This page shows the pre-commit working store (the raw extraction under review). This case was committed to OntServe on 2026-10-24 07:57; 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 160: Participation in Production of Unsafe Equipment

R Roles
1
Classes
9
Individuals
S States
5
Classes
5
Individuals
Rs Resources
1
Classes
1
Individuals

Extracted Ontology Entities

22 RDF entities extracted organized by concept type

R Roles

Roles Classes
1
changed
ClientRole
rdfs:subClassOf Roles
New C160
Definition
Extracted from facts primary
A participant role of an official of a company who receives concerns raised by the company's engineers, communicates with outside parties on the company's behalf, and issues instructions directing whether the work proceeds. The role carries decision-making standing in the case without profession-generated engineering duties articulated by the case.
Properties
Text References:
"The engineers of Company "B" called the matter to the attention of appropriate officials of their employer"
"The officials of Company "B" instructed its engineers to proceed with the work."
Confidence: 0.8
Role Kind: participant
Distinguishing Features:
  • Acts on the company's behalf in receiving and relaying engineers' technical concerns
  • Holds authority to instruct company engineers whether to proceed with work
  • Bears no profession-generated engineering code obligations articulated by the case
[facts] "The engineers of Company "B" called the matter to the attention of appropriate officials of their employer who, in turn, advised Company "A" of the concern expressed by the engineers of Company "B"."
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • textReferences content: The engineers of Company "B" called the matter to the attention of appropriate officials of their employer; The officials of Company "B" instructed its engineers to proceed with the work.
  • roleKind content: participant
  • distinguishingFeatures content: Acts on the company's behalf in receiving and relaying engineers' technical concerns; Holds authority to instruct company engineers whether to proceed with work; Bears no profession-generated engineering code obligations articulated by the case
  • confidence assessment: 0.8
Roles Individuals
9
Linked
Design Engineer Role
C160
Text References:
"Engineers of Company "A" prepared plans and specifications for machinery to be used in a manufacturing process"
"Company "A" replied that its engineers felt that the design and specifications for the equipment were adequate and safe"
Confidence: 0.9
Actor: Engineers of Company A
Role Class: Design Engineer Role
Role Category: employer_relationship
Role Kind: professional
Specialty: Design of machinery used in a manufacturing process
Employer: Company A
Case Involvement: Prepared the original plans and specifications for the machinery and, through Company A, maintained after Company B's concern was relayed that the design and specifications for the equipment were adequate and safe.
Employedby: Company A
"Company "A" replied that its engineers felt that the design and specifications for the equipment were adequate and safe"
Workreviewedby: Engineers of Company B
"The engineers of Company "B" in reviewing the plans and specifications came to the conclusion that they included certain miscalculations and technical deficienc..."
[facts] "Engineers of Company "A" prepared plans and specifications for machinery to be used in a manufacturing process and Company "A" turned them over to Company "B" for production."
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • actor: Engineers of Company A
  • relationships: {'type': 'employedBy', 'target': 'Company A', 'quote': 'Company "A" replied that its engineers felt that the design and specifications for the equipment were adequate and safe'}; {'type': 'workReviewedBy', 'target': 'Engineers of Company B', 'quote': 'The engineers of Company "B" in reviewing the plans and specifications came to the conclusion that they included certain miscalculations and technical deficiencies'}
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • textReferences content: Engineers of Company "A" prepared plans and specifications for machinery to be used in a manufacturing process; Company "A" replied that its engineers felt that the design and specifications for the equipment were adequate and safe
  • roleClass content: Design Engineer Role
  • roleCategory content: employer_relationship
  • roleKind content: professional
  • specialty content: Design of machinery used in a manufacturing process
  • employer content: Company A
  • caseInvolvement content: Prepared the original plans and specifications for the machinery and, through Company A, maintained after Company B's concern was relayed that the design and specifications for the equipment were adequate and safe.
  • confidence assessment: 0.9
Linked
Engineer Role
C160
Text References:
"The engineers of Company "B" in reviewing the plans and specifications came to the conclusion that they included certain miscalculations and technical deficiencies"
"The engineers of Company "B" called the matter to the attention of appropriate officials of their employer"
Confidence: 0.9
Actor: Engineers of Company B
Role Class: Engineer Role
Role Category: employer_relationship
Role Kind: professional
Employer: Company B
Case Involvement: Reviewed Company A's plans and specifications, concluded they included miscalculations and technical deficiencies such that the product might be unsuitable for the ultimate users and might endanger the lives of persons in proximity to the equipment, called the matter to the attention of their employer's officials, and were subsequently instructed to proceed with the work.
Employedby: Company B
"The engineers of Company "B" called the matter to the attention of appropriate officials of their employer"
Reviewsworkof: Engineers of Company A
"The engineers of Company "B" in reviewing the plans and specifications came to the conclusion that they included certain miscalculations and technical deficienc..."
[facts] "The engineers of Company "B" in reviewing the plans and specifications came to the conclusion that they included certain miscalculations and technical deficiencies of a nature that the final product m..."
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • actor: Engineers of Company B
  • relationships: {'type': 'employedBy', 'target': 'Company B', 'quote': 'The engineers of Company "B" called the matter to the attention of appropriate officials of their employer'}; {'type': 'reviewsWorkOf', 'target': 'Engineers of Company A', 'quote': 'The engineers of Company "B" in reviewing the plans and specifications came to the conclusion that they included certain miscalculations and technical deficiencies'}
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • textReferences content: The engineers of Company "B" in reviewing the plans and specifications came to the conclusion that they included certain miscalculations and technical deficiencies; The engineers of Company "B" called the matter to the attention of appropriate officials of their employer
  • roleClass content: Engineer Role
  • roleCategory content: employer_relationship
  • roleKind content: professional
  • employer content: Company B
  • caseInvolvement content: Reviewed Company A's plans and specifications, concluded they included miscalculations and technical deficiencies such that the product might be unsuitable for the ultimate users and might endanger the lives of persons in proximity to the equipment, called the matter to the attention of their employer's officials, and were subsequently instructed to proceed with the work.
  • confidence assessment: 0.9
Linked
Contractor Role
C160
Text References:
"Company "A" turned them over to Company "B" for production"
"Company "B" should proceed to build the equipment as designed and specified"
Confidence: 0.8
Actor: Company B
Role Class: Contractor Role
Role Category: provider_client
Role Kind: participant
Case Involvement: Received Company A's plans and specifications for production, advised Company A through its officials of the concern expressed by its engineers, and after Company A's reply proceeded to have the equipment built as designed and specified.
Hasclient: Company A
"Company "A" turned them over to Company "B" for production"
[facts] "Engineers of Company "A" prepared plans and specifications for machinery to be used in a manufacturing process and Company "A" turned them over to Company "B" for production."
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • actor: Company B
  • relationships: {'type': 'hasClient', 'target': 'Company A', 'quote': 'Company "A" turned them over to Company "B" for production'}
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • textReferences content: Company "A" turned them over to Company "B" for production; Company "B" should proceed to build the equipment as designed and specified
  • roleClass content: Contractor Role
  • roleCategory content: provider_client
  • roleKind content: participant
  • caseInvolvement content: Received Company A's plans and specifications for production, advised Company A through its officials of the concern expressed by its engineers, and after Company A's reply proceeded to have the equipment built as designed and specified.
  • confidence assessment: 0.8
Linked
Public Role
C160
Text References:
"the final product might be unsuitable for the purposes of the ultimate users"
Confidence: 0.75
Actor: Ultimate users of the final product
Role Class: Public Role
Role Kind: participant
Case Involvement: The parties for whose purposes the final product is intended, which might be unsuitable if built according to the plans and specifications as prepared.
[facts] "they included certain miscalculations and technical deficiencies of a nature that the final product might be unsuitable for the purposes of the ultimate users"
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • actor: Ultimate users of the final product
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • textReferences content: the final product might be unsuitable for the purposes of the ultimate users
  • roleClass content: Public Role
  • roleKind content: participant
  • caseInvolvement content: The parties for whose purposes the final product is intended, which might be unsuitable if built according to the plans and specifications as prepared.
  • confidence assessment: 0.75
New C160
Text References:
"The engineers of Company "B" called the matter to the attention of appropriate officials of their employer"
"The officials of Company "B" instructed its engineers to proceed with the work."
Confidence: 0.8
Actor: Officials of Company B
Role Class: Company Official
Role Kind: participant
Employer: Company B
Additional Relationships: {'type': 'advisedOfConcern', 'target': 'Company A', 'quote': 'advised Company "A" of the concern expressed by the engineers of Company "B"'}
Case Involvement: Received the engineers' concern about the plans and specifications, advised Company A of that concern, and after Company A's reply instructed Company B's engineers to proceed with the work.
Relatedto: Engineers of Company B
"The officials of Company "B" instructed its engineers to proceed with the work."
[facts] "The engineers of Company "B" called the matter to the attention of appropriate officials of their employer who, in turn, advised Company "A" of the concern expressed by the engineers of Company "B"."
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • actor: Officials of Company B
  • relationships: {'type': 'relatedTo', 'target': 'Engineers of Company B', 'quote': 'The officials of Company "B" instructed its engineers to proceed with the work.'}
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • textReferences content: The engineers of Company "B" called the matter to the attention of appropriate officials of their employer; The officials of Company "B" instructed its engineers to proceed with the work.
  • roleClass content: Company Official
  • roleKind content: participant
  • employer content: Company B
  • additionalRelationships content: {'type': 'advisedOfConcern', 'target': 'Company A', 'quote': 'advised Company "A" of the concern expressed by the engineers of Company "B"'}
  • caseInvolvement content: Received the engineers' concern about the plans and specifications, advised Company A of that concern, and after Company A's reply instructed Company B's engineers to proceed with the work.
  • confidence assessment: 0.8
Company A Client
Client Role
Linked
Client Role
C160
Text References:
"Company "A" turned them over to Company "B" for production"
"Company "B" should proceed to build the equipment as designed and specified"
Confidence: 0.85
Actor: Company A
Role Class: Client Role
Role Kind: participant
Additional Relationships: {'type': 'commissionsProductionFrom', 'target': 'Company B', 'quote': 'Company "A" turned them over to Company "B" for production'}
Case Involvement: Turned its plans and specifications over to Company B for production, received Company B's relayed concern, replied that its engineers felt the design and specifications were adequate and safe, and directed that Company B should proceed to build the equipment as designed and specified.
[facts] "Company "A" replied that its engineers felt that the design and specifications for the equipment were adequate and safe and that Company "B" should proceed to build the equipment as designed and speci..."
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • actor: Company A
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • textReferences content: Company "A" turned them over to Company "B" for production; Company "B" should proceed to build the equipment as designed and specified
  • roleClass content: Client Role
  • roleKind content: participant
  • additionalRelationships content: {'type': 'commissionsProductionFrom', 'target': 'Company B', 'quote': 'Company "A" turned them over to Company "B" for production'}
  • caseInvolvement content: Turned its plans and specifications over to Company B for production, received Company B's relayed concern, replied that its engineers felt the design and specifications were adequate and safe, and directed that Company B should proceed to build the equipment as designed and specified.
  • confidence assessment: 0.85
Company A Employer
Employer Role
Linked
Employer Role
C160
Text References:
"Company "A" replied that its engineers felt that the design and specifications for the equipment were adequate and safe"
Confidence: 0.8
Actor: Company A
Role Class: Employer Role
Role Kind: participant
Case Involvement: Employs the engineers who prepared the plans and specifications for the machinery and conveyed on their behalf that the design and specifications for the equipment were adequate and safe.
[facts] "Company "A" replied that its engineers felt that the design and specifications for the equipment were adequate and safe and that Company "B" should proceed to build the equipment as designed and speci..."
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • actor: Company A
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • textReferences content: Company "A" replied that its engineers felt that the design and specifications for the equipment were adequate and safe
  • roleClass content: Employer Role
  • roleKind content: participant
  • caseInvolvement content: Employs the engineers who prepared the plans and specifications for the machinery and conveyed on their behalf that the design and specifications for the equipment were adequate and safe.
  • confidence assessment: 0.8
Company B Employer
Employer Role
Linked
Employer Role
C160
Text References:
"The engineers of Company "B" called the matter to the attention of appropriate officials of their employer"
"The officials of Company "B" instructed its engineers to proceed with the work."
Confidence: 0.85
Actor: Company B
Role Class: Employer Role
Role Kind: participant
Case Involvement: Employs the engineers who reviewed the plans and specifications; its officials received their safety concern, relayed it to Company A, and then instructed the engineers to proceed with the work.
[facts] "The officials of Company "B" instructed its engineers to proceed with the work."
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • actor: Company B
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • textReferences content: The engineers of Company "B" called the matter to the attention of appropriate officials of their employer; The officials of Company "B" instructed its engineers to proceed with the work.
  • roleClass content: Employer Role
  • roleKind content: participant
  • caseInvolvement content: Employs the engineers who reviewed the plans and specifications; its officials received their safety concern, relayed it to Company A, and then instructed the engineers to proceed with the work.
  • confidence assessment: 0.85
Linked
Public Role
C160
Text References:
"might endanger the lives of persons in proximity to it"
Confidence: 0.8
Actor: Persons in proximity to the equipment
Role Class: Public Role
Role Kind: participant
Case Involvement: Members of the public near the equipment whose lives might be endangered if the equipment is built according to the original plans and specifications.
[facts] "the equipment, if built according to the original plans and specifications, might endanger the lives of persons in proximity to it"
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • actor: Persons in proximity to the equipment
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • textReferences content: might endanger the lives of persons in proximity to it
  • roleClass content: Public Role
  • roleKind content: participant
  • caseInvolvement content: Members of the public near the equipment whose lives might be endangered if the equipment is built according to the original plans and specifications.
  • confidence assessment: 0.8

S States

States Classes
5
changed
Divergent Expert Opinion State
rdfs:subClassOf States
Linked
Divergent Expert Opinion State
C160
Definition
Extracted from facts primary
An epistemic condition in which qualified professionals examining the same technical question reach conflicting conclusions, here the engineers of Company B concluding the plans included miscalculations and deficiencies while the engineers of Company A felt the design and specifications were adequate and safe.
Inherited from DivergentExpertOpinionState · note
An epistemic condition in which qualified professionals, examining the same technical question, reach conflicting conclusions, here one engineer's studies indicating a series of low dams as the most efficient solution while another engineer's analysis indicates one high dam as more effective and less expensive, each criticizing the analysis and findings of the other.
Properties
Text References:
"Company "A" replied that its engineers felt that the design and specifications for the equipment were adequate and safe"
Confidence: 0.88
State Category: epistemic
Persistence Type: inertial
Activation Conditions: Company A replies that its engineers felt the design and specifications were adequate and safe after Company B engineers concluded they contained deficiencies
Termination Conditions: The technical disagreement is resolved through further review or correction of the design
Obligation Activation: Duty to resolve the safety question before proceeding with the work
Principle Transformation: The unresolved disagreement between the two engineering groups makes the abstract duty of technical honesty concrete as a question of whose conclusion governs whether the equipment is built as designed.
[facts] "Company "A" replied that its engineers felt that the design and specifications for the equipment were adequate and safe and that Company "B" should proceed to build the equipment as designed and speci..."
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • textReferences content: Company "A" replied that its engineers felt that the design and specifications for the equipment were adequate and safe
  • stateCategory content: epistemic
  • persistenceType content: inertial
  • principleTransformation content: The unresolved disagreement between the two engineering groups makes the abstract duty of technical honesty concrete as a question of whose conclusion governs whether the equipment is built as designed.
  • confidence assessment: 0.88
Derived (reconstructable from the graph)
  • activationConditions: Company A replies that its engineers felt the design and specifications were adequate and safe after Company B engineers concluded they contained deficiencies
  • terminationConditions: The technical disagreement is resolved through further review or correction of the design
  • obligationActivation: Duty to resolve the safety question before proceeding with the work
changed
Client Directive State
rdfs:subClassOf States
Review
Client Directive State
C160
Definition
Extracted from facts primary
A condition in which a client or employer has specifically instructed the professional in how to perform contracted work, here Company A directing that Company B should proceed to build the equipment as designed and specified, and the officials of Company B instructing its engineers to proceed with the work.
Inherited from ClientDirectiveState · note
A condition in which the client has specifically instructed the professional in how to perform contracted services, so the professional's conduct follows a client directive, here City leaders, citing economic, political, and social considerations, instructing Firm DBA to perform the public engagement sessions in the way Firm DBA completed them.
Properties
Text References:
"The officials of Company "B" instructed its engineers to proceed with the work."
Confidence: 0.85
State Category: regulatory
Persistence Type: inertial
Activation Conditions: Officials of Company B instruct its engineers to proceed with the work after Company A directs that the equipment be built as designed and specified
Termination Conditions: The instruction is withdrawn or the work is completed
Obligation Activation: Duty of the engineers to decide whether to proceed given their unresolved safety conclusion
Action Constraints: Instruction to proceed with the work as designed and specified
Principle Transformation: The instruction to proceed places the engineers' duty of obedience to their employer in concrete tension with their concluded finding that the equipment might endanger lives.
[facts] "Company "A" replied that its engineers felt that the design and specifications for the equipment were adequate and safe and that Company "B" should proceed to build the equipment as designed and speci..."
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • textReferences content: The officials of Company "B" instructed its engineers to proceed with the work.
  • stateCategory content: regulatory
  • persistenceType content: inertial
  • principleTransformation content: The instruction to proceed places the engineers' duty of obedience to their employer in concrete tension with their concluded finding that the equipment might endanger lives.
  • confidence assessment: 0.85
Derived (reconstructable from the graph)
  • activationConditions: Officials of Company B instruct its engineers to proceed with the work after Company A directs that the equipment be built as designed and specified
  • terminationConditions: The instruction is withdrawn or the work is completed
  • obligationActivation: Duty of the engineers to decide whether to proceed given their unresolved safety conclusion
  • actionConstraints: Instruction to proceed with the work as designed and specified
changed
UnquantifiedRiskState
rdfs:subClassOf States
Linked
Risk Finding State
C160
Definition
Extracted from facts primary
An epistemic condition in which a professional's identification of a risk has risen from preliminary concern to the level of a concluded technical finding, here the engineers of Company B concluding after review that the plans and specifications included certain miscalculations and technical deficiencies.
Inherited from RiskFindingState · note
An epistemic condition in which a professional's identification of a risk has risen from preliminary concern to the level of a concluded technical finding. Here Engineer Doe, after completing his studies, concludes that the plant discharge will lower the quality of the receiving body of water below established standards.
Properties
Text References:
"The engineers of Company "B" in reviewing the plans and specifications came to the conclusion that they included certain miscalculations and technical deficiencies"
Confidence: 0.9
State Category: epistemic
Persistence Type: inertial
Activation Conditions: Reviewing engineers conclude after examination that plans and specifications contain miscalculations and technical deficiencies
Termination Conditions: The deficiencies are corrected or the conclusion is shown to be mistaken
Obligation Activation: Duty to report the concern to appropriate officials of the employer
Principle Transformation: The engineers' concluded finding of deficiencies transforms the general duty of care into a concrete duty to call the matter to the attention of appropriate officials of their employer.
[facts] "The engineers of Company "B" in reviewing the plans and specifications came to the conclusion that they included certain miscalculations and technical deficiencies of a nature that the final product m..."
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • textReferences content: The engineers of Company "B" in reviewing the plans and specifications came to the conclusion that they included certain miscalculations and technical deficiencies
  • stateCategory content: epistemic
  • persistenceType content: inertial
  • principleTransformation content: The engineers' concluded finding of deficiencies transforms the general duty of care into a concrete duty to call the matter to the attention of appropriate officials of their employer.
  • confidence assessment: 0.9
Derived (reconstructable from the graph)
  • activationConditions: Reviewing engineers conclude after examination that plans and specifications contain miscalculations and technical deficiencies
  • terminationConditions: The deficiencies are corrected or the conclusion is shown to be mistaken
  • obligationActivation: Duty to report the concern to appropriate officials of the employer
changed
PublicSafetyRiskState
rdfs:subClassOf States
Linked
Public Safety Risk State
C160
Definition
Extracted from facts primary
A condition of hazard exposure in which persons face potential harm to life or safety, here the condition that the equipment, if built according to the original plans and specifications, might endanger the lives of persons in proximity to it.
Inherited from PublicSafetyRiskState · note
A condition of hazard exposure in which the public or a specific community faces potential harm to safety or welfare, such as flooding harm to residents.
Properties
Text References:
"the equipment, if built according to the original plans and specifications, might endanger the lives of persons in proximity to it"
Confidence: 0.92
State Category: risk
Persistence Type: inertial
Activation Conditions: Plans and specifications containing miscalculations and technical deficiencies are slated for production as designed
Termination Conditions: The design deficiencies are corrected before the equipment is built
Obligation Activation: Duty to hold paramount the safety of persons in proximity to the equipment
Action Constraints: Constraint against proceeding to build the equipment as designed without resolving the safety concern
Principle Transformation: The potential endangerment of lives converts the abstract paramountcy of public safety into a concrete condition bearing on whether the equipment should be built as designed and specified.
[facts] "the equipment, if built according to the original plans and specifications, might endanger the lives of persons in proximity to it"
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • textReferences content: the equipment, if built according to the original plans and specifications, might endanger the lives of persons in proximity to it
  • stateCategory content: risk
  • persistenceType content: inertial
  • principleTransformation content: The potential endangerment of lives converts the abstract paramountcy of public safety into a concrete condition bearing on whether the equipment should be built as designed and specified.
  • confidence assessment: 0.92
Derived (reconstructable from the graph)
  • activationConditions: Plans and specifications containing miscalculations and technical deficiencies are slated for production as designed
  • terminationConditions: The design deficiencies are corrected before the equipment is built
  • obligationActivation: Duty to hold paramount the safety of persons in proximity to the equipment
  • actionConstraints: Constraint against proceeding to build the equipment as designed without resolving the safety concern
changed
SelectiveReportingState
rdfs:subClassOf States
New C160
Definition
Extracted from facts primary
A disclosure condition in which a safety concern identified by reviewing engineers has been communicated through their employer to the originator of the design, so the information about the potential hazard is disclosed to the parties responsible for the design rather than withheld.
Properties
Text References:
"The engineers of Company "B" called the matter to the attention of appropriate officials of their employer who, in turn, advised Company "A" of the concern expressed by the engineers of Company "B"."
Confidence: 0.85
State Category: disclosure
Persistence Type: inertial
Activation Conditions: Reviewing engineers call the safety concern to the attention of appropriate officials of their employer, who advise the design originator
Termination Conditions: The concern is resolved by the design originator or withdrawn
Obligation Activation: Duty of the design originator to respond to the reported concern
Principle Transformation: Once the concern is disclosed to Company A, the abstract duty of candor is satisfied as to reporting, and the ethical question shifts to what follows from Company A's response.
[facts] "The engineers of Company "B" called the matter to the attention of appropriate officials of their employer who, in turn, advised Company "A" of the concern expressed by the engineers of Company "B"."
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • textReferences content: The engineers of Company "B" called the matter to the attention of appropriate officials of their employer who, in turn, advised Company "A" of the concern expressed by the engineers of Company "B".
  • stateCategory content: disclosure
  • persistenceType content: inertial
  • principleTransformation content: Once the concern is disclosed to Company A, the abstract duty of candor is satisfied as to reporting, and the ethical question shifts to what follows from Company A's response.
  • confidence assessment: 0.85
Derived (reconstructable from the graph)
  • activationConditions: Reviewing engineers call the safety concern to the attention of appropriate officials of their employer, who advise the design originator
  • terminationConditions: The concern is resolved by the design originator or withdrawn
  • obligationActivation: Duty of the design originator to respond to the reported concern
States Individuals
5
changed
New C160
Text References:
"The engineers of Company "B" called the matter to the attention of appropriate officials of their employer who, in turn, advised Company "A" of the concern expressed by the engineers of Company "B"."
Confidence: 0.87
State Class: Safety Concern Reported State
Subject: The safety concern expressed by the engineers of Company B
Active Period: From the engineers calling the matter to the attention of appropriate officials of their employer and Company A being advised of the concern onward
Triggering Event: The engineers of Company B call the matter to the attention of appropriate officials of their employer, who in turn advise Company A of the concern
Terminated By: Company A replies that its engineers felt the design and specifications were adequate and safe, closing the disclosure exchange without correction
Affected Parties:
  • Officials of Company B
  • Company A
  • Engineers of Company B
Urgency Level: medium
[facts] "The engineers of Company "B" called the matter to the attention of appropriate officials of their employer who, in turn, advised Company "A" of the concern expressed by the engineers of Company "B"."
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • textReferences content: The engineers of Company "B" called the matter to the attention of appropriate officials of their employer who, in turn, advised Company "A" of the concern expressed by the engineers of Company "B".
  • stateClass content: Safety Concern Reported State
  • subject content: The safety concern expressed by the engineers of Company B
  • activePeriod content: From the engineers calling the matter to the attention of appropriate officials of their employer and Company A being advised of the concern onward
  • triggeringEvent content: The engineers of Company B call the matter to the attention of appropriate officials of their employer, who in turn advise Company A of the concern
  • terminatedBy content: Company A replies that its engineers felt the design and specifications were adequate and safe, closing the disclosure exchange without correction
  • affectedParties content: Officials of Company B; Company A; Engineers of Company B
  • confidence assessment: 0.87
  • urgencyLevel assessment: medium
changed
Company B Deficiency Finding
Risk Finding State
Linked
Risk Finding State
C160
Text References:
"The engineers of Company "B" in reviewing the plans and specifications came to the conclusion that they included certain miscalculations and technical deficiencies"
Confidence: 0.92
State Class: Risk Finding State
Subject: Engineers of Company B
Active Period: From the completion of the engineers' review of the plans and specifications onward, unresolved at the end of the narrated facts
Triggering Event: The engineers of Company B review the plans and specifications and come to the conclusion that they include miscalculations and technical deficiencies
Terminated By: Not stated in the case; would end if the deficiencies were corrected or the conclusion disproven
Affected Parties:
  • Engineers of Company B
  • Company B
  • Company A
  • Ultimate users of the final product
Urgency Level: high
[facts] "The engineers of Company "B" in reviewing the plans and specifications came to the conclusion that they included certain miscalculations and technical deficiencies of a nature that the final product m..."
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • textReferences content: The engineers of Company "B" in reviewing the plans and specifications came to the conclusion that they included certain miscalculations and technical deficiencies
  • stateClass content: Risk Finding State
  • subject content: Engineers of Company B
  • activePeriod content: From the completion of the engineers' review of the plans and specifications onward, unresolved at the end of the narrated facts
  • triggeringEvent content: The engineers of Company B review the plans and specifications and come to the conclusion that they include miscalculations and technical deficiencies
  • terminatedBy content: Not stated in the case; would end if the deficiencies were corrected or the conclusion disproven
  • affectedParties content: Engineers of Company B; Company B; Company A; Ultimate users of the final product
  • confidence assessment: 0.92
  • urgencyLevel assessment: high
changed
Equipment Endangerment Risk
Public Safety Risk State
Linked
Public Safety Risk State
C160
Text References:
"the equipment, if built according to the original plans and specifications, might endanger the lives of persons in proximity to it"
Confidence: 0.93
State Class: Public Safety Risk State
Subject: The equipment as designed and the persons in proximity to it
Active Period: From the identification of the deficiencies onward, persisting while the equipment is slated to be built according to the original plans and specifications
Triggering Event: The engineers of Company B conclude that the plans and specifications include miscalculations and technical deficiencies such that the equipment might endanger lives
Terminated By: Not stated in the case; would end if the design deficiencies were corrected before the equipment is built
Affected Parties:
  • Persons in proximity to the equipment
  • Ultimate users of the final product
Urgency Level: high
[facts] "the equipment, if built according to the original plans and specifications, might endanger the lives of persons in proximity to it"
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • textReferences content: the equipment, if built according to the original plans and specifications, might endanger the lives of persons in proximity to it
  • stateClass content: Public Safety Risk State
  • subject content: The equipment as designed and the persons in proximity to it
  • activePeriod content: From the identification of the deficiencies onward, persisting while the equipment is slated to be built according to the original plans and specifications
  • triggeringEvent content: The engineers of Company B conclude that the plans and specifications include miscalculations and technical deficiencies such that the equipment might endanger lives
  • terminatedBy content: Not stated in the case; would end if the design deficiencies were corrected before the equipment is built
  • affectedParties content: Persons in proximity to the equipment; Ultimate users of the final product
  • confidence assessment: 0.93
  • urgencyLevel assessment: high
changed
Conflicting Engineering Conclusions
Divergent Expert Opinion State
Linked
Divergent Expert Opinion State
C160
Text References:
"Company "A" replied that its engineers felt that the design and specifications for the equipment were adequate and safe"
Confidence: 0.88
State Class: Divergent Expert Opinion State
Subject: The engineers of Company A and the engineers of Company B with respect to the adequacy and safety of the plans and specifications
Active Period: From Company A's reply that its engineers felt the design was adequate and safe onward, unresolved at the end of the narrated facts
Triggering Event: Company A replies that its engineers felt the design and specifications for the equipment were adequate and safe
Terminated By: Not stated in the case; would end if the technical disagreement were resolved
Affected Parties:
  • Engineers of Company A
  • Engineers of Company B
  • Company A
  • Company B
  • Persons in proximity to the equipment
Urgency Level: high
[facts] "Company "A" replied that its engineers felt that the design and specifications for the equipment were adequate and safe and that Company "B" should proceed to build the equipment as designed and speci..."
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • textReferences content: Company "A" replied that its engineers felt that the design and specifications for the equipment were adequate and safe
  • stateClass content: Divergent Expert Opinion State
  • subject content: The engineers of Company A and the engineers of Company B with respect to the adequacy and safety of the plans and specifications
  • activePeriod content: From Company A's reply that its engineers felt the design was adequate and safe onward, unresolved at the end of the narrated facts
  • triggeringEvent content: Company A replies that its engineers felt the design and specifications for the equipment were adequate and safe
  • terminatedBy content: Not stated in the case; would end if the technical disagreement were resolved
  • affectedParties content: Engineers of Company A; Engineers of Company B; Company A; Company B; Persons in proximity to the equipment
  • confidence assessment: 0.88
  • urgencyLevel assessment: high
changed
Proceed Instruction Despite Concern
Client Directive State
Review
Client Directive State
C160
Text References:
"The officials of Company "B" instructed its engineers to proceed with the work."
Confidence: 0.9
State Class: Client Directive State
Subject: Engineers of Company B under instruction from the officials of Company B, following Company A's direction to build as designed and specified
Active Period: From the officials of Company B instructing the engineers to proceed onward, in force at the end of the narrated facts
Triggering Event: The officials of Company B instruct its engineers to proceed with the work after Company A directs that the equipment be built as designed and specified
Terminated By: Not stated in the case; would end if the instruction were withdrawn or the work completed
Affected Parties:
  • Engineers of Company B
  • Company B
  • Company A
  • Persons in proximity to the equipment
Urgency Level: high
[facts] "Company "A" replied that its engineers felt that the design and specifications for the equipment were adequate and safe and that Company "B" should proceed to build the equipment as designed and speci..."
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • textReferences content: The officials of Company "B" instructed its engineers to proceed with the work.
  • stateClass content: Client Directive State
  • subject content: Engineers of Company B under instruction from the officials of Company B, following Company A's direction to build as designed and specified
  • activePeriod content: From the officials of Company B instructing the engineers to proceed onward, in force at the end of the narrated facts
  • triggeringEvent content: The officials of Company B instruct its engineers to proceed with the work after Company A directs that the equipment be built as designed and specified
  • terminatedBy content: Not stated in the case; would end if the instruction were withdrawn or the work completed
  • affectedParties content: Engineers of Company B; Company B; Company A; Persons in proximity to the equipment
  • confidence assessment: 0.9
  • urgencyLevel assessment: high

Rs Resources

Resources Classes
1
changed
Reference Material
rdfs:subClassOf Resources
Linked
Reference Material
C160
Definition
Extracted from facts primary
Engineering documentation such as design plans and specifications that supports professional practice and is consulted by engineers in performing and reviewing technical work.
Inherited from ReferenceMaterial · note
Handbooks, manuals, guides, and other documentation supporting professional practice with technical and procedural knowledge.
Properties
Text References:
"Engineers of Company "A" prepared plans and specifications for machinery to be used in a manufacturing process"
"The engineers of Company "B" in reviewing the plans and specifications came to the conclusion that they included certain miscalculations and technical deficiencies"
Confidence: 0.85
Resource Category: reference_material
[facts] "Engineers of Company "A" prepared plans and specifications for machinery to be used in a manufacturing process and Company "A" turned them over to Company "B" for production."
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • textReferences content: Engineers of Company "A" prepared plans and specifications for machinery to be used in a manufacturing process; The engineers of Company "B" in reviewing the plans and specifications came to the conclusion that they included certain miscalculations and technical deficiencies
  • resourceCategory content: reference_material
  • confidence assessment: 0.85
Resources Individuals
1
Linked
Reference Material
C160
Text References:
"Engineers of Company "A" prepared plans and specifications for machinery to be used in a manufacturing process and Company "A" turned them over to Company "B" for production."
"The engineers of Company "B" in reviewing the plans and specifications came to the conclusion that they included certain miscalculations and technical deficiencies"
Confidence: 0.88
Resource Class: Reference Material
Document Title: plans and specifications for machinery to be used in a manufacturing process
Topic: design of machinery for a manufacturing process
Used By: Engineers of Company B
[facts] "Engineers of Company "A" prepared plans and specifications for machinery to be used in a manufacturing process and Company "A" turned them over to Company "B" for production. The engineers of Company ..."
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • usedBy: Engineers of Company B
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • textReferences content: Engineers of Company "A" prepared plans and specifications for machinery to be used in a manufacturing process and Company "A" turned them over to Company "B" for production.; The engineers of Company "B" in reviewing the plans and specifications came to the conclusion that they included certain miscalculations and technical deficiencies
  • resourceClass content: Reference Material
  • documentTitle content: plans and specifications for machinery to be used in a manufacturing process
  • topic content: design of machinery for a manufacturing process
  • confidence assessment: 0.88
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