Enhanced Temporal Review

Timeline Overview

Note: The timeline includes only actions and events with clear temporal markers that could be sequenced chronologically.

Timeline Elements: 9

Actions on Timeline: 5 (of 5 extracted)

Events on Timeline: 4 (of 4 extracted)

Temporal Markers

Months before construction 1 elements
Months prior to structural failure 1 elements
During design phase 2 elements
After observing questionable details 1 elements
After private meeting with Engineer B 1 elements
During construction phase 1 elements
After structural failure 1 elements
Private meeting after investigation 1 elements

Temporal Consistency Check

Valid

Extracted Actions (5)

Volitional professional decisions with intentions and ethical context

Description: Engineer B decided to continue operating his engineering firm after suffering a stroke without suspending work or closing the office. This decision was made despite his compromised ability to perform professional duties.

Temporal Marker: Months prior to structural failure

Mental State: deliberate

Intended Outcome: Maintain business operations and income

Guided By Principles:

Business continuity
Financial survival

Required Capabilities:

Full cognitive function Design judgment Technical review ability

Within Competence: No

Scenario Metadata

Pedagogical context for interactive teaching scenarios

Character Motivation: Desire to maintain income, professional identity, and business operations while dealing with personal health crisis

Ethical Tension: Personal financial needs vs. professional competence requirements and public safety obligations

Learning Significance: Demonstrates the critical importance of self-assessment and professional responsibility when facing impairment

Stakes: Public safety, professional integrity, business survival, personal livelihood

Decision Point: Yes - Story can branch here

Alternative Actions:

Suspend practice and seek medical clearance
Partner with competent engineer for oversight
Close practice temporarily

Narrative Role: inciting_incident

RDF JSON-LD

{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/16#",
    "proeth-scenario": "http://proethica.org/ontology/scenario#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#",
    "time": "http://www.w3.org/2006/time#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/cases/16#Action_Continue_Practice_Despite_Impairment",
  "@type": "proeth:Action",
  "proeth-scenario:alternativeActions": [
    "Suspend practice and seek medical clearance",
    "Partner with competent engineer for oversight",
    "Close practice temporarily"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:characterMotivation": "Desire to maintain income, professional identity, and business operations while dealing with personal health crisis",
  "proeth-scenario:consequencesIfAlternative": [
    "Financial hardship but maintained ethics",
    "Shared responsibility and income",
    "Complete loss of income but no ethical violations"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:decisionSignificance": "Demonstrates the critical importance of self-assessment and professional responsibility when facing impairment",
  "proeth-scenario:ethicalTension": "Personal financial needs vs. professional competence requirements and public safety obligations",
  "proeth-scenario:isDecisionPoint": true,
  "proeth-scenario:narrativeRole": "inciting_incident",
  "proeth-scenario:stakes": "Public safety, professional integrity, business survival, personal livelihood",
  "proeth:description": "Engineer B decided to continue operating his engineering firm after suffering a stroke without suspending work or closing the office. This decision was made despite his compromised ability to perform professional duties.",
  "proeth:foreseenUnintendedEffects": [
    "Risk to public safety",
    "Potential design errors"
  ],
  "proeth:guidedByPrinciple": [
    "Business continuity",
    "Financial survival"
  ],
  "proeth:hasAgent": "Engineer B (Principal Engineer)",
  "proeth:hasCompetingPriorities": {
    "@type": "proeth:CompetingPriorities",
    "proeth:priorityConflict": "Financial concerns vs Professional obligations",
    "proeth:resolutionReasoning": "Financial pressures prioritized over professional responsibilities"
  },
  "proeth:hasMentalState": "deliberate",
  "proeth:intendedOutcome": "Maintain business operations and income",
  "proeth:requiresCapability": [
    "Full cognitive function",
    "Design judgment",
    "Technical review ability"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "Months prior to structural failure",
  "proeth:violatesObligation": [
    "Professional competence",
    "Public safety",
    "Hold paramount health and welfare of public"
  ],
  "proeth:withinCompetence": false,
  "rdfs:label": "Continue Practice Despite Impairment"
}

Description: Engineer B delegated structural design work to Engineer Intern C while continuing to sign and seal drawings without conducting proper review of the work. This created a system where designs were approved without adequate professional oversight.

Temporal Marker: During design phase

Mental State: deliberate

Intended Outcome: Complete project deliverables while managing impairment

Guided By Principles:

Expedience
Business completion

Required Capabilities:

Technical review ability Design verification Professional judgment

Within Competence: No

Scenario Metadata

Pedagogical context for interactive teaching scenarios

Character Motivation: Attempt to maintain business operations while unable to perform technical work due to stroke-related impairment

Ethical Tension: Business continuity vs. professional oversight requirements and seal integrity

Learning Significance: Illustrates the fundamental violation of engineering seal responsibilities and the requirement for competent review

Stakes: Structural integrity of buildings, public safety, professional licensure, legal liability

Decision Point: Yes - Story can branch here

Alternative Actions:

Refuse to seal work not personally reviewed
Bring in licensed partner for review
Honestly disclose arrangement to clients

Narrative Role: rising_action

RDF JSON-LD

{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/16#",
    "proeth-scenario": "http://proethica.org/ontology/scenario#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#",
    "time": "http://www.w3.org/2006/time#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/cases/16#Action_Delegate_Without_Proper_Oversight",
  "@type": "proeth:Action",
  "proeth-scenario:alternativeActions": [
    "Refuse to seal work not personally reviewed",
    "Bring in licensed partner for review",
    "Honestly disclose arrangement to clients"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:characterMotivation": "Attempt to maintain business operations while unable to perform technical work due to stroke-related impairment",
  "proeth-scenario:consequencesIfAlternative": [
    "Business closure but maintained integrity",
    "Proper oversight but reduced profits",
    "Client awareness but potential contract loss"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:decisionSignificance": "Illustrates the fundamental violation of engineering seal responsibilities and the requirement for competent review",
  "proeth-scenario:ethicalTension": "Business continuity vs. professional oversight requirements and seal integrity",
  "proeth-scenario:isDecisionPoint": true,
  "proeth-scenario:narrativeRole": "rising_action",
  "proeth-scenario:stakes": "Structural integrity of buildings, public safety, professional licensure, legal liability",
  "proeth:description": "Engineer B delegated structural design work to Engineer Intern C while continuing to sign and seal drawings without conducting proper review of the work. This created a system where designs were approved without adequate professional oversight.",
  "proeth:foreseenUnintendedEffects": [
    "Design errors",
    "Regulatory violations",
    "Public safety risks"
  ],
  "proeth:guidedByPrinciple": [
    "Expedience",
    "Business completion"
  ],
  "proeth:hasAgent": "Engineer B (Principal Engineer)",
  "proeth:hasCompetingPriorities": {
    "@type": "proeth:CompetingPriorities",
    "proeth:priorityConflict": "Project delivery vs Professional standards",
    "proeth:resolutionReasoning": "Project delivery prioritized despite inability to provide proper oversight"
  },
  "proeth:hasMentalState": "deliberate",
  "proeth:intendedOutcome": "Complete project deliverables while managing impairment",
  "proeth:requiresCapability": [
    "Technical review ability",
    "Design verification",
    "Professional judgment"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "During design phase",
  "proeth:violatesObligation": [
    "Professional responsibility for sealed work",
    "Adequate supervision",
    "Professional competence",
    "Honesty and integrity"
  ],
  "proeth:withinCompetence": false,
  "rdfs:label": "Delegate Without Proper Oversight"
}

Description: Engineer Intern C decided to cooperate in the arrangement where he performed design work that would be sealed by Engineer B, despite knowing of Engineer B's impaired condition and inability to provide proper oversight.

Temporal Marker: During design phase

Mental State: deliberate

Intended Outcome: Gain experience and maintain employment

Guided By Principles:

Employment security
Professional development

Required Capabilities:

Structural design expertise Professional judgment Independent practice ability

Within Competence: No

Scenario Metadata

Pedagogical context for interactive teaching scenarios

Character Motivation: Career advancement opportunity and loyalty to mentor, combined with inexperience in recognizing ethical boundaries

Ethical Tension: Professional development opportunities vs. ethical practice standards and public safety

Learning Significance: Shows how junior engineers can be complicit in unethical arrangements and the importance of understanding professional boundaries

Stakes: Professional development, career prospects, public safety, personal integrity

Decision Point: Yes - Story can branch here

Alternative Actions:

Refuse to participate without proper oversight
Report concerns to licensing board
Seek guidance from other licensed engineers

Narrative Role: rising_action

RDF JSON-LD

{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/16#",
    "proeth-scenario": "http://proethica.org/ontology/scenario#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#",
    "time": "http://www.w3.org/2006/time#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/cases/16#Action_Accept_Improper_Arrangement",
  "@type": "proeth:Action",
  "proeth-scenario:alternativeActions": [
    "Refuse to participate without proper oversight",
    "Report concerns to licensing board",
    "Seek guidance from other licensed engineers"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:characterMotivation": "Career advancement opportunity and loyalty to mentor, combined with inexperience in recognizing ethical boundaries",
  "proeth-scenario:consequencesIfAlternative": [
    "Loss of employment but maintained ethics",
    "Protection of public but damaged relationship",
    "Professional guidance but potential conflict"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:decisionSignificance": "Shows how junior engineers can be complicit in unethical arrangements and the importance of understanding professional boundaries",
  "proeth-scenario:ethicalTension": "Professional development opportunities vs. ethical practice standards and public safety",
  "proeth-scenario:isDecisionPoint": true,
  "proeth-scenario:narrativeRole": "rising_action",
  "proeth-scenario:stakes": "Professional development, career prospects, public safety, personal integrity",
  "proeth:description": "Engineer Intern C decided to cooperate in the arrangement where he performed design work that would be sealed by Engineer B, despite knowing of Engineer B\u0027s impaired condition and inability to provide proper oversight.",
  "proeth:foreseenUnintendedEffects": [
    "Working beyond authorized scope",
    "Professional liability risks"
  ],
  "proeth:guidedByPrinciple": [
    "Employment security",
    "Professional development"
  ],
  "proeth:hasAgent": "Engineer Intern C (Engineering Intern)",
  "proeth:hasCompetingPriorities": {
    "@type": "proeth:CompetingPriorities",
    "proeth:priorityConflict": "Career advancement vs Professional ethics",
    "proeth:resolutionReasoning": "Career considerations prioritized over ethical concerns about the arrangement"
  },
  "proeth:hasMentalState": "deliberate",
  "proeth:intendedOutcome": "Gain experience and maintain employment",
  "proeth:requiresCapability": [
    "Structural design expertise",
    "Professional judgment",
    "Independent practice ability"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "During design phase",
  "proeth:violatesObligation": [
    "Professional integrity",
    "Honest practice",
    "Scope of practice limitations"
  ],
  "proeth:withinCompetence": false,
  "rdfs:label": "Accept Improper Arrangement"
}

Description: Engineer A decided to retain Engineer R to conduct an independent structural review after observing questionable details in the project. This decision led to discovery of the design errors.

Temporal Marker: After observing questionable details

Mental State: deliberate

Intended Outcome: Verify structural integrity and identify potential problems

Fulfills Obligations:

Due diligence
Public safety
Professional responsibility

Guided By Principles:

Public welfare
Professional diligence
Risk management

Required Capabilities:

Project management Risk assessment Professional judgment

Within Competence: Yes

Scenario Metadata

Pedagogical context for interactive teaching scenarios

Character Motivation: Professional due diligence and concern for project quality after observing questionable design elements

Ethical Tension: Cost of additional review vs. responsibility for project safety and quality assurance

Learning Significance: Demonstrates proper professional practice in seeking independent verification when concerns arise

Stakes: Building safety, project liability, construction timeline, additional costs

Narrative Role: climax

RDF JSON-LD

{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/16#",
    "proeth-scenario": "http://proethica.org/ontology/scenario#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#",
    "time": "http://www.w3.org/2006/time#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/cases/16#Action_Commission_Independent_Structural_Review",
  "@type": "proeth:Action",
  "proeth-scenario:alternativeActions": [
    "Proceed without review to save costs",
    "Confront Engineer B directly first"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:characterMotivation": "Professional due diligence and concern for project quality after observing questionable design elements",
  "proeth-scenario:consequencesIfAlternative": [
    "Potential catastrophic failure",
    "Possible cover-up or inadequate response"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:decisionSignificance": "Demonstrates proper professional practice in seeking independent verification when concerns arise",
  "proeth-scenario:ethicalTension": "Cost of additional review vs. responsibility for project safety and quality assurance",
  "proeth-scenario:isDecisionPoint": false,
  "proeth-scenario:narrativeRole": "climax",
  "proeth-scenario:stakes": "Building safety, project liability, construction timeline, additional costs",
  "proeth:description": "Engineer A decided to retain Engineer R to conduct an independent structural review after observing questionable details in the project. This decision led to discovery of the design errors.",
  "proeth:foreseenUnintendedEffects": [
    "Potential project delays",
    "Additional costs",
    "Possible liability exposure"
  ],
  "proeth:fulfillsObligation": [
    "Due diligence",
    "Public safety",
    "Professional responsibility"
  ],
  "proeth:guidedByPrinciple": [
    "Public welfare",
    "Professional diligence",
    "Risk management"
  ],
  "proeth:hasAgent": "Engineer A (Hiring Engineer)",
  "proeth:hasCompetingPriorities": {
    "@type": "proeth:CompetingPriorities",
    "proeth:priorityConflict": "Project efficiency vs Safety verification",
    "proeth:resolutionReasoning": "Safety concerns prioritized over efficiency and cost considerations"
  },
  "proeth:hasMentalState": "deliberate",
  "proeth:intendedOutcome": "Verify structural integrity and identify potential problems",
  "proeth:requiresCapability": [
    "Project management",
    "Risk assessment",
    "Professional judgment"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "After observing questionable details",
  "proeth:withinCompetence": true,
  "rdfs:label": "Commission Independent Structural Review"
}

Description: Engineer A chose not to report Engineer B's violations to the State Board after learning of the improper practices, citing friendship and compassion for Engineer B's medical condition as reasons.

Temporal Marker: After private meeting with Engineer B

Mental State: deliberate

Intended Outcome: Protect friend from regulatory consequences while showing compassion

Fulfills Obligations:

Personal loyalty
Compassion

Guided By Principles:

Personal relationships
Compassion for medical condition

Required Capabilities:

Professional judgment Regulatory knowledge

Within Competence: Yes

Scenario Metadata

Pedagogical context for interactive teaching scenarios

Character Motivation: Personal loyalty to friend, compassion for medical condition, and desire to avoid causing additional harm to Engineer B

Ethical Tension: Personal relationships and compassion vs. professional obligations and public protection

Learning Significance: Critical teaching moment about the tension between personal relationships and professional duty to protect public safety

Stakes: Public safety, regulatory oversight effectiveness, professional accountability, future potential victims

Decision Point: Yes - Story can branch here

Alternative Actions:

Report to State Board with recommendation for medical evaluation
Require Engineer B to self-report or face exposure

Narrative Role: resolution

RDF JSON-LD

{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/16#",
    "proeth-scenario": "http://proethica.org/ontology/scenario#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#",
    "time": "http://www.w3.org/2006/time#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/cases/16#Action_Withhold_Regulatory_Report",
  "@type": "proeth:Action",
  "proeth-scenario:alternativeActions": [
    "Report to State Board with recommendation for medical evaluation",
    "Require Engineer B to self-report or face exposure"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:characterMotivation": "Personal loyalty to friend, compassion for medical condition, and desire to avoid causing additional harm to Engineer B",
  "proeth-scenario:consequencesIfAlternative": [
    "Proper regulatory response but damaged friendship",
    "Shared responsibility for reporting but ultimatum pressure"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:decisionSignificance": "Critical teaching moment about the tension between personal relationships and professional duty to protect public safety",
  "proeth-scenario:ethicalTension": "Personal relationships and compassion vs. professional obligations and public protection",
  "proeth-scenario:isDecisionPoint": true,
  "proeth-scenario:narrativeRole": "resolution",
  "proeth-scenario:stakes": "Public safety, regulatory oversight effectiveness, professional accountability, future potential victims",
  "proeth:description": "Engineer A chose not to report Engineer B\u0027s violations to the State Board after learning of the improper practices, citing friendship and compassion for Engineer B\u0027s medical condition as reasons.",
  "proeth:foreseenUnintendedEffects": [
    "Continued public safety risk",
    "Professional accountability failure",
    "Potential future violations"
  ],
  "proeth:fulfillsObligation": [
    "Personal loyalty",
    "Compassion"
  ],
  "proeth:guidedByPrinciple": [
    "Personal relationships",
    "Compassion for medical condition"
  ],
  "proeth:hasAgent": "Engineer A (Hiring Engineer)",
  "proeth:hasCompetingPriorities": {
    "@type": "proeth:CompetingPriorities",
    "proeth:priorityConflict": "Personal friendship vs Professional duty",
    "proeth:resolutionReasoning": "Personal friendship and compassion for medical condition prioritized over professional reporting obligations"
  },
  "proeth:hasMentalState": "deliberate",
  "proeth:intendedOutcome": "Protect friend from regulatory consequences while showing compassion",
  "proeth:requiresCapability": [
    "Professional judgment",
    "Regulatory knowledge"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "After private meeting with Engineer B",
  "proeth:violatesObligation": [
    "Duty to report professional violations",
    "Professional accountability",
    "Public protection"
  ],
  "proeth:withinCompetence": true,
  "rdfs:label": "Withhold Regulatory Report"
}

Extracted Events (4)

Occurrences that trigger ethical considerations and state changes

Description: Engineer B suffered a stroke months prior to the construction project, creating a medical impairment that affected his professional capabilities.

Temporal Marker: Months before construction

Activates Constraints:

Competence_Requirement_Constraint
Professional_Fitness_Constraint

Scenario Metadata

Pedagogical context for interactive teaching scenarios

Emotional Impact: Fear and vulnerability for Engineer B; concern from family and colleagues; anxiety about career continuity

Stakeholder Consequences:

engineer_b: Professional identity threatened, health concerns, career uncertainty
clients: Unknowingly receiving services from potentially impaired professional
profession: Public trust at risk if impaired practice continues undetected
family: Financial and emotional stress from health crisis

Learning Moment: Illustrates how personal crises can create professional ethical dilemmas; shows need for systems to support impaired professionals

Ethical Implications: Creates tension between personal privacy and professional transparency; highlights vulnerability of professionals facing health crises; raises questions about fitness-for-practice monitoring

Discussion Prompts:

What obligations do professionals have when medical conditions affect their competence?
How should the profession balance compassion for impaired colleagues with public safety?
What support systems should exist for professionals facing health crises?

Tension: medium Pacing: slow_burn

RDF JSON-LD

{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/16#",
    "proeth-scenario": "http://proethica.org/ontology/scenario#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#",
    "time": "http://www.w3.org/2006/time#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/cases/16#Event_Medical_Stroke_Occurrence",
  "@type": "proeth:Event",
  "proeth-scenario:crisisIdentification": false,
  "proeth-scenario:discussionPrompts": [
    "What obligations do professionals have when medical conditions affect their competence?",
    "How should the profession balance compassion for impaired colleagues with public safety?",
    "What support systems should exist for professionals facing health crises?"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:dramaticTension": "medium",
  "proeth-scenario:emotionalImpact": "Fear and vulnerability for Engineer B; concern from family and colleagues; anxiety about career continuity",
  "proeth-scenario:ethicalImplications": "Creates tension between personal privacy and professional transparency; highlights vulnerability of professionals facing health crises; raises questions about fitness-for-practice monitoring",
  "proeth-scenario:learningMoment": "Illustrates how personal crises can create professional ethical dilemmas; shows need for systems to support impaired professionals",
  "proeth-scenario:narrativePacing": "slow_burn",
  "proeth-scenario:stakeholderConsequences": {
    "clients": "Unknowingly receiving services from potentially impaired professional",
    "engineer_b": "Professional identity threatened, health concerns, career uncertainty",
    "family": "Financial and emotional stress from health crisis",
    "profession": "Public trust at risk if impaired practice continues undetected"
  },
  "proeth:activatesConstraint": [
    "Competence_Requirement_Constraint",
    "Professional_Fitness_Constraint"
  ],
  "proeth:causesStateChange": "Engineer\u0027s professional capacity compromised; duty to reassess practice limitations triggered",
  "proeth:createsObligation": [
    "Assess_Professional_Capability",
    "Seek_Medical_Clearance",
    "Limit_Practice_Scope"
  ],
  "proeth:description": "Engineer B suffered a stroke months prior to the construction project, creating a medical impairment that affected his professional capabilities.",
  "proeth:emergencyStatus": "high",
  "proeth:eventType": "exogenous",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "Months before construction",
  "proeth:urgencyLevel": "high",
  "rdfs:label": "Medical Stroke Occurrence"
}

Description: The basement of the new office building failed structurally during construction, revealing critical design errors and creating immediate safety hazards.

Temporal Marker: During construction phase

Activates Constraints:

PublicSafety_Paramount_Constraint
Immediate_Action_Required_Constraint

Scenario Metadata

Pedagogical context for interactive teaching scenarios

Emotional Impact: Shock and panic for all parties; terror for construction workers; devastation for Engineer B; guilt and trauma for Intern C

Stakeholder Consequences:

construction_workers: Immediate physical danger, potential injuries, work stoppage
engineer_a: Project failure, client relations damaged, potential liability
engineer_b: Professional reputation destroyed, potential criminal liability
intern_c: Career potentially ended, psychological trauma, legal exposure
public: Safety compromised, trust in engineering profession damaged

Learning Moment: Demonstrates catastrophic consequences of delegation without oversight; shows how professional shortcuts create life-threatening situations

Ethical Implications: Reveals fundamental tension between efficiency and safety; demonstrates cascading effects of competence violations; highlights vulnerability of public trust in professional expertise

Discussion Prompts:

How do professional responsibilities change when public safety is immediately threatened?
What systemic failures allowed this dangerous situation to develop?
Who bears ultimate responsibility when delegation goes wrong?

Crisis / Turning Point Tension: high Pacing: crisis

RDF JSON-LD

{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/16#",
    "proeth-scenario": "http://proethica.org/ontology/scenario#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#",
    "time": "http://www.w3.org/2006/time#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/cases/16#Event_Basement_Structural_Failure",
  "@type": "proeth:Event",
  "proeth-scenario:crisisIdentification": true,
  "proeth-scenario:discussionPrompts": [
    "How do professional responsibilities change when public safety is immediately threatened?",
    "What systemic failures allowed this dangerous situation to develop?",
    "Who bears ultimate responsibility when delegation goes wrong?"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:dramaticTension": "high",
  "proeth-scenario:emotionalImpact": "Shock and panic for all parties; terror for construction workers; devastation for Engineer B; guilt and trauma for Intern C",
  "proeth-scenario:ethicalImplications": "Reveals fundamental tension between efficiency and safety; demonstrates cascading effects of competence violations; highlights vulnerability of public trust in professional expertise",
  "proeth-scenario:learningMoment": "Demonstrates catastrophic consequences of delegation without oversight; shows how professional shortcuts create life-threatening situations",
  "proeth-scenario:narrativePacing": "crisis",
  "proeth-scenario:stakeholderConsequences": {
    "construction_workers": "Immediate physical danger, potential injuries, work stoppage",
    "engineer_a": "Project failure, client relations damaged, potential liability",
    "engineer_b": "Professional reputation destroyed, potential criminal liability",
    "intern_c": "Career potentially ended, psychological trauma, legal exposure",
    "public": "Safety compromised, trust in engineering profession damaged"
  },
  "proeth:activatesConstraint": [
    "PublicSafety_Paramount_Constraint",
    "Immediate_Action_Required_Constraint"
  ],
  "proeth:causedByAction": "http://proethica.org/cases/16#Action_Delegate_Without_Proper_Oversight",
  "proeth:causesStateChange": "Project in crisis; safety emergency declared; all normal operations suspended pending investigation",
  "proeth:createsObligation": [
    "Immediate_Safety_Assessment",
    "Report_To_Authorities",
    "Investigate_Root_Cause",
    "Notify_All_Stakeholders"
  ],
  "proeth:description": "The basement of the new office building failed structurally during construction, revealing critical design errors and creating immediate safety hazards.",
  "proeth:emergencyStatus": "critical",
  "proeth:eventType": "outcome",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "During construction phase",
  "proeth:urgencyLevel": "critical",
  "rdfs:label": "Basement Structural Failure"
}

Description: Engineer R's independent review revealed specific design errors that caused the structural failure, providing concrete evidence of professional negligence.

Temporal Marker: After structural failure

Activates Constraints:

Evidence_Preservation_Constraint
Professional_Investigation_Required

Scenario Metadata

Pedagogical context for interactive teaching scenarios

Emotional Impact: Confirmation of worst fears for Engineer A; vindication mixed with responsibility for Engineer R; dread for Engineer B and Intern C

Stakeholder Consequences:

engineer_a: Clear evidence for legal action, moral obligation to act on findings
engineer_b: Concrete proof of negligence, career and legal jeopardy
intern_c: Specific errors documented, professional future in doubt
regulatory_board: Evidence requiring disciplinary action
legal_system: Basis for potential criminal or civil proceedings

Learning Moment: Shows importance of independent review in establishing professional accountability; demonstrates how evidence changes ethical obligations

Ethical Implications: Transforms situation from suspicion to documented misconduct; creates unavoidable moral obligation to act; eliminates ambiguity that might justify inaction

Discussion Prompts:

How does concrete evidence of negligence change ethical obligations?
What role should independent experts play in professional accountability?
When does professional courtesy become complicity in covering up misconduct?

Crisis / Turning Point Tension: high Pacing: escalation

RDF JSON-LD

{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/16#",
    "proeth-scenario": "http://proethica.org/ontology/scenario#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#",
    "time": "http://www.w3.org/2006/time#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/cases/16#Event_Design_Error_Discovery",
  "@type": "proeth:Event",
  "proeth-scenario:crisisIdentification": true,
  "proeth-scenario:discussionPrompts": [
    "How does concrete evidence of negligence change ethical obligations?",
    "What role should independent experts play in professional accountability?",
    "When does professional courtesy become complicity in covering up misconduct?"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:dramaticTension": "high",
  "proeth-scenario:emotionalImpact": "Confirmation of worst fears for Engineer A; vindication mixed with responsibility for Engineer R; dread for Engineer B and Intern C",
  "proeth-scenario:ethicalImplications": "Transforms situation from suspicion to documented misconduct; creates unavoidable moral obligation to act; eliminates ambiguity that might justify inaction",
  "proeth-scenario:learningMoment": "Shows importance of independent review in establishing professional accountability; demonstrates how evidence changes ethical obligations",
  "proeth-scenario:narrativePacing": "escalation",
  "proeth-scenario:stakeholderConsequences": {
    "engineer_a": "Clear evidence for legal action, moral obligation to act on findings",
    "engineer_b": "Concrete proof of negligence, career and legal jeopardy",
    "intern_c": "Specific errors documented, professional future in doubt",
    "legal_system": "Basis for potential criminal or civil proceedings",
    "regulatory_board": "Evidence requiring disciplinary action"
  },
  "proeth:activatesConstraint": [
    "Evidence_Preservation_Constraint",
    "Professional_Investigation_Required"
  ],
  "proeth:causedByAction": "http://proethica.org/cases/16#Action_Commission_Independent_Structural_Review",
  "proeth:causesStateChange": "Clear evidence of professional negligence established; formal accountability processes triggered",
  "proeth:createsObligation": [
    "Document_All_Findings",
    "Report_Professional_Misconduct",
    "Prevent_Future_Occurrence"
  ],
  "proeth:description": "Engineer R\u0027s independent review revealed specific design errors that caused the structural failure, providing concrete evidence of professional negligence.",
  "proeth:emergencyStatus": "high",
  "proeth:eventType": "outcome",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "After structural failure",
  "proeth:urgencyLevel": "high",
  "rdfs:label": "Design Error Discovery"
}

Description: Engineer B privately revealed to Engineer A his stroke condition and the unauthorized delegation arrangement, creating knowledge of professional misconduct.

Temporal Marker: Private meeting after investigation

Activates Constraints:

Mandatory_Reporting_Constraint
Professional_Misconduct_Knowledge

Scenario Metadata

Pedagogical context for interactive teaching scenarios

Emotional Impact: Compassion and moral conflict for Engineer A; relief and vulnerability for Engineer B; anxiety about consequences for both parties

Stakeholder Consequences:

engineer_a: Burden of knowledge, moral obligation versus personal loyalty conflict
engineer_b: Vulnerability from disclosure, hope for compassionate treatment
professional_community: Test of how profession handles impaired members
public: Depends on whether disclosure leads to proper reporting and prevention

Learning Moment: Illustrates conflict between personal compassion and professional duty; shows how knowledge creates moral obligations

Ethical Implications: Creates classic conflict between loyalty and duty; tests whether personal circumstances can justify professional misconduct; highlights burden of knowledge in professional relationships

Discussion Prompts:

How should personal relationships affect professional reporting obligations?
What is the appropriate balance between compassion and accountability?
Does knowledge of misconduct always require reporting, regardless of circumstances?

Crisis / Turning Point Tension: high Pacing: crisis

RDF JSON-LD

{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/16#",
    "proeth-scenario": "http://proethica.org/ontology/scenario#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#",
    "time": "http://www.w3.org/2006/time#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/cases/16#Event_Impairment_Disclosure_Event",
  "@type": "proeth:Event",
  "proeth-scenario:crisisIdentification": true,
  "proeth-scenario:discussionPrompts": [
    "How should personal relationships affect professional reporting obligations?",
    "What is the appropriate balance between compassion and accountability?",
    "Does knowledge of misconduct always require reporting, regardless of circumstances?"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:dramaticTension": "high",
  "proeth-scenario:emotionalImpact": "Compassion and moral conflict for Engineer A; relief and vulnerability for Engineer B; anxiety about consequences for both parties",
  "proeth-scenario:ethicalImplications": "Creates classic conflict between loyalty and duty; tests whether personal circumstances can justify professional misconduct; highlights burden of knowledge in professional relationships",
  "proeth-scenario:learningMoment": "Illustrates conflict between personal compassion and professional duty; shows how knowledge creates moral obligations",
  "proeth-scenario:narrativePacing": "crisis",
  "proeth-scenario:stakeholderConsequences": {
    "engineer_a": "Burden of knowledge, moral obligation versus personal loyalty conflict",
    "engineer_b": "Vulnerability from disclosure, hope for compassionate treatment",
    "professional_community": "Test of how profession handles impaired members",
    "public": "Depends on whether disclosure leads to proper reporting and prevention"
  },
  "proeth:activatesConstraint": [
    "Mandatory_Reporting_Constraint",
    "Professional_Misconduct_Knowledge"
  ],
  "proeth:causesStateChange": "Engineer A now has definitive knowledge of professional misconduct and regulatory violations",
  "proeth:createsObligation": [
    "Report_To_State_Board",
    "Protect_Future_Public_Safety",
    "Document_Misconduct"
  ],
  "proeth:description": "Engineer B privately revealed to Engineer A his stroke condition and the unauthorized delegation arrangement, creating knowledge of professional misconduct.",
  "proeth:emergencyStatus": "high",
  "proeth:eventType": "outcome",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "Private meeting after investigation",
  "proeth:urgencyLevel": "high",
  "rdfs:label": "Impairment Disclosure Event"
}

Causal Chains (3)

NESS test analysis: Necessary Element of Sufficient Set

Causal Language: Engineer B's decision to continue operating his engineering firm after suffering a stroke without proper capability assessment led to compromised design quality and structural failure

Necessary Factors (NESS):

Medical impairment affecting professional judgment
Continued practice without capability assessment
Improper delegation to unqualified personnel

Sufficient Factors:

Combination of impairment + continued practice + inadequate supervision of delegated work

Counterfactual Test: If Engineer B had suspended practice or sought proper medical clearance, the structural failure would likely have been prevented

Responsibility Attribution:

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

Causal Sequence:

Medical Stroke Occurrence
Engineer B suffers stroke creating medical impairment
Continue Practice Despite Impairment
Engineer B decides to continue operating firm without proper medical assessment
Delegate Without Proper Oversight
Impaired Engineer B delegates critical structural work to unqualified intern
Design Error Introduction
Engineer Intern C produces flawed structural design beyond his competence level
Basement Structural Failure
Critical design errors result in actual structural failure during construction

RDF JSON-LD

{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/16#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/cases/16#CausalChain_812f525a",
  "@type": "proeth:CausalChain",
  "proeth:causalLanguage": "Engineer B\u0027s decision to continue operating his engineering firm after suffering a stroke without proper capability assessment led to compromised design quality and structural failure",
  "proeth:causalSequence": [
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer B suffers stroke creating medical impairment",
      "proeth:element": "Medical Stroke Occurrence",
      "proeth:step": 1
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer B decides to continue operating firm without proper medical assessment",
      "proeth:element": "Continue Practice Despite Impairment",
      "proeth:step": 2
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Impaired Engineer B delegates critical structural work to unqualified intern",
      "proeth:element": "Delegate Without Proper Oversight",
      "proeth:step": 3
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer Intern C produces flawed structural design beyond his competence level",
      "proeth:element": "Design Error Introduction",
      "proeth:step": 4
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Critical design errors result in actual structural failure during construction",
      "proeth:element": "Basement Structural Failure",
      "proeth:step": 5
    }
  ],
  "proeth:cause": "Continue Practice Despite Impairment",
  "proeth:counterfactual": "If Engineer B had suspended practice or sought proper medical clearance, the structural failure would likely have been prevented",
  "proeth:effect": "Basement Structural Failure",
  "proeth:necessaryFactors": [
    "Medical impairment affecting professional judgment",
    "Continued practice without capability assessment",
    "Improper delegation to unqualified personnel"
  ],
  "proeth:responsibilityType": "direct",
  "proeth:responsibleAgent": "Engineer B",
  "proeth:sufficientFactors": [
    "Combination of impairment + continued practice + inadequate supervision of delegated work"
  ],
  "proeth:withinAgentControl": true
}

Causal Language: Engineer Intern C's decision to cooperate in performing design work beyond his qualifications while allowing Engineer B to seal the documents created the conditions for design errors

Necessary Factors (NESS):

Unqualified person performing structural design
Lack of proper professional supervision
Complex structural engineering requirements

Sufficient Factors:

Intern's limited experience + complex design requirements + absence of qualified oversight

Counterfactual Test: If Engineer Intern C had refused the improper arrangement, design errors would not have occurred

Responsibility Attribution:

Agent: Engineer Intern C
Type: shared
Within Agent Control: Yes

Causal Sequence:

Delegate Without Proper Oversight
Engineer B assigns structural design work to Engineer Intern C
Accept Improper Arrangement
Engineer Intern C agrees to perform work beyond his qualifications
Inadequate Design Process
Intern performs complex structural design without qualified supervision
Commission Independent Structural Review
Engineer A retains Engineer R due to concerns about design quality
Design Error Discovery
Independent review reveals specific design errors causing structural failure

RDF JSON-LD

{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/16#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/cases/16#CausalChain_6504cf9f",
  "@type": "proeth:CausalChain",
  "proeth:causalLanguage": "Engineer Intern C\u0027s decision to cooperate in performing design work beyond his qualifications while allowing Engineer B to seal the documents created the conditions for design errors",
  "proeth:causalSequence": [
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer B assigns structural design work to Engineer Intern C",
      "proeth:element": "Delegate Without Proper Oversight",
      "proeth:step": 1
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer Intern C agrees to perform work beyond his qualifications",
      "proeth:element": "Accept Improper Arrangement",
      "proeth:step": 2
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Intern performs complex structural design without qualified supervision",
      "proeth:element": "Inadequate Design Process",
      "proeth:step": 3
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer A retains Engineer R due to concerns about design quality",
      "proeth:element": "Commission Independent Structural Review",
      "proeth:step": 4
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Independent review reveals specific design errors causing structural failure",
      "proeth:element": "Design Error Discovery",
      "proeth:step": 5
    }
  ],
  "proeth:cause": "Accept Improper Arrangement",
  "proeth:counterfactual": "If Engineer Intern C had refused the improper arrangement, design errors would not have occurred",
  "proeth:effect": "Design Error Discovery",
  "proeth:necessaryFactors": [
    "Unqualified person performing structural design",
    "Lack of proper professional supervision",
    "Complex structural engineering requirements"
  ],
  "proeth:responsibilityType": "shared",
  "proeth:responsibleAgent": "Engineer Intern C",
  "proeth:sufficientFactors": [
    "Intern\u0027s limited experience + complex design requirements + absence of qualified oversight"
  ],
  "proeth:withinAgentControl": true
}

Causal Language: Engineer A's choice not to report Engineer B's violations to the State Board allowed the impaired engineer to continue practicing and potentially create future public safety risks

Necessary Factors (NESS):

Knowledge of professional violations
Regulatory reporting obligation
Decision to withhold information from authorities

Sufficient Factors:

Knowledge of violations + regulatory duty + decision not to report

Counterfactual Test: If Engineer A had reported the violations, regulatory intervention could have prevented future risks

Responsibility Attribution:

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

Causal Sequence:

Design Error Discovery
Engineer R's review reveals design errors and unprofessional practices
Impairment Disclosure Event
Engineer B privately reveals his stroke condition and delegation arrangement to Engineer A
Withhold Regulatory Report
Engineer A decides not to report violations to State Board despite knowledge
Continued Impaired Practice Risk
Engineer B continues practicing without regulatory intervention or oversight
Ongoing Public Safety Risk
Future projects remain at risk due to continued impaired practice

RDF JSON-LD

{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/16#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/cases/16#CausalChain_ea39d0f2",
  "@type": "proeth:CausalChain",
  "proeth:causalLanguage": "Engineer A\u0027s choice not to report Engineer B\u0027s violations to the State Board allowed the impaired engineer to continue practicing and potentially create future public safety risks",
  "proeth:causalSequence": [
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer R\u0027s review reveals design errors and unprofessional practices",
      "proeth:element": "Design Error Discovery",
      "proeth:step": 1
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer B privately reveals his stroke condition and delegation arrangement to Engineer A",
      "proeth:element": "Impairment Disclosure Event",
      "proeth:step": 2
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer A decides not to report violations to State Board despite knowledge",
      "proeth:element": "Withhold Regulatory Report",
      "proeth:step": 3
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer B continues practicing without regulatory intervention or oversight",
      "proeth:element": "Continued Impaired Practice Risk",
      "proeth:step": 4
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Future projects remain at risk due to continued impaired practice",
      "proeth:element": "Ongoing Public Safety Risk",
      "proeth:step": 5
    }
  ],
  "proeth:cause": "Withhold Regulatory Report",
  "proeth:counterfactual": "If Engineer A had reported the violations, regulatory intervention could have prevented future risks",
  "proeth:effect": "Continued Risk to Public Safety",
  "proeth:necessaryFactors": [
    "Knowledge of professional violations",
    "Regulatory reporting obligation",
    "Decision to withhold information from authorities"
  ],
  "proeth:responsibilityType": "indirect",
  "proeth:responsibleAgent": "Engineer A",
  "proeth:sufficientFactors": [
    "Knowledge of violations + regulatory duty + decision not to report"
  ],
  "proeth:withinAgentControl": true
}

Allen Temporal Relations (11)

Interval algebra relationships with OWL-Time standard properties

From Entity	Allen Relation	To Entity	OWL-Time Property	Evidence
Engineer A hires Engineer B	before Entity1 is before Entity2	construction drawings completed	`time:before` http://www.w3.org/2006/time#before	Engineer A retained Engineer B, his friend and a structural engineer consultant, to perform the stru...
construction drawings completed	before Entity1 is before Entity2	permits issued	`time:before` http://www.w3.org/2006/time#before	Construction drawings were completed, permits were issued
permits issued	before Entity1 is before Entity2	contract let	`time:before` http://www.w3.org/2006/time#before	permits were issued, a contract was let
contract let	before Entity1 is before Entity2	construction began	`time:before` http://www.w3.org/2006/time#before	a contract was let, and the contractor began construction
construction began	before Entity1 is before Entity2	structural failure	`time:before` http://www.w3.org/2006/time#before	the contractor began construction of the new office building – which included a basement. However, e...
structural failure	before Entity1 is before Entity2	Engineer A retained Engineer R	`time:before` http://www.w3.org/2006/time#before	there was a significant structural failure... To obtain a second opinion about the failure, Engineer...
Engineer R's review	before Entity1 is before Entity2	Engineer A retained Engineer R to redesign	`time:before` http://www.w3.org/2006/time#before	Engineer R's review revealed a surprising number of serious structural design errors... Engineer A r...
Engineer R's review	before Entity1 is before Entity2	private meeting between Engineer A and Engineer B	`time:before` http://www.w3.org/2006/time#before	Engineer R's review revealed... Engineer A met privately with Engineer B and confronted him with the...
Engineer B's stroke	before Entity1 is before Entity2	private meeting	`time:before` http://www.w3.org/2006/time#before	At this meeting, Engineer B divulged he had suffered a stroke a few months prior
Engineer B's stroke	before Entity1 is before Entity2	design work delegation to Engineer Intern C	`time:before` http://www.w3.org/2006/time#before	Engineer B had suffered a stroke a few months prior... Engineer B delegated practically all design w...
design work delegation	during Entity1 occurs entirely within the duration of Entity2	Engineer B continuing to sign/seal drawings	`time:intervalDuring` http://www.w3.org/2006/time#intervalDuring	Engineer B delegated practically all design work to Engineer Intern C... while continuing to sign/se...

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.

PASS 3: Temporal Dynamics

Extraction Complete

Timeline Overview

Temporal Markers

Temporal Consistency Check

Extracted Actions (5)

Continue Practice Despite Impairment Engineer B (Principal Engineer)

Guided By Principles:

Required Capabilities:

Scenario Metadata

Delegate Without Proper Oversight Engineer B (Principal Engineer)

Guided By Principles:

Required Capabilities:

Scenario Metadata

Accept Improper Arrangement Engineer Intern C (Engineering Intern)

Guided By Principles:

Required Capabilities:

Scenario Metadata

Commission Independent Structural Review Engineer A (Hiring Engineer)

Fulfills Obligations:

Guided By Principles:

Required Capabilities:

Scenario Metadata

Withhold Regulatory Report Engineer A (Hiring Engineer)

Fulfills Obligations:

Guided By Principles:

Required Capabilities:

Scenario Metadata

Extracted Events (4)

Medical Stroke Occurrence

Activates Constraints:

Scenario Metadata

Basement Structural Failure

Activates Constraints:

Scenario Metadata

Design Error Discovery

Activates Constraints:

Scenario Metadata

Impairment Disclosure Event

Activates Constraints:

Scenario Metadata

Causal Chains (3)

Continue Practice Despite Impairment Basement Structural Failure

Necessary Factors (NESS):

Sufficient Factors:

Responsibility Attribution:

Causal Sequence:

Accept Improper Arrangement Design Error Discovery

Necessary Factors (NESS):

Sufficient Factors:

Responsibility Attribution:

Causal Sequence:

Withhold Regulatory Report Continued Risk to Public Safety

Necessary Factors (NESS):

Sufficient Factors:

Responsibility Attribution:

Causal Sequence:

Allen Temporal Relations (11)

About Allen Relations & OWL-Time