",
    "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/14#CausalChain_dc5ab400",
  "@type": "proeth:CausalChain",
  "proeth:causalLanguage": "Engineer A specifically recommended Progressive-Design-Build delivery method and included the firm\u0027s qualifications, creating a conflict of interest that contributed to compromising the city\u0027s decision process",
  "proeth:causalSequence": [
    {
      "proeth:description": "City requests objective professional advice on delivery methods",
      "proeth:element": "Soliciting Engineering Advice",
      "proeth:step": 1
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer A provides advice without formal ethical constraints or disclosure requirements",
      "proeth:element": "Providing Uncontracted Services",
      "proeth:step": 2
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer A recommends Progressive-Design-Build method that benefits own firm and includes promotional content",
      "proeth:element": "Recommending Profitable Method",
      "proeth:step": 3
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Self-interested recommendation submitted as professional advice without conflict disclosure",
      "proeth:element": "Memo Submission",
      "proeth:step": 4
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "City\u0027s decision process compromised by biased professional advice presented as objective",
      "proeth:element": "Decision Process Compromise",
      "proeth:step": 5
    }
  ],
  "proeth:cause": "Recommending Profitable Method",
  "proeth:counterfactual": "Without the self-interested recommendation and firm promotion, the city would have received more objective professional advice",
  "proeth:effect": "Decision Process Compromise",
  "proeth:necessaryFactors": [
    "Recommendation of method beneficial to Engineer A\u0027s firm",
    "Inclusion of firm\u0027s qualifications in advisory memo",
    "Absence of conflict of interest disclosure"
  ],
  "proeth:responsibilityType": "direct",
  "proeth:responsibleAgent": "Engineer A",
  "proeth:sufficientFactors": [
    "Self-interested recommendation + promotional content + lack of transparency about potential benefits to recommending party"
  ],
  "proeth:withinAgentControl": true
}
Allen Temporal Relations (5)
Interval algebra relationships with OWL-Time standard properties
From Entity Allen Relation To Entity OWL-Time Property Evidence
City Administrator request for advice before
Entity1 is before Entity2 		Engineer A memo preparation time:before
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#before 		City B's City Administrator asked Engineer A for a recommendation on project delivery methods... Eng...
memo preparation before
Entity1 is before Entity2 		memo submission time:before
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#before 		Engineer A prepared a summary memo to City B Administrator and only identified Design-Bid-Build and ...
past Progressive-Design-Build projects before
Entity1 is before Entity2 		current recommendation time:before
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#before 		Engineer A provided a summary of the firm's experience with Progressive-Design-Build projects and re...
pile installation before
Entity1 is before Entity2 		test pile evaluation time:before
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#before 		the engineer in question rendered an opinion that, based upon test pile, the project's installed pil...
cure process before
Entity1 is before Entity2 		hammer drop test time:before
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#before 		that following cure, the test hammer was dropped several times before the count began
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.

© Licensed under the GNU GPL v3 | Report Issue