This page shows the pre-commit working store (the raw extraction under review). This case was committed to OntServe on 2026-10-24 07:56; the committed record differs by design (deduplication, typing, and agent binding are applied at commit). View the committed record
Overview
Facts Discussion
Provenance Draft

PASS 1: Contextual Framework Facts Section

Case 15: Independence of Peer Reviewer

R Roles
0
Classes
3
Individuals
S States
5
Classes
5
Individuals
Rs Resources
0
Classes
0
Individuals

Extracted Ontology Entities

13 RDF entities extracted organized by concept type

R Roles

Roles Classes
0
No new roles classes were identified in this section.
Roles Individuals
3
No new roles classes were discovered - the 3 individual(s) below reference existing classes from the ontology.
Engineer A Design Engineer
Design Engineer Role
Linked
Design Engineer Role
C15
Text References:
"several significant design errors are discovered in the plans and design of Engineer A"
"Engineer A objects and refused to consent to the peer review"
Confidence: 0.92
Actor: Engineer A
Role Class: Design Engineer Role
Role Category: provider_client
Role Kind: professional
Additional Relationships: {'type': 'refused consent to peer review by', 'target': 'Engineer B', 'quote': 'Engineer A objects and refused to consent to the peer review'}
Case Involvement: Prepared the plans and design for the two mirror-image towers; significant design errors were discovered in the plans during construction of the first tower, and when notified of the peer review of the second tower design, Engineer A objected and refused to consent.
Design status: significant design errors discovered in plans and design during construction of first tower
Hasclient: Owner
"Owner decides to obtain a peer review of the plans and design of Engineer A for the second tower"
Workreviewedby: Engineer B
"Owner decides to obtain a peer review of the plans and design of Engineer A for the second tower and retains Engineer B"
[facts] "As the first tower is built, several significant design errors are discovered in the plans and design of Engineer A."
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • actor: Engineer A
  • attributes: {'design_status': 'significant design errors discovered in plans and design during construction of first tower'}
  • relationships: {'type': 'hasClient', 'target': 'Owner', 'quote': 'Owner decides to obtain a peer review of the plans and design of Engineer A for the second tower'}; {'type': 'workReviewedBy', 'target': 'Engineer B', 'quote': 'Owner decides to obtain a peer review of the plans and design of Engineer A for the second tower and retains Engineer B'}
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • textReferences content: several significant design errors are discovered in the plans and design of Engineer A; Engineer A objects and refused to consent to the peer review
  • roleClass content: Design Engineer Role
  • roleCategory content: provider_client
  • roleKind content: professional
  • additionalRelationships content: {'type': 'refused consent to peer review by', 'target': 'Engineer B', 'quote': 'Engineer A objects and refused to consent to the peer review'}
  • caseInvolvement content: Prepared the plans and design for the two mirror-image towers; significant design errors were discovered in the plans during construction of the first tower, and when notified of the peer review of the second tower design, Engineer A objected and refused to consent.
  • confidence assessment: 0.92
Linked
Engineer Role
C15
Text References:
"Owner decides to obtain a peer review of the plans and design of Engineer A for the second tower and retains Engineer B"
"Engineer B objects to conducting the peer review without advising Engineer A"
Confidence: 0.9
Actor: Engineer B
Role Class: Engineer Role
Role Category: provider_client
Role Kind: professional
Additional Relationships: {'type': 'objected to concealment instruction from', 'target': 'Owner', 'quote': 'Engineer B objects to conducting the peer review without advising Engineer A'}
Case Involvement: Retained by Owner to peer review Engineer A's plans and design for the second tower; instructed by Owner to conduct the review without letting Engineer A know, Engineer B objected to conducting the peer review without advising Engineer A.
Engagement: retained by Owner to conduct a peer review of Engineer A's plans and design for the second tower
Hasclient: Owner
"Owner decides to obtain a peer review of the plans and design of Engineer A for the second tower and retains Engineer B"
Reviewsworkof: Engineer A
"Owner decides to obtain a peer review of the plans and design of Engineer A for the second tower and retains Engineer B"
[facts] "Owner decides to obtain a peer review of the plans and design of Engineer A for the second tower and retains Engineer B. Owner instructs Engineer B to conduct the peer review without letting Engineer ..."
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • actor: Engineer B
  • attributes: {'engagement': "retained by Owner to conduct a peer review of Engineer A's plans and design for the second tower"}
  • relationships: {'type': 'hasClient', 'target': 'Owner', 'quote': 'Owner decides to obtain a peer review of the plans and design of Engineer A for the second tower and retains Engineer B'}; {'type': 'reviewsWorkOf', 'target': 'Engineer A', 'quote': 'Owner decides to obtain a peer review of the plans and design of Engineer A for the second tower and retains Engineer B'}
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • textReferences content: Owner decides to obtain a peer review of the plans and design of Engineer A for the second tower and retains Engineer B; Engineer B objects to conducting the peer review without advising Engineer A
  • roleClass content: Engineer Role
  • roleCategory content: provider_client
  • roleKind content: professional
  • additionalRelationships content: {'type': 'objected to concealment instruction from', 'target': 'Owner', 'quote': 'Engineer B objects to conducting the peer review without advising Engineer A'}
  • caseInvolvement content: Retained by Owner to peer review Engineer A's plans and design for the second tower; instructed by Owner to conduct the review without letting Engineer A know, Engineer B objected to conducting the peer review without advising Engineer A.
  • confidence assessment: 0.9
Owner Developer
Owner Role
Linked
Owner Role
C15
Text References:
"wner is developing a site with two mirror-image towers to be built two years apart"
"Owner decides to obtain a peer review of the plans and design of Engineer A for the second tower and retains Engineer B"
"When Owner reluctantly consents to notifying Engineer A"
Confidence: 0.9
Actor: Owner
Role Class: Owner Role
Role Kind: participant
Additional Relationships:
  • {'type': 'retains', 'target': 'Engineer B', 'quote': 'Owner decides to obtain a peer review of the plans and design of Engineer A for the second tower and retains Engineer B'}
  • {'type': 'instructs', 'target': 'Engineer B', 'quote': 'Owner instructs Engineer B to conduct the peer review without letting Engineer A know'}
  • {'type': 'reluctantly consents to notifying', 'target': 'Engineer A', 'quote': 'When Owner reluctantly consents to notifying Engineer A'}
Case Involvement: Developing the site with two mirror-image towers; after design errors were discovered in Engineer A's plans, decided to obtain a peer review of the second tower design, retained Engineer B, instructed Engineer B to conduct the review without letting Engineer A know, and later reluctantly consented to notifying Engineer A.
Project: developing a site with two mirror-image towers to be built two years apart
[facts] "wner is developing a site with two mirror-image towers to be built two years apart. As the first tower is built, several significant design errors are discovered in the plans and design of Engineer A...."
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • actor: Owner
  • attributes: {'project': 'developing a site with two mirror-image towers to be built two years apart'}
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • textReferences content: wner is developing a site with two mirror-image towers to be built two years apart; Owner decides to obtain a peer review of the plans and design of Engineer A for the second tower and retains Engineer B; When Owner reluctantly consents to notifying Engineer A
  • roleClass content: Owner Role
  • roleKind content: participant
  • additionalRelationships content: {'type': 'retains', 'target': 'Engineer B', 'quote': 'Owner decides to obtain a peer review of the plans and design of Engineer A for the second tower and retains Engineer B'}; {'type': 'instructs', 'target': 'Engineer B', 'quote': 'Owner instructs Engineer B to conduct the peer review without letting Engineer A know'}; {'type': 'reluctantly consents to notifying', 'target': 'Engineer A', 'quote': 'When Owner reluctantly consents to notifying Engineer A'}
  • caseInvolvement content: Developing the site with two mirror-image towers; after design errors were discovered in Engineer A's plans, decided to obtain a peer review of the second tower design, retained Engineer B, instructed Engineer B to conduct the review without letting Engineer A know, and later reluctantly consented to notifying Engineer A.
  • confidence assessment: 0.9

S States

States Classes
5
changed
Incomplete Submission State
rdfs:subClassOf States
Linked
Incomplete Submission State
C15
Definition
Extracted from facts primary
A condition in which a delivered professional work product is deficient, containing significant errors or omissions that call its accuracy and reliability into question, here the plans and design of Engineer A in which several significant design errors are discovered as the first tower is built.
Inherited from IncompleteSubmissionState · note
A condition in which a delivered work product is deficient, containing errors or omissions that call its accuracy and reliability into question, here AI-generated design documents with misaligned dimensions and omitted safety features.
Properties
Text References:
"several significant design errors are discovered in the plans and design of Engineer A"
Confidence: 0.92
State Category: risk
Persistence Type: inertial
Activation Conditions: Significant design errors are discovered in delivered plans and design during construction
Termination Conditions: The design errors are corrected in the plans for the remaining work
Obligation Activation: Peer Review Obligation
Principle Transformation: The deficiency of the delivered plans makes independent verification of the design for the second tower a concrete concern for the Owner.
[facts] "As the first tower is built, several significant design errors are discovered in the plans and design of Engineer A."
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • textReferences content: several significant design errors are discovered in the plans and design of Engineer A
  • stateCategory content: risk
  • persistenceType content: inertial
  • principleTransformation content: The deficiency of the delivered plans makes independent verification of the design for the second tower a concrete concern for the Owner.
  • confidence assessment: 0.92
Derived (reconstructable from the graph)
  • activationConditions: Significant design errors are discovered in delivered plans and design during construction
  • terminationConditions: The design errors are corrected in the plans for the remaining work
  • obligationActivation: Peer Review Obligation
changed
Conflict Of Interest State
rdfs:subClassOf States
Linked
Conflict Of Interest State
C15
Definition
Extracted from facts primary
A condition in which a professional holds competing role-derived duties that cannot all be fully served, here Engineer B being instructed by the Owner to conduct the peer review without letting Engineer A know, setting the client directive against Engineer B's duty to advise the engineer whose work is under review.
Inherited from ConflictOfInterestState · note
A condition in which an agent holds competing interests or loyalties, or competing role-derived duties, that cannot all be fully served and that bias or constrain the exercise of professional judgment. As a content kind it is the standing tension among interests, covering both conflict of interest and competing duties. Its deontic relevance is that it renders the affected obligations defeasible against one another and grounds the competesWith, prevailsOver, and defeasibleUnder edge family.
Properties
Text References:
"Owner instructs Engineer B to conduct the peer review without letting Engineer A know"
"Engineer B objects to conducting the peer review without advising Engineer A"
Confidence: 0.88
State Category: conflict_of_interest
Persistence Type: inertial
Activation Conditions: Client instructs the reviewing engineer to conduct a peer review without the knowledge of the engineer whose work is reviewed
Termination Conditions: Client consents to notifying the engineer whose work is under review
Obligation Activation: Notification Obligation to the Reviewed Engineer
Principle Transformation: The covert instruction turns the general duty of fair dealing toward a fellow engineer into a concrete question of whether Engineer B may proceed without advising Engineer A.
[facts] "Owner instructs Engineer B to conduct the peer review without letting Engineer A know. Engineer B objects to conducting the peer review without advising Engineer A."
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • textReferences content: Owner instructs Engineer B to conduct the peer review without letting Engineer A know; Engineer B objects to conducting the peer review without advising Engineer A
  • stateCategory content: conflict_of_interest
  • persistenceType content: inertial
  • principleTransformation content: The covert instruction turns the general duty of fair dealing toward a fellow engineer into a concrete question of whether Engineer B may proceed without advising Engineer A.
  • confidence assessment: 0.88
Derived (reconstructable from the graph)
  • activationConditions: Client instructs the reviewing engineer to conduct a peer review without the knowledge of the engineer whose work is reviewed
  • terminationConditions: Client consents to notifying the engineer whose work is under review
  • obligationActivation: Notification Obligation to the Reviewed Engineer
changed
PeerReviewAwarenessState
rdfs:subClassOf States
Linked
Peer Review Awareness State
C15
Definition
Extracted from facts primary
An epistemic condition in which the engineer whose work is being reviewed knows that another engineer has been retained to review it, here Engineer A being notified of the peer review after the Owner reluctantly consents to the notification.
Inherited from PeerReviewAwarenessState · note
An epistemic condition in which the engineer whose work is being reviewed knows that another engineer has been retained to inspect the facility and that the resulting evaluation will necessarily entail a review of the original designs, so the knowledge condition of Section 12(a) is satisfied. Here Engineer A knew of Engineer B's retention and of the review it would entail.
Properties
Text References:
"Owner reluctantly consents to notifying Engineer A"
Confidence: 0.85
State Category: epistemic
Persistence Type: inertial
Activation Conditions: The engineer whose work is under review is notified of the reviewing engineer's retention
Principle Transformation: Once Engineer A knows of the review, the notice condition attached to reviewing another engineer's work is satisfied and the dispute shifts to consent.
[facts] "When Owner reluctantly consents to notifying Engineer A, Engineer A objects and refused to consent to the peer review."
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • textReferences content: Owner reluctantly consents to notifying Engineer A
  • stateCategory content: epistemic
  • persistenceType content: inertial
  • principleTransformation content: Once Engineer A knows of the review, the notice condition attached to reviewing another engineer's work is satisfied and the dispute shifts to consent.
  • confidence assessment: 0.85
Derived (reconstructable from the graph)
  • activationConditions: The engineer whose work is under review is notified of the reviewing engineer's retention
changed
Peer Review Consent State
rdfs:subClassOf States
Review
Peer Review Consent State
C15
Definition
Extracted from facts primary
A condition of whether the engineer whose work is under peer review has consented to that review, here the condition in which Engineer A objects and refuses to consent to the peer review after being notified of it.
Inherited from PeerReviewConsentState · note
A resource condition in which an avenue for independent resolution of an honest professional difference of opinion is available, here the appropriateness of referring the safety question to an impartial body of experts, such as a technical engineering society in the particular field of practice, for an independent determination.
Properties
Text References:
"Engineer A objects and refused to consent to the peer review"
Confidence: 0.87
State Category: disclosure
Persistence Type: inertial
Activation Conditions: The engineer whose work is under review objects and refuses to consent to the peer review
Termination Conditions: The engineer whose work is under review grants consent to the peer review
Principle Transformation: Engineer A's refusal of consent makes the propriety of proceeding with the peer review over the objection the concrete question the parties face.
[facts] "When Owner reluctantly consents to notifying Engineer A, Engineer A objects and refused to consent to the peer review."
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • textReferences content: Engineer A objects and refused to consent to the peer review
  • stateCategory content: disclosure
  • persistenceType content: inertial
  • principleTransformation content: Engineer A's refusal of consent makes the propriety of proceeding with the peer review over the objection the concrete question the parties face.
  • confidence assessment: 0.87
Derived (reconstructable from the graph)
  • activationConditions: The engineer whose work is under review objects and refuses to consent to the peer review
  • terminationConditions: The engineer whose work is under review grants consent to the peer review
changed
Active Engagement State
rdfs:subClassOf States
Linked
Active Engagement State
C15
Definition
Extracted from facts primary
A condition in which a professional holds an engagement in force with a client, so the engagement duties currently apply, here Engineer B retained by the Owner to conduct a peer review of the plans and design of Engineer A for the second tower.
Inherited from ActiveEngagementState · note
A condition in which a professional holds an engagement in force with a client, so the engagement duties currently apply, here Engineer A as consulting engineer representing Client B with a scope including design and local permitting of the roadway and upgrade of the tidal crossing.
Properties
Text References:
"Owner decides to obtain a peer review of the plans and design of Engineer A for the second tower and retains Engineer B"
Confidence: 0.9
State Category: regulatory
Persistence Type: inertial
Activation Conditions: Client retains the professional for defined services
Termination Conditions: The engagement is completed or terminated by the client
Obligation Activation: Faithful Agent Obligation to the Client
Principle Transformation: The retention places Engineer B under the duties owed a retaining client while the peer review engagement is in force.
[facts] "Owner decides to obtain a peer review of the plans and design of Engineer A for the second tower and retains Engineer B."
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • textReferences content: Owner decides to obtain a peer review of the plans and design of Engineer A for the second tower and retains Engineer B
  • stateCategory content: regulatory
  • persistenceType content: inertial
  • principleTransformation content: The retention places Engineer B under the duties owed a retaining client while the peer review engagement is in force.
  • confidence assessment: 0.9
Derived (reconstructable from the graph)
  • activationConditions: Client retains the professional for defined services
  • terminationConditions: The engagement is completed or terminated by the client
  • obligationActivation: Faithful Agent Obligation to the Client
States Individuals
5
changed
Defective Tower Design Plans
Incomplete Submission State
Linked
Incomplete Submission State
C15
Text References:
"As the first tower is built, several significant design errors are discovered in the plans and design of Engineer A"
Confidence: 0.92
State Class: Incomplete Submission State
Subject: The plans and design of Engineer A for the two mirror-image towers
Active Period: From delivery of the plans, with the errors discovered as the first tower is built, until the errors are corrected
Triggering Event: Several significant design errors are discovered in the plans and design of Engineer A as the first tower is built
Terminated By: Correction of the design errors in the plans for the second tower
Affected Parties:
  • Owner
  • Engineer A
Urgency Level: high
[facts] "As the first tower is built, several significant design errors are discovered in the plans and design of Engineer A."
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • textReferences content: As the first tower is built, several significant design errors are discovered in the plans and design of Engineer A
  • stateClass content: Incomplete Submission State
  • subject content: The plans and design of Engineer A for the two mirror-image towers
  • activePeriod content: From delivery of the plans, with the errors discovered as the first tower is built, until the errors are corrected
  • triggeringEvent content: Several significant design errors are discovered in the plans and design of Engineer A as the first tower is built
  • terminatedBy content: Correction of the design errors in the plans for the second tower
  • affectedParties content: Owner; Engineer A
  • confidence assessment: 0.92
  • urgencyLevel assessment: high
changed
Covert Peer Review Instruction Conflict
Conflict Of Interest State
Linked
Conflict Of Interest State
C15
Text References:
"Owner instructs Engineer B to conduct the peer review without letting Engineer A know"
Confidence: 0.88
State Class: Conflict Of Interest State
Subject: Engineer B, retained by the Owner for the peer review
Active Period: From the Owner's instruction to conduct the review secretly until the Owner reluctantly consents to notifying Engineer A
Triggering Event: Owner instructs Engineer B to conduct the peer review without letting Engineer A know
Terminated By: Owner reluctantly consents to notifying Engineer A
Affected Parties:
  • Engineer B
  • Engineer A
  • Owner
Urgency Level: medium
[facts] "Owner instructs Engineer B to conduct the peer review without letting Engineer A know. Engineer B objects to conducting the peer review without advising Engineer A."
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • textReferences content: Owner instructs Engineer B to conduct the peer review without letting Engineer A know
  • stateClass content: Conflict Of Interest State
  • subject content: Engineer B, retained by the Owner for the peer review
  • activePeriod content: From the Owner's instruction to conduct the review secretly until the Owner reluctantly consents to notifying Engineer A
  • triggeringEvent content: Owner instructs Engineer B to conduct the peer review without letting Engineer A know
  • terminatedBy content: Owner reluctantly consents to notifying Engineer A
  • affectedParties content: Engineer B; Engineer A; Owner
  • confidence assessment: 0.88
  • urgencyLevel assessment: medium
changed
Engineer A Review Awareness
Peer Review Awareness State
Linked
Peer Review Awareness State
C15
Text References:
"When Owner reluctantly consents to notifying Engineer A, Engineer A objects and refused to consent to the peer review"
Confidence: 0.85
State Class: Peer Review Awareness State
Subject: Engineer A, the engineer whose plans and design are under peer review
Active Period: From the notification of Engineer A onward
Triggering Event: Owner reluctantly consents to notifying Engineer A and Engineer A is advised of the peer review
Affected Parties:
  • Engineer A
  • Engineer B
  • Owner
Urgency Level: low
[facts] "When Owner reluctantly consents to notifying Engineer A, Engineer A objects and refused to consent to the peer review."
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • textReferences content: When Owner reluctantly consents to notifying Engineer A, Engineer A objects and refused to consent to the peer review
  • stateClass content: Peer Review Awareness State
  • subject content: Engineer A, the engineer whose plans and design are under peer review
  • activePeriod content: From the notification of Engineer A onward
  • triggeringEvent content: Owner reluctantly consents to notifying Engineer A and Engineer A is advised of the peer review
  • affectedParties content: Engineer A; Engineer B; Owner
  • confidence assessment: 0.85
  • urgencyLevel assessment: low
changed
Engineer A Refused Consent
Peer Review Consent State
Review
Peer Review Consent State
C15
Text References:
"Engineer A objects and refused to consent to the peer review"
Confidence: 0.9
State Class: Peer Review Consent State
Subject: Engineer A's consent to the peer review of his plans and design
Active Period: From Engineer A's objection and refusal onward
Triggering Event: Engineer A objects and refused to consent to the peer review after being notified
Terminated By: Engineer A granting consent to the peer review, if that occurs
Affected Parties:
  • Owner
  • Engineer B
  • Engineer A
Urgency Level: medium
[facts] "When Owner reluctantly consents to notifying Engineer A, Engineer A objects and refused to consent to the peer review."
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • textReferences content: Engineer A objects and refused to consent to the peer review
  • stateClass content: Peer Review Consent State
  • subject content: Engineer A's consent to the peer review of his plans and design
  • activePeriod content: From Engineer A's objection and refusal onward
  • triggeringEvent content: Engineer A objects and refused to consent to the peer review after being notified
  • terminatedBy content: Engineer A granting consent to the peer review, if that occurs
  • affectedParties content: Owner; Engineer B; Engineer A
  • confidence assessment: 0.9
  • urgencyLevel assessment: medium
changed
Engineer B Peer Review Engagement
Active Engagement State
Linked
Active Engagement State
C15
Text References:
"Owner decides to obtain a peer review of the plans and design of Engineer A for the second tower and retains Engineer B"
Confidence: 0.9
State Class: Active Engagement State
Subject: Engineer B, retained by the Owner to peer review the plans and design of Engineer A for the second tower
Active Period: From the Owner's retention of Engineer B while the peer review engagement remains in force
Triggering Event: Owner retains Engineer B to conduct the peer review for the second tower
Terminated By: Completion or termination of the peer review engagement
Affected Parties:
  • Engineer B
  • Owner
  • Engineer A
Urgency Level: low
[facts] "Owner decides to obtain a peer review of the plans and design of Engineer A for the second tower and retains Engineer B."
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • textReferences content: Owner decides to obtain a peer review of the plans and design of Engineer A for the second tower and retains Engineer B
  • stateClass content: Active Engagement State
  • subject content: Engineer B, retained by the Owner to peer review the plans and design of Engineer A for the second tower
  • activePeriod content: From the Owner's retention of Engineer B while the peer review engagement remains in force
  • triggeringEvent content: Owner retains Engineer B to conduct the peer review for the second tower
  • terminatedBy content: Completion or termination of the peer review engagement
  • affectedParties content: Engineer B; Owner; Engineer A
  • confidence assessment: 0.9
  • urgencyLevel assessment: low

Rs Resources

No new resources were extracted for this section.

The extraction did not find any resources to add. This typically means the case text doesn't contain relevant resources for this section, or extraction hasn't been run yet.

Pass 1: Contextual Framework - Facts
Review extracted entities, then continue to the next step
Continue to Discussion Review
Case texts: National Society of Professional Engineers, Board of Ethical Review.

NOTE: The NSPE Board of Ethical Review considers ethical cases involving either real or hypothetical matters submitted to it from NSPE members, other engineers, public officials, and members of the public. The BER reviews each case in the context of the NSPE Code of Ethics and earlier BER opinions. The facts contained in each case do not necessarily represent all of the pertinent facts submitted to or reviewed by the BER and shall not be considered a direct evaluation of any real matter that may have been submitted.

Each opinion is intended as guidance to individual practicing engineers, students, and the public. In regard to the question of application of the NSPE Code of Ethics to engineering organizations (e.g., corporations, partnerships, sole proprietorships, government agencies, and university engineering departments), the specific business form or type should not negate nor detract from the conformance of individuals to the Code. The NSPE Code deals with professional services, which must be performed by real persons. Real persons in turn establish and implement policies within business structures.

This opinion is for educational purposes only and is not legal advice. It may be reprinted without further permission, provided that this statement is included before or after the text of the case and appropriate attribution is provided to the National Society of Professional Engineers' Board of Ethical Review.

© Licensed under the GNU GPL v3