This page shows the pre-commit working store (the raw extraction under review). This case was committed to OntServe on 2026-07-13 20:30; the committed record differs by design (deduplication, typing, and agent binding are applied at commit). View the committed record
Overview
Provenance Draft

PASS 3: Temporal Dynamics

Case 148: Employment—Duty To Disclose Revocation Of Contractor License

21 entities 3 actions 2 events 6 causal chains 9 temporal relations
Timeline Overview
Action Event 8 sequenced markers
License Number Lending During Engineer F's prior ownership of the contracting firm, before the employment application
Contractor License Revocation During Engineer F's prior ownership of the fire sprinkler contracting firm, before the employment application
During Engineer A's rendering of services to Client B in BER Case 97-11
During the rendering of services to Client B, in precedent BER Case 97-11
Later in precedent BER Case 97-11, after Engineer A chose not to notify Client B
Negative Application Response At the time of the employment application
Nondisclosure Omission At the outset of the employer-employee relationship and continuing until the firm's later discovery
Employer Discovery of Revocation Later, after Engineer F's negative response on the employment application
OWL-Time Temporal Structure 9 relations time: = w3.org/2006/time
Engineer F's ownership of the fire sprinkler contracting firm time:intervalBefore Engineer F's application for the professional engineering position
allowing an unlicensed individual to use the contractor license number time:intervalDuring Engineer F's ownership of the fire sprinkler contracting firm
misuse of the contractor license number time:intervalBefore revocation of Engineer F's contractor's license
revocation of Engineer F's contractor's license time:intervalBefore Engineer F's negative response on the employment application
Engineer F's negative response on the employment application time:intervalBefore engineering firm learning of the contractor's license revocation
BER Cases 75-5 and 97-11 (precedent decisions) time:intervalBefore Board's analysis of the present case involving Engineer F
adjudication of Engineer F's wrongdoing (license revocation) time:intervalBefore employment application question
expected disclosure of the revocation time:intervalBefore employer's decision to hire Engineer F
Engineer F's failure to report the information time:intervalStarts the employer-employee relationship
Extracted Actions (3)
Volitional professional decisions with intentions and ethical context

Description: While owning a fire sprinkler contracting firm, Engineer F allowed an unlicensed individual who was unrelated to his contracting firm to use his contractor license number on another project, conduct that led to the revocation of his contractor's license.

Temporal Marker: During Engineer F's prior ownership of the contracting firm, before the employment application instant

Fluent Transitions:
Initiates (2)
  • Unlicensed Individual Operating Under License
  • Adjudicated Wrongdoing State

Mental State: deliberate

Intended Outcome: Enable the unlicensed individual to proceed on another project under his contractor license number

Foreseen Unintended Effects:

  • Risk of licensure discipline
  • Unlicensed work on a fire protection project affecting public safety
Obligation Engagement:
Violates (1)
  • Hold Paramount Public Safety, Health, and Welfare
Required Capabilities:
Contractor licensure responsibility
Within Competence: Yes
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • violatesObligation: Hold Paramount Public Safety, Health, and Welfare
  • requiresCapability: Contractor licensure responsibility
  • initiates: Unlicensed Individual Operating Under License; Adjudicated Wrongdoing State
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • description content: While owning a fire sprinkler contracting firm, Engineer F allowed an unlicensed individual who was unrelated to his contracting firm to use his contractor license number on another project, conduct that led to the revocation of his contractor's license.
  • hasAgent content: Engineer F
  • temporalMarker content: During Engineer F's prior ownership of the contracting firm, before the employment application
  • eventRoleContext content: owner of fire sprinkler contracting firm
  • hasMentalState content: deliberate
  • intendedOutcome content: Enable the unlicensed individual to proceed on another project under his contractor license number
  • foreseenUnintendedEffects content: Risk of licensure discipline; Unlicensed work on a fire protection project affecting public safety
  • textReferences content: Engineer F’s contractor’s license was revoked because he allowed an unlicensed individual who was unrelated to his contracting firm to use the contractor license number on another project
  • temporalExtent content: instant
  • temporalSequence content: 1
  • withinCompetence assessment: True
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/148#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#",
    "time": "http://www.w3.org/2006/time#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/148#Action_License_Number_Lending",
  "@type": "proeth:Action",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-13T17:21:26.027102+00:00",
  "proeth:description": "While owning a fire sprinkler contracting firm, Engineer F allowed an unlicensed individual who was unrelated to his contracting firm to use his contractor license number on another project, conduct that led to the revocation of his contractor\u0027s license.",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "facts",
  "proeth:eventRoleContext": "owner of fire sprinkler contracting firm",
  "proeth:foreseenUnintendedEffects": [
    "Risk of licensure discipline",
    "Unlicensed work on a fire protection project affecting public safety"
  ],
  "proeth:fulfillsObligation": [],
  "proeth:hasAgent": "Engineer F",
  "proeth:hasMentalState": "deliberate",
  "proeth:initiates": [
    "Unlicensed Individual Operating Under License",
    "Adjudicated Wrongdoing State"
  ],
  "proeth:intendedOutcome": "Enable the unlicensed individual to proceed on another project under his contractor license number",
  "proeth:raisesObligation": [],
  "proeth:requiresCapability": [
    "Contractor licensure responsibility"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalExtent": "instant",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "During Engineer F\u0027s prior ownership of the contracting firm, before the employment application",
  "proeth:temporalSequence": 1,
  "proeth:textReferences": [
    "Engineer F\u2019s contractor\u2019s license was revoked because he allowed an unlicensed individual who was unrelated to his contracting firm to use the contractor license number on another project"
  ],
  "proeth:violatesObligation": [
    "Hold Paramount Public Safety, Health, and Welfare"
  ],
  "proeth:withinCompetence": true,
  "rdfs:label": "License Number Lending"
}

Description: On the engineering firm employment application, Engineer F answered no to the question asking whether he had ever been disciplined in the practice of professional engineering or had his license suspended or revoked, relying on a narrow reading limited to his engineering license and omitting the contractor's license revocation.

Temporal Marker: At the time of the employment application instant

Fluent Transitions:
Initiates (2)
  • Employer Uninformed of License Revocation
  • Undermined Trust Between Employer and Employee

Mental State: deliberate, legalistically evasive

Intended Outcome: Secure the professional engineering position without disclosing the contractor's license revocation

Foreseen Unintended Effects:

  • Employer deprived of information bearing on his character, integrity, and credibility
  • Risk of undermining trust if the revocation was later discovered
Obligation Engagement:
Violates (2)
  • Full and Complete Disclosure to Employers or Clients
  • Avoid Deceptive Acts
Required Capabilities:
Professional judgment on disclosure
Within Competence: Yes
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • violatesObligation: Full and Complete Disclosure to Employers or Clients; Avoid Deceptive Acts
  • requiresCapability: Professional judgment on disclosure
  • initiates: Employer Uninformed of License Revocation; Undermined Trust Between Employer and Employee
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • description content: On the engineering firm employment application, Engineer F answered no to the question asking whether he had ever been disciplined in the practice of professional engineering or had his license suspended or revoked, relying on a narrow reading limited to his engineering license and omitting the contractor's license revocation.
  • hasAgent content: Engineer F
  • temporalMarker content: At the time of the employment application
  • eventRoleContext content: professional engineer, job applicant
  • hasMentalState content: deliberate, legalistically evasive
  • intendedOutcome content: Secure the professional engineering position without disclosing the contractor's license revocation
  • foreseenUnintendedEffects content: Employer deprived of information bearing on his character, integrity, and credibility; Risk of undermining trust if the revocation was later discovered
  • textReferences content: Engineer F responds in the negative on the employment application.; While Engineer F could claim a legalistic rationale for being evasive and not responding to the full implications of the question, as a matter of ethics, Engineer F’s conduct was failing.
  • temporalExtent content: instant
  • temporalSequence content: 3
  • withinCompetence assessment: True
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/148#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#",
    "time": "http://www.w3.org/2006/time#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/148#Action_Negative_Application_Response",
  "@type": "proeth:Action",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-13T17:21:26.027307+00:00",
  "proeth:description": "On the engineering firm employment application, Engineer F answered no to the question asking whether he had ever been disciplined in the practice of professional engineering or had his license suspended or revoked, relying on a narrow reading limited to his engineering license and omitting the contractor\u0027s license revocation.",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "facts",
  "proeth:eventRoleContext": "professional engineer, job applicant",
  "proeth:foreseenUnintendedEffects": [
    "Employer deprived of information bearing on his character, integrity, and credibility",
    "Risk of undermining trust if the revocation was later discovered"
  ],
  "proeth:fulfillsObligation": [],
  "proeth:hasAgent": "Engineer F",
  "proeth:hasMentalState": "deliberate, legalistically evasive",
  "proeth:initiates": [
    "Employer Uninformed of License Revocation",
    "Undermined Trust Between Employer and Employee"
  ],
  "proeth:intendedOutcome": "Secure the professional engineering position without disclosing the contractor\u0027s license revocation",
  "proeth:raisesObligation": [],
  "proeth:requiresCapability": [
    "Professional judgment on disclosure"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalExtent": "instant",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "At the time of the employment application",
  "proeth:temporalSequence": 3,
  "proeth:textReferences": [
    "Engineer F responds in the negative on the employment application.",
    "While Engineer F could claim a legalistic rationale for being evasive and not responding to the full implications of the question, as a matter of ethics, Engineer F\u2019s conduct was failing."
  ],
  "proeth:violatesObligation": [
    "Full and Complete Disclosure to Employers or Clients",
    "Avoid Deceptive Acts"
  ],
  "proeth:withinCompetence": true,
  "rdfs:label": "Negative Application Response"
}

Description: Engineer F failed to voluntarily report the contractor's license revocation to the employer at the outset of the employer-employee relationship, an omission the Board treats as conduct undermining the trust between the parties.

Temporal Marker: At the outset of the employer-employee relationship and continuing until the firm's later discovery interval

Fluent Transitions:
Initiates (1)
  • Undermined Trust Between Employer and Employee

Mental State: deliberate withholding

Intended Outcome: Avoid damaging his employment prospects and standing with the employer

Foreseen Unintended Effects:

  • Undermining the level of trust between the parties if the information was later learned
Obligation Engagement:
Violates (2)
  • Full and Complete Disclosure to Employers or Clients
  • Honesty and Candor in the Performance of Engineering Services
Required Capabilities:
Professional judgment on disclosure
Within Competence: Yes
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • violatesObligation: Full and Complete Disclosure to Employers or Clients; Honesty and Candor in the Performance of Engineering Services
  • requiresCapability: Professional judgment on disclosure
  • initiates: Undermined Trust Between Employer and Employee
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • description content: Engineer F failed to voluntarily report the contractor's license revocation to the employer at the outset of the employer-employee relationship, an omission the Board treats as conduct undermining the trust between the parties.
  • hasAgent content: Engineer F
  • temporalMarker content: At the outset of the employer-employee relationship and continuing until the firm's later discovery
  • eventRoleContext content: professional engineer, employee
  • hasMentalState content: deliberate withholding
  • intendedOutcome content: Avoid damaging his employment prospects and standing with the employer
  • foreseenUnintendedEffects content: Undermining the level of trust between the parties if the information was later learned
  • textReferences content: Engineer F’s failure to report the information at the outset of the employer-employee relationship would have the effect of undermining the level of trust that exists between the parties
  • temporalExtent content: interval
  • temporalSequence content: 4
  • withinCompetence assessment: True
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/148#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#",
    "time": "http://www.w3.org/2006/time#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/148#Action_Nondisclosure_Omission",
  "@type": "proeth:Action",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-13T17:21:26.027352+00:00",
  "proeth:description": "Engineer F failed to voluntarily report the contractor\u0027s license revocation to the employer at the outset of the employer-employee relationship, an omission the Board treats as conduct undermining the trust between the parties.",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "discussion",
  "proeth:eventRoleContext": "professional engineer, employee",
  "proeth:foreseenUnintendedEffects": [
    "Undermining the level of trust between the parties if the information was later learned"
  ],
  "proeth:fulfillsObligation": [],
  "proeth:hasAgent": "Engineer F",
  "proeth:hasMentalState": "deliberate withholding",
  "proeth:initiates": [
    "Undermined Trust Between Employer and Employee"
  ],
  "proeth:intendedOutcome": "Avoid damaging his employment prospects and standing with the employer",
  "proeth:raisesObligation": [],
  "proeth:requiresCapability": [
    "Professional judgment on disclosure"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalExtent": "interval",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "At the outset of the employer-employee relationship and continuing until the firm\u0027s later discovery",
  "proeth:temporalSequence": 4,
  "proeth:textReferences": [
    "Engineer F\u2019s failure to report the information at the outset of the employer-employee relationship would have the effect of undermining the level of trust that exists between the parties"
  ],
  "proeth:violatesObligation": [
    "Full and Complete Disclosure to Employers or Clients",
    "Honesty and Candor in the Performance of Engineering Services"
  ],
  "proeth:withinCompetence": true,
  "rdfs:label": "Nondisclosure Omission"
}
Extracted Events (2)
Occurrences that trigger ethical considerations and state changes

Description: Engineer F's contractor's license was revoked by the licensing authority after he allowed an unlicensed, unrelated individual to use his contractor license number on another project. This was an actual adjudication of wrongdoing, not a mere allegation.

Temporal Marker: During Engineer F's prior ownership of the fire sprinkler contracting firm, before the employment application instant

Fluent Transitions:
Initiates (2)
  • Adjudicated Wrongdoing
  • Disciplinary History
Terminates (1)
  • Contractor Licensure

Caused By Action: Action_License_Number_Lending

Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • causedByAction: http://proethica.org/ontology/case/148#Action_License_Number_Lending
  • initiates: Adjudicated Wrongdoing; Disciplinary History
  • terminates: Contractor Licensure
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • description content: Engineer F's contractor's license was revoked by the licensing authority after he allowed an unlicensed, unrelated individual to use his contractor license number on another project. This was an actual adjudication of wrongdoing, not a mere allegation.
  • temporalMarker content: During Engineer F's prior ownership of the fire sprinkler contracting firm, before the employment application
  • textReferences content: Engineer F’s contractor’s license was revoked because he allowed an unlicensed individual who was unrelated to his contracting firm to use the contractor license number on another project; Engineer F had his contractor’s license revoked because of actual demonstrated violation on Engineer F’s part. The facts do not suggest a mere allegation, but instead an actual adjudication of wrongdoing.
  • eventType content: automatic
  • temporalExtent content: instant
  • temporalSequence content: 2
  • confidence assessment: 0.95
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/148#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#",
    "time": "http://www.w3.org/2006/time#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/148#Event_Contractor_License_Revocation",
  "@type": "proeth:Event",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-13T17:21:26.027432+00:00",
  "proeth:causedByAction": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/148#Action_License_Number_Lending",
  "proeth:confidence": "0.95",
  "proeth:description": "Engineer F\u0027s contractor\u0027s license was revoked by the licensing authority after he allowed an unlicensed, unrelated individual to use his contractor license number on another project. This was an actual adjudication of wrongdoing, not a mere allegation.",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "facts",
  "proeth:eventType": "automatic",
  "proeth:initiates": [
    "Adjudicated Wrongdoing",
    "Disciplinary History"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalExtent": "instant",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "During Engineer F\u0027s prior ownership of the fire sprinkler contracting firm, before the employment application",
  "proeth:temporalSequence": 2,
  "proeth:terminates": [
    "Contractor Licensure"
  ],
  "proeth:textReferences": [
    "Engineer F\u2019s contractor\u2019s license was revoked because he allowed an unlicensed individual who was unrelated to his contracting firm to use the contractor license number on another project",
    "Engineer F had his contractor\u2019s license revoked because of actual demonstrated violation on Engineer F\u2019s part. The facts do not suggest a mere allegation, but instead an actual adjudication of wrongdoing."
  ],
  "rdfs:label": "Contractor License Revocation"
}

Description: The engineering firm learns after hiring that, although Engineer F's engineering license was never revoked or suspended, his contractor's license had been revoked. This discovery ends the concealment of the disciplinary history and undermines trust between the parties.

Temporal Marker: Later, after Engineer F's negative response on the employment application instant

Fluent Transitions:
Initiates (2)
  • Employer Awareness of Revocation
  • Undermined Trust
Terminates (1)
  • Employer Unawareness of Disciplinary History
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • initiates: Employer Awareness of Revocation; Undermined Trust
  • terminates: Employer Unawareness of Disciplinary History
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • description content: The engineering firm learns after hiring that, although Engineer F's engineering license was never revoked or suspended, his contractor's license had been revoked. This discovery ends the concealment of the disciplinary history and undermines trust between the parties.
  • temporalMarker content: Later, after Engineer F's negative response on the employment application
  • textReferences content: Later, the engineering firm learns that while Engineer F’s engineering license was never revoked or suspended, Engineer F’s contractor’s license was revoked; Engineer F’s failure to report the information at the outset of the employer-employee relationship would have the effect of undermining the level of trust that exists between the parties
  • eventType content: exogenous
  • temporalExtent content: instant
  • temporalSequence content: 5
  • confidence assessment: 0.93
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/148#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#",
    "time": "http://www.w3.org/2006/time#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/148#Event_Employer_Discovery_of_Revocation",
  "@type": "proeth:Event",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-13T17:21:26.027467+00:00",
  "proeth:confidence": "0.93",
  "proeth:description": "The engineering firm learns after hiring that, although Engineer F\u0027s engineering license was never revoked or suspended, his contractor\u0027s license had been revoked. This discovery ends the concealment of the disciplinary history and undermines trust between the parties.",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "facts",
  "proeth:eventType": "exogenous",
  "proeth:initiates": [
    "Employer Awareness of Revocation",
    "Undermined Trust"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalExtent": "instant",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "Later, after Engineer F\u0027s negative response on the employment application",
  "proeth:temporalSequence": 5,
  "proeth:terminates": [
    "Employer Unawareness of Disciplinary History"
  ],
  "proeth:textReferences": [
    "Later, the engineering firm learns that while Engineer F\u2019s engineering license was never revoked or suspended, Engineer F\u2019s contractor\u2019s license was revoked",
    "Engineer F\u2019s failure to report the information at the outset of the employer-employee relationship would have the effect of undermining the level of trust that exists between the parties"
  ],
  "rdfs:label": "Employer Discovery of Revocation"
}
Causal Chains (6)
NESS test analysis: Necessary Element of Sufficient Set

Causal Language: Engineer F’s contractor’s license was revoked because he allowed an unlicensed individual who was unrelated to his contracting firm to use the contractor license number on another project.

Necessary Factors (NESS):
  • Engineer F held a contractor's license subject to regulatory discipline
  • Engineer F permitted an unlicensed, unrelated individual to use his license number
  • The misuse occurred on another project and came to the licensing authority's attention
Sufficient Factors:
  • Combination of holding a regulated license + knowingly lending the license number to an unlicensed individual + regulatory enforcement of licensing rules
Counterfactual Test: Had Engineer F not allowed the unlicensed individual to use his contractor license number, the licensing authority would have had no basis to revoke the contractor's license.
Responsibility Attribution:

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

Causal Sequence:
  1. License Number Lending
    Engineer F allows an unlicensed individual unrelated to his contracting firm to use his contractor license number on another project
  2. Regulatory Detection
    The misuse of the contractor license number comes to the attention of the licensing authority
  3. Adjudication of Wrongdoing
    The matter results in 'an actual adjudication of wrongdoing,' not a mere allegation
  4. Contractor License Revocation
    Engineer F's contractor's license is revoked as the disciplinary consequence
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • cause: License Number Lending
  • effect: Contractor License Revocation
  • responsibleAgent: Engineer F
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • causalLanguage content: Engineer F’s contractor’s license was revoked because he allowed an unlicensed individual who was unrelated to his contracting firm to use the contractor license number on another project.
  • necessaryFactors content: Engineer F held a contractor's license subject to regulatory discipline; Engineer F permitted an unlicensed, unrelated individual to use his license number; The misuse occurred on another project and came to the licensing authority's attention
  • sufficientFactors content: Combination of holding a regulated license + knowingly lending the license number to an unlicensed individual + regulatory enforcement of licensing rules
  • counterfactual content: Had Engineer F not allowed the unlicensed individual to use his contractor license number, the licensing authority would have had no basis to revoke the contractor's license.
  • agentKnowledge content: Knew he was the licensed owner of the contracting firm and that the individual using the license number was unlicensed and unrelated to his firm
  • interveningFactors content: Licensing authority's adjudication and enforcement action
  • causalSequence content: {'proeth:step': 1, 'proeth:element': 'License Number Lending', 'proeth:description': 'Engineer F allows an unlicensed individual unrelated to his contracting firm to use his contractor license number on another project'}; {'proeth:step': 2, 'proeth:element': 'Regulatory Detection', 'proeth:description': 'The misuse of the contractor license number comes to the attention of the licensing authority'}; {'proeth:step': 3, 'proeth:element': 'Adjudication of Wrongdoing', 'proeth:description': "The matter results in 'an actual adjudication of wrongdoing,' not a mere allegation"}; {'proeth:step': 4, 'proeth:element': 'Contractor License Revocation', 'proeth:description': "Engineer F's contractor's license is revoked as the disciplinary consequence"}
  • responsibilityType assessment: direct
  • withinAgentControl assessment: True
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/148#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/148#CausalChain_1",
  "@type": "proeth:CausalChain",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-13T17:21:26.027525+00:00",
  "proeth:agentKnowledge": "Knew he was the licensed owner of the contracting firm and that the individual using the license number was unlicensed and unrelated to his firm",
  "proeth:causalLanguage": "Engineer F\u2019s contractor\u2019s license was revoked because he allowed an unlicensed individual who was unrelated to his contracting firm to use the contractor license number on another project.",
  "proeth:causalSequence": [
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer F allows an unlicensed individual unrelated to his contracting firm to use his contractor license number on another project",
      "proeth:element": "License Number Lending",
      "proeth:step": 1
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "The misuse of the contractor license number comes to the attention of the licensing authority",
      "proeth:element": "Regulatory Detection",
      "proeth:step": 2
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "The matter results in \u0027an actual adjudication of wrongdoing,\u0027 not a mere allegation",
      "proeth:element": "Adjudication of Wrongdoing",
      "proeth:step": 3
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer F\u0027s contractor\u0027s license is revoked as the disciplinary consequence",
      "proeth:element": "Contractor License Revocation",
      "proeth:step": 4
    }
  ],
  "proeth:cause": "License Number Lending",
  "proeth:counterfactual": "Had Engineer F not allowed the unlicensed individual to use his contractor license number, the licensing authority would have had no basis to revoke the contractor\u0027s license.",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "facts",
  "proeth:effect": "Contractor License Revocation",
  "proeth:interveningFactors": [
    "Licensing authority\u0027s adjudication and enforcement action"
  ],
  "proeth:necessaryFactors": [
    "Engineer F held a contractor\u0027s license subject to regulatory discipline",
    "Engineer F permitted an unlicensed, unrelated individual to use his license number",
    "The misuse occurred on another project and came to the licensing authority\u0027s attention"
  ],
  "proeth:responsibilityType": "direct",
  "proeth:responsibleAgent": "Engineer F",
  "proeth:sufficientFactors": [
    "Combination of holding a regulated license + knowingly lending the license number to an unlicensed individual + regulatory enforcement of licensing rules"
  ],
  "proeth:withinAgentControl": true
}

Causal Language: While Engineer F could claim a legalistic rationale for being evasive and not responding to the full implications of the question, as a matter of ethics, Engineer F’s conduct was failing.

Necessary Factors (NESS):
  • Existence of a prior adverse disciplinary record (the revoked contractor's license)
  • An employment application question about discipline or license suspension/revocation
  • Engineer F's choice to interpret the question narrowly as covering only the engineering license
Sufficient Factors:
  • Combination of a damaging revocation history + a question limited on its face to 'the practice of professional engineering' + Engineer F's decision to exploit that legalistic ambiguity
Counterfactual Test: Without the contractor license revocation, a negative answer would have been fully truthful and non-deceptive; the revocation is what made the 'no' response an evasive concealment of material information.
Responsibility Attribution:

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

Causal Sequence:
  1. Contractor License Revocation
    Engineer F carries an adjudicated disciplinary record from his contracting firm ownership
  2. Employment Application Question
    The application asks whether the engineer 'has ever been disciplined in the practice of professional engineering or had his license suspended or revoked'
  3. Legalistic Interpretation
    Engineer F seizes on the question's reference to professional engineering as a rationale for being evasive
  4. Negative Application Response
    Engineer F answers 'no' on the employment application, concealing the revocation
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • cause: Contractor License Revocation
  • effect: Negative Application Response
  • responsibleAgent: Engineer F
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • causalLanguage content: While Engineer F could claim a legalistic rationale for being evasive and not responding to the full implications of the question, as a matter of ethics, Engineer F’s conduct was failing.
  • necessaryFactors content: Existence of a prior adverse disciplinary record (the revoked contractor's license); An employment application question about discipline or license suspension/revocation; Engineer F's choice to interpret the question narrowly as covering only the engineering license
  • sufficientFactors content: Combination of a damaging revocation history + a question limited on its face to 'the practice of professional engineering' + Engineer F's decision to exploit that legalistic ambiguity
  • counterfactual content: Without the contractor license revocation, a negative answer would have been fully truthful and non-deceptive; the revocation is what made the 'no' response an evasive concealment of material information.
  • agentKnowledge content: Is assumed to have realized that the employer would have wanted to know this information before making the decision to hire Engineer F
  • interveningFactors content: Narrow wording of the employer's application question, which referred only to discipline in the practice of professional engineering
  • causalSequence content: {'proeth:step': 1, 'proeth:element': 'Contractor License Revocation', 'proeth:description': 'Engineer F carries an adjudicated disciplinary record from his contracting firm ownership'}; {'proeth:step': 2, 'proeth:element': 'Employment Application Question', 'proeth:description': "The application asks whether the engineer 'has ever been disciplined in the practice of professional engineering or had his license suspended or revoked'"}; {'proeth:step': 3, 'proeth:element': 'Legalistic Interpretation', 'proeth:description': "Engineer F seizes on the question's reference to professional engineering as a rationale for being evasive"}; {'proeth:step': 4, 'proeth:element': 'Negative Application Response', 'proeth:description': "Engineer F answers 'no' on the employment application, concealing the revocation"}
  • responsibilityType assessment: direct
  • withinAgentControl assessment: True
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/148#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/148#CausalChain_2",
  "@type": "proeth:CausalChain",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-13T17:21:26.027553+00:00",
  "proeth:agentKnowledge": "Is assumed to have realized that the employer would have wanted to know this information before making the decision to hire Engineer F",
  "proeth:causalLanguage": "While Engineer F could claim a legalistic rationale for being evasive and not responding to the full implications of the question, as a matter of ethics, Engineer F\u2019s conduct was failing.",
  "proeth:causalSequence": [
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer F carries an adjudicated disciplinary record from his contracting firm ownership",
      "proeth:element": "Contractor License Revocation",
      "proeth:step": 1
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "The application asks whether the engineer \u0027has ever been disciplined in the practice of professional engineering or had his license suspended or revoked\u0027",
      "proeth:element": "Employment Application Question",
      "proeth:step": 2
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer F seizes on the question\u0027s reference to professional engineering as a rationale for being evasive",
      "proeth:element": "Legalistic Interpretation",
      "proeth:step": 3
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer F answers \u0027no\u0027 on the employment application, concealing the revocation",
      "proeth:element": "Negative Application Response",
      "proeth:step": 4
    }
  ],
  "proeth:cause": "Contractor License Revocation",
  "proeth:counterfactual": "Without the contractor license revocation, a negative answer would have been fully truthful and non-deceptive; the revocation is what made the \u0027no\u0027 response an evasive concealment of material information.",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "discussion",
  "proeth:effect": "Negative Application Response",
  "proeth:interveningFactors": [
    "Narrow wording of the employer\u0027s application question, which referred only to discipline in the practice of professional engineering"
  ],
  "proeth:necessaryFactors": [
    "Existence of a prior adverse disciplinary record (the revoked contractor\u0027s license)",
    "An employment application question about discipline or license suspension/revocation",
    "Engineer F\u0027s choice to interpret the question narrowly as covering only the engineering license"
  ],
  "proeth:responsibilityType": "direct",
  "proeth:responsibleAgent": "Engineer F",
  "proeth:sufficientFactors": [
    "Combination of a damaging revocation history + a question limited on its face to \u0027the practice of professional engineering\u0027 + Engineer F\u0027s decision to exploit that legalistic ambiguity"
  ],
  "proeth:withinAgentControl": true
}

Causal Language: Later, the engineering firm learns that while Engineer F’s engineering license was never revoked or suspended, Engineer F’s contractor’s license was revoked because he allowed an unlicensed individual who was unrelated to his contracting firm to use the contractor license number on another project.

Necessary Factors (NESS):
  • Engineer F's negative answer that withheld the revocation at the time of application
  • The underlying revocation record remaining accessible to third parties or later inquiry
  • The employer's continued relationship with Engineer F after hiring
Sufficient Factors:
  • Combination of concealment on the application + an adjudicated public disciplinary record + the passage of time allowing the firm to learn of it independently
Counterfactual Test: Had Engineer F disclosed the revocation on the application, the employer would have learned of it directly at the outset rather than discovering it later in a manner that undermined trust.
Responsibility Attribution:

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

Causal Sequence:
  1. Negative Application Response
    Engineer F answers 'no' to the disciplinary question, concealing the revocation
  2. Hiring on Incomplete Information
    The engineering firm proceeds without knowledge material to its decision to hire Engineer F
  3. Employer Discovery of Revocation
    The engineering firm later learns that Engineer F's contractor's license was revoked
  4. Undermined Trust
    The failure to report the information at the outset has the effect of undermining the level of trust between the parties
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • cause: Negative Application Response
  • effect: Employer Discovery of Revocation
  • responsibleAgent: Engineer F
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • causalLanguage content: Later, the engineering firm learns that while Engineer F’s engineering license was never revoked or suspended, Engineer F’s contractor’s license was revoked because he allowed an unlicensed individual who was unrelated to his contracting firm to use the contractor license number on another project.
  • necessaryFactors content: Engineer F's negative answer that withheld the revocation at the time of application; The underlying revocation record remaining accessible to third parties or later inquiry; The employer's continued relationship with Engineer F after hiring
  • sufficientFactors content: Combination of concealment on the application + an adjudicated public disciplinary record + the passage of time allowing the firm to learn of it independently
  • counterfactual content: Had Engineer F disclosed the revocation on the application, the employer would have learned of it directly at the outset rather than discovering it later in a manner that undermined trust.
  • agentKnowledge content: Knew his contractor's license had been revoked and is assumed to have realized the employer would have wanted this information before making the hiring decision
  • interveningFactors content: Third-party or independent channel through which the engineering firm learned of the revocation
  • causalSequence content: {'proeth:step': 1, 'proeth:element': 'Negative Application Response', 'proeth:description': "Engineer F answers 'no' to the disciplinary question, concealing the revocation"}; {'proeth:step': 2, 'proeth:element': 'Hiring on Incomplete Information', 'proeth:description': 'The engineering firm proceeds without knowledge material to its decision to hire Engineer F'}; {'proeth:step': 3, 'proeth:element': 'Employer Discovery of Revocation', 'proeth:description': "The engineering firm later learns that Engineer F's contractor's license was revoked"}; {'proeth:step': 4, 'proeth:element': 'Undermined Trust', 'proeth:description': 'The failure to report the information at the outset has the effect of undermining the level of trust between the parties'}
  • responsibilityType assessment: direct
  • withinAgentControl assessment: True
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/148#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/148#CausalChain_3",
  "@type": "proeth:CausalChain",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-13T17:21:26.027575+00:00",
  "proeth:agentKnowledge": "Knew his contractor\u0027s license had been revoked and is assumed to have realized the employer would have wanted this information before making the hiring decision",
  "proeth:causalLanguage": "Later, the engineering firm learns that while Engineer F\u2019s engineering license was never revoked or suspended, Engineer F\u2019s contractor\u2019s license was revoked because he allowed an unlicensed individual who was unrelated to his contracting firm to use the contractor license number on another project.",
  "proeth:causalSequence": [
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer F answers \u0027no\u0027 to the disciplinary question, concealing the revocation",
      "proeth:element": "Negative Application Response",
      "proeth:step": 1
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "The engineering firm proceeds without knowledge material to its decision to hire Engineer F",
      "proeth:element": "Hiring on Incomplete Information",
      "proeth:step": 2
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "The engineering firm later learns that Engineer F\u0027s contractor\u0027s license was revoked",
      "proeth:element": "Employer Discovery of Revocation",
      "proeth:step": 3
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "The failure to report the information at the outset has the effect of undermining the level of trust between the parties",
      "proeth:element": "Undermined Trust",
      "proeth:step": 4
    }
  ],
  "proeth:cause": "Negative Application Response",
  "proeth:counterfactual": "Had Engineer F disclosed the revocation on the application, the employer would have learned of it directly at the outset rather than discovering it later in a manner that undermined trust.",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "facts",
  "proeth:effect": "Employer Discovery of Revocation",
  "proeth:interveningFactors": [
    "Third-party or independent channel through which the engineering firm learned of the revocation"
  ],
  "proeth:necessaryFactors": [
    "Engineer F\u0027s negative answer that withheld the revocation at the time of application",
    "The underlying revocation record remaining accessible to third parties or later inquiry",
    "The employer\u0027s continued relationship with Engineer F after hiring"
  ],
  "proeth:responsibilityType": "direct",
  "proeth:responsibleAgent": "Engineer F",
  "proeth:sufficientFactors": [
    "Combination of concealment on the application + an adjudicated public disciplinary record + the passage of time allowing the firm to learn of it independently"
  ],
  "proeth:withinAgentControl": true
}

Causal Language: it would seem that Engineer F’s failure to report the information at the outset of the employer-employee relationship would have the effect of undermining the level of trust that exists between the parties.

Necessary Factors (NESS):
  • Engineer F's ongoing failure to voluntarily report the revocation at the outset of the employment relationship
  • Materiality of the revocation to the employer, particularly given fire protection services
  • Existence of an alternative route by which the employer could learn the truth
Sufficient Factors:
  • Combination of continued silence + a discoverable adjudicated record + the employer's eventual exposure to that record
Counterfactual Test: Had Engineer F gone 'the extra mile' and voluntarily disclosed at the outset, the employer's later independent discovery — and the resulting damage to trust — would not have occurred in that form.
Responsibility Attribution:

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

Causal Sequence:
  1. Nondisclosure Omission
    Engineer F fails to voluntarily report the contractor's license revocation at the outset of the employment relationship
  2. Employment Relationship Founded on Incomplete Candor
    The employer-employee relationship proceeds without full disclosure of material adjudicated wrongdoing
  3. Employer Discovery of Revocation
    The engineering firm learns of the revocation from a source other than Engineer F
  4. Erosion of Trust
    The failure to report the information at the outset undermines the level of trust between the parties
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • cause: Nondisclosure Omission
  • effect: Employer Discovery of Revocation
  • responsibleAgent: Engineer F
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • causalLanguage content: it would seem that Engineer F’s failure to report the information at the outset of the employer-employee relationship would have the effect of undermining the level of trust that exists between the parties.
  • necessaryFactors content: Engineer F's ongoing failure to voluntarily report the revocation at the outset of the employment relationship; Materiality of the revocation to the employer, particularly given fire protection services; Existence of an alternative route by which the employer could learn the truth
  • sufficientFactors content: Combination of continued silence + a discoverable adjudicated record + the employer's eventual exposure to that record
  • counterfactual content: Had Engineer F gone 'the extra mile' and voluntarily disclosed at the outset, the employer's later independent discovery — and the resulting damage to trust — would not have occurred in that form.
  • agentKnowledge content: Knew the revocation related to fire protection services 'of particular interest to the employer' and that the employer's question sought to elicit information about his character, integrity, and credibility
  • interveningFactors content: The employer's question being framed solely around discipline in the practice of professional engineering
  • causalSequence content: {'proeth:step': 1, 'proeth:element': 'Nondisclosure Omission', 'proeth:description': "Engineer F fails to voluntarily report the contractor's license revocation at the outset of the employment relationship"}; {'proeth:step': 2, 'proeth:element': 'Employment Relationship Founded on Incomplete Candor', 'proeth:description': 'The employer-employee relationship proceeds without full disclosure of material adjudicated wrongdoing'}; {'proeth:step': 3, 'proeth:element': 'Employer Discovery of Revocation', 'proeth:description': 'The engineering firm learns of the revocation from a source other than Engineer F'}; {'proeth:step': 4, 'proeth:element': 'Erosion of Trust', 'proeth:description': 'The failure to report the information at the outset undermines the level of trust between the parties'}
  • responsibilityType assessment: direct
  • withinAgentControl assessment: True
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/148#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/148#CausalChain_4",
  "@type": "proeth:CausalChain",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-13T17:21:26.028165+00:00",
  "proeth:agentKnowledge": "Knew the revocation related to fire protection services \u0027of particular interest to the employer\u0027 and that the employer\u0027s question sought to elicit information about his character, integrity, and credibility",
  "proeth:causalLanguage": "it would seem that Engineer F\u2019s failure to report the information at the outset of the employer-employee relationship would have the effect of undermining the level of trust that exists between the parties.",
  "proeth:causalSequence": [
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer F fails to voluntarily report the contractor\u0027s license revocation at the outset of the employment relationship",
      "proeth:element": "Nondisclosure Omission",
      "proeth:step": 1
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "The employer-employee relationship proceeds without full disclosure of material adjudicated wrongdoing",
      "proeth:element": "Employment Relationship Founded on Incomplete Candor",
      "proeth:step": 2
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "The engineering firm learns of the revocation from a source other than Engineer F",
      "proeth:element": "Employer Discovery of Revocation",
      "proeth:step": 3
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "The failure to report the information at the outset undermines the level of trust between the parties",
      "proeth:element": "Erosion of Trust",
      "proeth:step": 4
    }
  ],
  "proeth:cause": "Nondisclosure Omission",
  "proeth:counterfactual": "Had Engineer F gone \u0027the extra mile\u0027 and voluntarily disclosed at the outset, the employer\u0027s later independent discovery \u2014 and the resulting damage to trust \u2014 would not have occurred in that form.",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "discussion",
  "proeth:effect": "Employer Discovery of Revocation",
  "proeth:interveningFactors": [
    "The employer\u0027s question being framed solely around discipline in the practice of professional engineering"
  ],
  "proeth:necessaryFactors": [
    "Engineer F\u0027s ongoing failure to voluntarily report the revocation at the outset of the employment relationship",
    "Materiality of the revocation to the employer, particularly given fire protection services",
    "Existence of an alternative route by which the employer could learn the truth"
  ],
  "proeth:responsibilityType": "direct",
  "proeth:responsibleAgent": "Engineer F",
  "proeth:sufficientFactors": [
    "Combination of continued silence + a discoverable adjudicated record + the employer\u0027s eventual exposure to that record"
  ],
  "proeth:withinAgentControl": true
}

Causal Language: During the rendering of services to Client B on this project, the state board of professional engineers contacted Engineer A regarding an ethics complaint filed against Engineer A by Client C relating to services provided on a project for Client C that were similar to the services being performed for Client B. Engineer A did not believe it was necessary to notify Client B of the pending complaint.

Necessary Factors (NESS):
  • The state board contacting Engineer A about the pending ethics complaint
  • Engineer A's awareness that the complaint concerned services similar to those being performed for Client B
  • Engineer A's judgment that a mere allegation did not require disclosure
Sufficient Factors:
  • Combination of notice of the complaint + Engineer A's assessment that the complaint was an unproven allegation + absence of any adjudication of wrongdoing
Counterfactual Test: Without the state board contact, there would have been no pending complaint known to Engineer A and thus no disclosure decision to make.
Responsibility Attribution:

Agent: Engineer A (BER Case 97-11)
Type: direct
Within Agent Control: Yes

Causal Sequence:
  1. State Board Contact
    The state board of professional engineers contacts Engineer A regarding Client C's ethics complaint
  2. Assessment of Allegation
    Engineer A treats the complaint as a mere allegation not amounting to a finding of fact or conclusion of law
  3. Complaint Nondisclosure Decision
    Engineer A decides it is not necessary to notify Client B of the pending complaint
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • cause: State Board Contact
  • effect: Complaint Nondisclosure Decision
  • responsibleAgent: Engineer A (BER Case 97-11)
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • causalLanguage content: During the rendering of services to Client B on this project, the state board of professional engineers contacted Engineer A regarding an ethics complaint filed against Engineer A by Client C relating to services provided on a project for Client C that were similar to the services being performed for Client B. Engineer A did not believe it was necessary to notify Client B of the pending complaint.
  • necessaryFactors content: The state board contacting Engineer A about the pending ethics complaint; Engineer A's awareness that the complaint concerned services similar to those being performed for Client B; Engineer A's judgment that a mere allegation did not require disclosure
  • sufficientFactors content: Combination of notice of the complaint + Engineer A's assessment that the complaint was an unproven allegation + absence of any adjudication of wrongdoing
  • counterfactual content: Without the state board contact, there would have been no pending complaint known to Engineer A and thus no disclosure decision to make.
  • agentKnowledge content: Knew of the pending ethics complaint and that it was a mere allegation, not a finding of fact or conclusion of law
  • interveningFactors content: Client C's filing of the complaint, which 'could be false, baseless, and motivated by some malicious intent'
  • causalSequence content: {'proeth:step': 1, 'proeth:element': 'State Board Contact', 'proeth:description': "The state board of professional engineers contacts Engineer A regarding Client C's ethics complaint"}; {'proeth:step': 2, 'proeth:element': 'Assessment of Allegation', 'proeth:description': 'Engineer A treats the complaint as a mere allegation not amounting to a finding of fact or conclusion of law'}; {'proeth:step': 3, 'proeth:element': 'Complaint Nondisclosure Decision', 'proeth:description': 'Engineer A decides it is not necessary to notify Client B of the pending complaint'}
  • responsibilityType assessment: direct
  • withinAgentControl assessment: True
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/148#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/148#CausalChain_5",
  "@type": "proeth:CausalChain",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-13T17:21:26.028219+00:00",
  "proeth:agentKnowledge": "Knew of the pending ethics complaint and that it was a mere allegation, not a finding of fact or conclusion of law",
  "proeth:causalLanguage": "During the rendering of services to Client B on this project, the state board of professional engineers contacted Engineer A regarding an ethics complaint filed against Engineer A by Client C relating to services provided on a project for Client C that were similar to the services being performed for Client B. Engineer A did not believe it was necessary to notify Client B of the pending complaint.",
  "proeth:causalSequence": [
    {
      "proeth:description": "The state board of professional engineers contacts Engineer A regarding Client C\u0027s ethics complaint",
      "proeth:element": "State Board Contact",
      "proeth:step": 1
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer A treats the complaint as a mere allegation not amounting to a finding of fact or conclusion of law",
      "proeth:element": "Assessment of Allegation",
      "proeth:step": 2
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer A decides it is not necessary to notify Client B of the pending complaint",
      "proeth:element": "Complaint Nondisclosure Decision",
      "proeth:step": 3
    }
  ],
  "proeth:cause": "State Board Contact",
  "proeth:counterfactual": "Without the state board contact, there would have been no pending complaint known to Engineer A and thus no disclosure decision to make.",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "discussion",
  "proeth:effect": "Complaint Nondisclosure Decision",
  "proeth:interveningFactors": [
    "Client C\u0027s filing of the complaint, which \u0027could be false, baseless, and motivated by some malicious intent\u0027"
  ],
  "proeth:necessaryFactors": [
    "The state board contacting Engineer A about the pending ethics complaint",
    "Engineer A\u0027s awareness that the complaint concerned services similar to those being performed for Client B",
    "Engineer A\u0027s judgment that a mere allegation did not require disclosure"
  ],
  "proeth:responsibilityType": "direct",
  "proeth:responsibleAgent": "Engineer A (BER Case 97-11)",
  "proeth:sufficientFactors": [
    "Combination of notice of the complaint + Engineer A\u0027s assessment that the complaint was an unproven allegation + absence of any adjudication of wrongdoing"
  ],
  "proeth:withinAgentControl": true
}

Causal Language: Later, through another party, Client B learned of the ethics complaint filed against Engineer A and told Engineer A that he was upset by the allegations and that Engineer A should have brought the matter to Client B's attention.

Necessary Factors (NESS):
  • Engineer A's decision not to notify Client B of the pending complaint
  • Existence of a third party aware of the complaint
  • Client B's ongoing engagement with Engineer A during the project
Sufficient Factors:
  • Combination of Engineer A's silence + third-party knowledge of the complaint + communication channels between the third party and Client B
Counterfactual Test: Had Engineer A provided Client B with early notice and background information, Client B would not have learned of the complaint through another party and 'would be able to respond to comments or questions by third parties.'
Responsibility Attribution:

Agent: Engineer A (BER Case 97-11)
Type: shared
Within Agent Control: Yes

Causal Sequence:
  1. Complaint Nondisclosure Decision
    Engineer A decides not to notify Client B of the pending ethics complaint
  2. Continued Services Without Disclosure
    Engineer A continues rendering services to Client B while the complaint remains undisclosed
  3. Client Discovery of Complaint
    Client B learns of the complaint through another party
  4. Client Displeasure
    Client B is upset and tells Engineer A the matter should have been brought to his attention
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • cause: Complaint Nondisclosure Decision
  • effect: Client Discovery of Complaint
  • responsibleAgent: Engineer A (BER Case 97-11)
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • causalLanguage content: Later, through another party, Client B learned of the ethics complaint filed against Engineer A and told Engineer A that he was upset by the allegations and that Engineer A should have brought the matter to Client B's attention.
  • necessaryFactors content: Engineer A's decision not to notify Client B of the pending complaint; Existence of a third party aware of the complaint; Client B's ongoing engagement with Engineer A during the project
  • sufficientFactors content: Combination of Engineer A's silence + third-party knowledge of the complaint + communication channels between the third party and Client B
  • counterfactual content: Had Engineer A provided Client B with early notice and background information, Client B would not have learned of the complaint through another party and 'would be able to respond to comments or questions by third parties.'
  • agentKnowledge content: Knew of the pending complaint and its similarity to the services being performed for Client B, but believed disclosure was unnecessary
  • interveningFactors content: The other party who informed Client B of the ethics complaint
  • causalSequence content: {'proeth:step': 1, 'proeth:element': 'Complaint Nondisclosure Decision', 'proeth:description': 'Engineer A decides not to notify Client B of the pending ethics complaint'}; {'proeth:step': 2, 'proeth:element': 'Continued Services Without Disclosure', 'proeth:description': 'Engineer A continues rendering services to Client B while the complaint remains undisclosed'}; {'proeth:step': 3, 'proeth:element': 'Client Discovery of Complaint', 'proeth:description': 'Client B learns of the complaint through another party'}; {'proeth:step': 4, 'proeth:element': 'Client Displeasure', 'proeth:description': 'Client B is upset and tells Engineer A the matter should have been brought to his attention'}
  • responsibilityType assessment: shared
  • withinAgentControl assessment: True
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/148#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/148#CausalChain_6",
  "@type": "proeth:CausalChain",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-13T17:21:26.028243+00:00",
  "proeth:agentKnowledge": "Knew of the pending complaint and its similarity to the services being performed for Client B, but believed disclosure was unnecessary",
  "proeth:causalLanguage": "Later, through another party, Client B learned of the ethics complaint filed against Engineer A and told Engineer A that he was upset by the allegations and that Engineer A should have brought the matter to Client B\u0027s attention.",
  "proeth:causalSequence": [
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer A decides not to notify Client B of the pending ethics complaint",
      "proeth:element": "Complaint Nondisclosure Decision",
      "proeth:step": 1
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer A continues rendering services to Client B while the complaint remains undisclosed",
      "proeth:element": "Continued Services Without Disclosure",
      "proeth:step": 2
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Client B learns of the complaint through another party",
      "proeth:element": "Client Discovery of Complaint",
      "proeth:step": 3
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Client B is upset and tells Engineer A the matter should have been brought to his attention",
      "proeth:element": "Client Displeasure",
      "proeth:step": 4
    }
  ],
  "proeth:cause": "Complaint Nondisclosure Decision",
  "proeth:counterfactual": "Had Engineer A provided Client B with early notice and background information, Client B would not have learned of the complaint through another party and \u0027would be able to respond to comments or questions by third parties.\u0027",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "discussion",
  "proeth:effect": "Client Discovery of Complaint",
  "proeth:interveningFactors": [
    "The other party who informed Client B of the ethics complaint"
  ],
  "proeth:necessaryFactors": [
    "Engineer A\u0027s decision not to notify Client B of the pending complaint",
    "Existence of a third party aware of the complaint",
    "Client B\u0027s ongoing engagement with Engineer A during the project"
  ],
  "proeth:responsibilityType": "shared",
  "proeth:responsibleAgent": "Engineer A (BER Case 97-11)",
  "proeth:sufficientFactors": [
    "Combination of Engineer A\u0027s silence + third-party knowledge of the complaint + communication channels between the third party and Client B"
  ],
  "proeth:withinAgentControl": true
}
Allen Temporal Relations (9)
Interval algebra relationships with OWL-Time standard properties
From Entity Allen Relation To Entity OWL-Time Property Evidence
Engineer F's ownership of the fire sprinkler contracting firm before
Entity1 is before Entity2 		Engineer F's application for the professional engineering position time:intervalBefore
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#intervalBefore 		Engineer F is a professional engineer and applies for a professional engineering position... Previou... [more]
allowing an unlicensed individual to use the contractor license number during
Entity1 occurs entirely within the duration of Entity2 		Engineer F's ownership of the fire sprinkler contracting firm time:intervalDuring
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#intervalDuring 		During that period, Engineer F allowed an unlicensed, unrelated individual to use his contractor lic... [more]
misuse of the contractor license number before
Entity1 is before Entity2 		revocation of Engineer F's contractor's license time:intervalBefore
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#intervalBefore 		Engineer F's contractor's license was revoked because he allowed an unlicensed individual... to use ... [more]
revocation of Engineer F's contractor's license before
Entity1 is before Entity2 		Engineer F's negative response on the employment application time:intervalBefore
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#intervalBefore 		there is a question asking whether the engineer 'has ever been disciplined... or had his license sus... [more]
Engineer F's negative response on the employment application before
Entity1 is before Entity2 		engineering firm learning of the contractor's license revocation time:intervalBefore
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#intervalBefore 		Engineer F responds in the negative on the employment application. Later, the engineering firm learn... [more]
BER Cases 75-5 and 97-11 (precedent decisions) before
Entity1 is before Entity2 		Board's analysis of the present case involving Engineer F time:intervalBefore
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#intervalBefore 		Two previous Board of Ethical Review cases provide some background for considering this case
adjudication of Engineer F's wrongdoing (license revocation) before
Entity1 is before Entity2 		employment application question time:intervalBefore
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#intervalBefore 		The facts do not suggest a mere allegation, but instead an actual adjudication of wrongdoing
expected disclosure of the revocation before
Entity1 is before Entity2 		employer's decision to hire Engineer F time:intervalBefore
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#intervalBefore 		Engineer F is assumed to have realized that the employer would have wanted to know this information ... [more]
Engineer F's failure to report the information starts
Entity1 and Entity2 start at the same time, Entity1 ends first 		the employer-employee relationship time:intervalStarts
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#intervalStarts 		Engineer F's failure to report the information at the outset of the employer-employee relationship w... [more]
About Allen Relations & OWL-Time

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

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

Back to Extraction Continue to Step 4

© Licensed under the GNU GPL v3