This page shows the pre-commit working store (the raw extraction under review). This case was committed to OntServe on 2026-07-25 16:25; the committed record differs by design (deduplication, typing, and agent binding are applied at commit). View the committed record
Overview
Provenance Draft

PASS 3: Temporal Dynamics

Case 168: Supplanting - Promotion of Work by Former Employees

35 entities 7 actions 4 events 9 causal chains 14 temporal relations
Timeline Overview
Action Event 11 sequenced markers
Firm Policy Disagreement Before the four engineers left Firm A
Simultaneous Resignation At the outset of the case, following the policy disagreement
New Firm Formation Promptly after leaving Firm A
Client Solicitation Promptly after organizing Firm B
Client Retention Outreach Concurrent with Firm B's client contacts
Disparagement of Competitor During Firm B's contacts with former clients
Counter-Disparagement of Competitor During Engineer A's discussions with former clients
Ethics Protest Filing After Firm B's solicitation of former clients
Key Personnel Loss At the time the four engineers left Firm A
Specialized Knowledge Acquisition During the four engineers' employment with Firm A
Disparagement Disclosure During the period of parallel client solicitation
OWL-Time Temporal Structure 14 relations time: = w3.org/2006/time
policy disagreement time:intervalBefore resignation of the four engineers
four engineers' individual resignations time:intervalEquals each other's resignations
resignation of the four engineers time:intervalMeets organization of Firm B
organization of Firm B time:intervalMeets Firm B contacting former clients of Firm A
engineers' involvement with Firm A's clients time:intervalDuring engineers' employment at Firm A
projects under discussion (no selection or negotiation yet) time:intervalOverlaps Firm B's client contacts
Firm B's solicitation contacts time:intervalEquals Engineer A's contacts with former clients
departure of the four engineers time:intervalBefore Engineer A's assurances to clients of continued capability
possible internal discussions about soliciting Firm A's clients time:intervalDuring engineers' employment at Firm A
Firm B casting doubt on Engineer A's ability time:intervalDuring period of parallel solicitation
Engineer A expressing doubt about Firm B's qualifications time:intervalDuring period of parallel solicitation
mutual disparagement by A and B time:intervalBefore Engineer A's ethics protest
Engineer A's ethics protest time:intervalBefore Board's retrospective analysis
engineers' promotional efforts/negotiations with A's clients time:intervalAfter engineers' employment at Firm A
Extracted Actions (7)
Volitional professional decisions with intentions and ethical context

Description: Four key engineering employees left Engineer A's firm at the same time following disagreement over firm policies.

Temporal Marker: At the outset of the case, following the policy disagreement instant

Fluent Transitions:
Initiates (1)
  • Departure from Firm A
Terminates (1)
  • Employment with Firm A

Mental State: deliberate

Intended Outcome: Separate from Firm A after irreconcilable disagreement on firm policies

Foreseen Unintended Effects:

  • Reduction of Firm A's engineering capacity
  • Strained relations with Engineer A
Required Capabilities:
Professional judgment
Within Competence: Yes
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • requiresCapability: Professional judgment
  • initiates: Departure from Firm A
  • terminates: Employment with Firm A
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • description content: Four key engineering employees left Engineer A's firm at the same time following disagreement over firm policies.
  • hasAgent content: Four engineers
  • temporalMarker content: At the outset of the case, following the policy disagreement
  • eventRoleContext content: key engineering employees of Firm A
  • hasMentalState content: deliberate
  • intendedOutcome content: Separate from Firm A after irreconcilable disagreement on firm policies
  • foreseenUnintendedEffects content: Reduction of Firm A's engineering capacity; Strained relations with Engineer A
  • textReferences content: Four of the key engineering employees of a firm headed by Engineer A left the firm at the same time following disagreement on certain firm policies
  • temporalExtent content: instant
  • temporalSequence content: 3
  • withinCompetence assessment: True
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/168#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#",
    "time": "http://www.w3.org/2006/time#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/168#Action_Simultaneous_Resignation",
  "@type": "proeth:Action",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-12T07:30:58.901903+00:00",
  "proeth:description": "Four key engineering employees left Engineer A\u0027s firm at the same time following disagreement over firm policies.",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "facts",
  "proeth:eventRoleContext": "key engineering employees of Firm A",
  "proeth:foreseenUnintendedEffects": [
    "Reduction of Firm A\u0027s engineering capacity",
    "Strained relations with Engineer A"
  ],
  "proeth:hasAgent": "Four engineers",
  "proeth:hasMentalState": "deliberate",
  "proeth:initiates": [
    "Departure from Firm A"
  ],
  "proeth:intendedOutcome": "Separate from Firm A after irreconcilable disagreement on firm policies",
  "proeth:requiresCapability": [
    "Professional judgment"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalExtent": "instant",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "At the outset of the case, following the policy disagreement",
  "proeth:temporalSequence": 3,
  "proeth:terminates": [
    "Employment with Firm A"
  ],
  "proeth:textReferences": [
    "Four of the key engineering employees of a firm headed by Engineer A left the firm at the same time following disagreement on certain firm policies"
  ],
  "proeth:withinCompetence": true,
  "rdfs:label": "Simultaneous Resignation"
}

Description: The four departing engineers promptly organized a new engineering firm, Firm B, with themselves as the principals.

Temporal Marker: Promptly after leaving Firm A instant

Fluent Transitions:
Initiates (1)
  • Competitive Rivalry Between Firm A and Firm B

Mental State: deliberate

Intended Outcome: Establish an independent practice to serve clients as principals

Foreseen Unintended Effects:

  • Direct competition with former employer Firm A
Guided By Principles:
  • Fair Competition
Required Capabilities:
Engineering practice management Professional judgment
Within Competence: Yes
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • guidedByPrinciple: Fair Competition
  • requiresCapability: Engineering practice management; Professional judgment
  • initiates: Competitive Rivalry Between Firm A and Firm B
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • description content: The four departing engineers promptly organized a new engineering firm, Firm B, with themselves as the principals.
  • hasAgent content: Four engineers
  • temporalMarker content: Promptly after leaving Firm A
  • eventRoleContext content: former employees of Firm A, principals of Firm B
  • hasMentalState content: deliberate
  • intendedOutcome content: Establish an independent practice to serve clients as principals
  • foreseenUnintendedEffects content: Direct competition with former employer Firm A
  • textReferences content: promptly organized a new engineering firm, B, with the four engineers as the principals
  • temporalExtent content: instant
  • temporalSequence content: 5
  • withinCompetence assessment: True
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/168#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#",
    "time": "http://www.w3.org/2006/time#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/168#Action_New_Firm_Formation",
  "@type": "proeth:Action",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-12T07:30:58.902018+00:00",
  "proeth:description": "The four departing engineers promptly organized a new engineering firm, Firm B, with themselves as the principals.",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "facts",
  "proeth:eventRoleContext": "former employees of Firm A, principals of Firm B",
  "proeth:foreseenUnintendedEffects": [
    "Direct competition with former employer Firm A"
  ],
  "proeth:guidedByPrinciple": [
    "Fair Competition"
  ],
  "proeth:hasAgent": "Four engineers",
  "proeth:hasMentalState": "deliberate",
  "proeth:initiates": [
    "Competitive Rivalry Between Firm A and Firm B"
  ],
  "proeth:intendedOutcome": "Establish an independent practice to serve clients as principals",
  "proeth:requiresCapability": [
    "Engineering practice management",
    "Professional judgment"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalExtent": "instant",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "Promptly after leaving Firm A",
  "proeth:temporalSequence": 5,
  "proeth:textReferences": [
    "promptly organized a new engineering firm, B, with the four engineers as the principals"
  ],
  "proeth:withinCompetence": true,
  "rdfs:label": "New Firm Formation"
}

Description: Firm B promptly contacted the former clients of Firm A, including clients with projects under discussion with Firm A for which no specific selection or negotiation had taken place, to indicate the new firm's availability for assignments.

Temporal Marker: Promptly after organizing Firm B interval

Fluent Transitions:
Initiates (2)
  • Parallel Solicitation of Former Clients
  • Use of Specialized Project Knowledge Concern

Mental State: deliberate

Intended Outcome: Secure engineering assignments and commissions from Firm A's former clients for the new firm

Foreseen Unintended Effects:

  • Diversion of prospective work away from Firm A
  • Conflict with Engineer A over the same client pool
Guided By Principles:
  • Fair Competition
Required Capabilities:
Business development Client relations
Within Competence: Yes
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • guidedByPrinciple: Fair Competition
  • requiresCapability: Business development; Client relations
  • initiates: Parallel Solicitation of Former Clients; Use of Specialized Project Knowledge Concern
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • description content: Firm B promptly contacted the former clients of Firm A, including clients with projects under discussion with Firm A for which no specific selection or negotiation had taken place, to indicate the new firm's availability for assignments.
  • hasAgent content: Four engineers
  • temporalMarker content: Promptly after organizing Firm B
  • eventRoleContext content: principals of Firm B
  • hasMentalState content: deliberate
  • intendedOutcome content: Secure engineering assignments and commissions from Firm A's former clients for the new firm
  • foreseenUnintendedEffects content: Diversion of prospective work away from Firm A; Conflict with Engineer A over the same client pool
  • textReferences content: Firm B promptly contacted the former clients of Firm A, including some former clients of Firm A which had projects under discussion with Firm A, but for which specific selection or negotiation had not taken place; While Firm B was making these contacts to indicate the availability of the new firm for assignments from the former clients
  • temporalExtent content: interval
  • temporalSequence content: 6
  • withinCompetence assessment: True
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/168#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#",
    "time": "http://www.w3.org/2006/time#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/168#Action_Client_Solicitation",
  "@type": "proeth:Action",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-12T07:30:58.902058+00:00",
  "proeth:description": "Firm B promptly contacted the former clients of Firm A, including clients with projects under discussion with Firm A for which no specific selection or negotiation had taken place, to indicate the new firm\u0027s availability for assignments.",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "facts",
  "proeth:eventRoleContext": "principals of Firm B",
  "proeth:foreseenUnintendedEffects": [
    "Diversion of prospective work away from Firm A",
    "Conflict with Engineer A over the same client pool"
  ],
  "proeth:guidedByPrinciple": [
    "Fair Competition"
  ],
  "proeth:hasAgent": "Four engineers",
  "proeth:hasMentalState": "deliberate",
  "proeth:initiates": [
    "Parallel Solicitation of Former Clients",
    "Use of Specialized Project Knowledge Concern"
  ],
  "proeth:intendedOutcome": "Secure engineering assignments and commissions from Firm A\u0027s former clients for the new firm",
  "proeth:requiresCapability": [
    "Business development",
    "Client relations"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalExtent": "interval",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "Promptly after organizing Firm B",
  "proeth:temporalSequence": 6,
  "proeth:textReferences": [
    "Firm B promptly contacted the former clients of Firm A, including some former clients of Firm A which had projects under discussion with Firm A, but for which specific selection or negotiation had not taken place",
    "While Firm B was making these contacts to indicate the availability of the new firm for assignments from the former clients"
  ],
  "proeth:withinCompetence": true,
  "rdfs:label": "Client Solicitation"
}

Description: Engineer A contacted the same former clients to indicate that his firm remained available for future commissions and retained its capacity to provide proper services despite the departure of the four engineers.

Temporal Marker: Concurrent with Firm B's client contacts interval

Fluent Transitions:
Initiates (1)
  • Parallel Solicitation of Former Clients

Mental State: deliberate

Intended Outcome: Retain former clients and reassure them of Firm A's continued capacity despite losing four key engineers

Foreseen Unintended Effects:

  • Escalation of competitive tension with Firm B
Guided By Principles:
  • Fair Competition
Required Capabilities:
Client relations Business development
Within Competence: Yes
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • guidedByPrinciple: Fair Competition
  • requiresCapability: Client relations; Business development
  • initiates: Parallel Solicitation of Former Clients
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • description content: Engineer A contacted the same former clients to indicate that his firm remained available for future commissions and retained its capacity to provide proper services despite the departure of the four engineers.
  • hasAgent content: Engineer A
  • temporalMarker content: Concurrent with Firm B's client contacts
  • eventRoleContext content: head of Firm A
  • hasMentalState content: deliberate
  • intendedOutcome content: Retain former clients and reassure them of Firm A's continued capacity despite losing four key engineers
  • foreseenUnintendedEffects content: Escalation of competitive tension with Firm B
  • textReferences content: Engineer A was also making contact with the former clients to indicate that his firm was still available for future commissions and retained its capacity to provide proper services despite the departure of the four engineers
  • temporalExtent content: interval
  • temporalSequence content: 7
  • withinCompetence assessment: True
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/168#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#",
    "time": "http://www.w3.org/2006/time#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/168#Action_Client_Retention_Outreach",
  "@type": "proeth:Action",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-12T07:30:58.902088+00:00",
  "proeth:description": "Engineer A contacted the same former clients to indicate that his firm remained available for future commissions and retained its capacity to provide proper services despite the departure of the four engineers.",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "facts",
  "proeth:eventRoleContext": "head of Firm A",
  "proeth:foreseenUnintendedEffects": [
    "Escalation of competitive tension with Firm B"
  ],
  "proeth:guidedByPrinciple": [
    "Fair Competition"
  ],
  "proeth:hasAgent": "Engineer A",
  "proeth:hasMentalState": "deliberate",
  "proeth:initiates": [
    "Parallel Solicitation of Former Clients"
  ],
  "proeth:intendedOutcome": "Retain former clients and reassure them of Firm A\u0027s continued capacity despite losing four key engineers",
  "proeth:requiresCapability": [
    "Client relations",
    "Business development"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalExtent": "interval",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "Concurrent with Firm B\u0027s client contacts",
  "proeth:temporalSequence": 7,
  "proeth:textReferences": [
    "Engineer A was also making contact with the former clients to indicate that his firm was still available for future commissions and retained its capacity to provide proper services despite the departure of the four engineers"
  ],
  "proeth:withinCompetence": true,
  "rdfs:label": "Client Retention Outreach"
}

Description: During its client contacts, Firm B cast doubt on Engineer A's ability to provide quality services.

Temporal Marker: During Firm B's contacts with former clients interval

Fluent Transitions:
Initiates (2)
  • Mutual Disparagement Between A and B
  • Injury to Engineer A's Professional Prospects

Mental State: intentional, motivated by self-interest to injure the prospects of Engineer A

Intended Outcome: Persuade former clients to select Firm B over Firm A

Foreseen Unintended Effects:

  • Injury to Engineer A's professional reputation and prospects
Obligation Engagement:
Violates (1)
  • Duty Not to Injure Another Engineer's Reputation (Section 12)
Within Competence: No
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • violatesObligation: Duty Not to Injure Another Engineer's Reputation (Section 12)
  • initiates: Mutual Disparagement Between A and B; Injury to Engineer A's Professional Prospects
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • description content: During its client contacts, Firm B cast doubt on Engineer A's ability to provide quality services.
  • hasAgent content: Four engineers
  • temporalMarker content: During Firm B's contacts with former clients
  • eventRoleContext content: principals of Firm B
  • hasMentalState content: intentional, motivated by self-interest to injure the prospects of Engineer A
  • intendedOutcome content: Persuade former clients to select Firm B over Firm A
  • foreseenUnintendedEffects content: Injury to Engineer A's professional reputation and prospects
  • textReferences content: he was told by the clients that Firm B had cast doubt on the ability of A to provide quality services; the motivation and intent of both A and the four engineers of Firm B were to injure the prospects of the other
  • temporalExtent content: interval
  • temporalSequence content: 8
  • withinCompetence assessment: False
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/168#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#",
    "time": "http://www.w3.org/2006/time#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/168#Action_Disparagement_of_Competitor",
  "@type": "proeth:Action",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-12T07:30:58.902113+00:00",
  "proeth:description": "During its client contacts, Firm B cast doubt on Engineer A\u0027s ability to provide quality services.",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "facts",
  "proeth:eventRoleContext": "principals of Firm B",
  "proeth:foreseenUnintendedEffects": [
    "Injury to Engineer A\u0027s professional reputation and prospects"
  ],
  "proeth:fulfillsObligation": [],
  "proeth:hasAgent": "Four engineers",
  "proeth:hasMentalState": "intentional, motivated by self-interest to injure the prospects of Engineer A",
  "proeth:initiates": [
    "Mutual Disparagement Between A and B",
    "Injury to Engineer A\u0027s Professional Prospects"
  ],
  "proeth:intendedOutcome": "Persuade former clients to select Firm B over Firm A",
  "proeth:raisesObligation": [],
  "proeth:temporalExtent": "interval",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "During Firm B\u0027s contacts with former clients",
  "proeth:temporalSequence": 8,
  "proeth:textReferences": [
    "he was told by the clients that Firm B had cast doubt on the ability of A to provide quality services",
    "the motivation and intent of both A and the four engineers of Firm B were to injure the prospects of the other"
  ],
  "proeth:violatesObligation": [
    "Duty Not to Injure Another Engineer\u0027s Reputation (Section 12)"
  ],
  "proeth:withinCompetence": false,
  "rdfs:label": "Disparagement of Competitor"
}

Description: In his discussions with the former clients, Engineer A indicated doubt that Firm B was qualified to provide quality services.

Temporal Marker: During Engineer A's discussions with former clients interval

Fluent Transitions:
Initiates (2)
  • Mutual Disparagement Between A and B
  • Injury to Firm B's Professional Prospects

Mental State: intentional, motivated by self-interest to injure the prospects of Firm B

Intended Outcome: Persuade former clients to retain Firm A rather than engage Firm B

Foreseen Unintended Effects:

  • Injury to Firm B's professional reputation and prospects
Obligation Engagement:
Violates (1)
  • Duty Not to Injure Another Engineer's Reputation (Section 12)
Within Competence: No
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • violatesObligation: Duty Not to Injure Another Engineer's Reputation (Section 12)
  • initiates: Mutual Disparagement Between A and B; Injury to Firm B's Professional Prospects
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • description content: In his discussions with the former clients, Engineer A indicated doubt that Firm B was qualified to provide quality services.
  • hasAgent content: Engineer A
  • temporalMarker content: During Engineer A's discussions with former clients
  • eventRoleContext content: head of Firm A
  • hasMentalState content: intentional, motivated by self-interest to injure the prospects of Firm B
  • intendedOutcome content: Persuade former clients to retain Firm A rather than engage Firm B
  • foreseenUnintendedEffects content: Injury to Firm B's professional reputation and prospects
  • textReferences content: In his discussions with the former clients Engineer A indicated doubt that Firm B was qualified to provide quality services
  • temporalExtent content: interval
  • temporalSequence content: 10
  • withinCompetence assessment: False
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/168#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#",
    "time": "http://www.w3.org/2006/time#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/168#Action_Counter-Disparagement_of_Competitor",
  "@type": "proeth:Action",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-12T07:30:58.902139+00:00",
  "proeth:description": "In his discussions with the former clients, Engineer A indicated doubt that Firm B was qualified to provide quality services.",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "facts",
  "proeth:eventRoleContext": "head of Firm A",
  "proeth:foreseenUnintendedEffects": [
    "Injury to Firm B\u0027s professional reputation and prospects"
  ],
  "proeth:fulfillsObligation": [],
  "proeth:hasAgent": "Engineer A",
  "proeth:hasMentalState": "intentional, motivated by self-interest to injure the prospects of Firm B",
  "proeth:initiates": [
    "Mutual Disparagement Between A and B",
    "Injury to Firm B\u0027s Professional Prospects"
  ],
  "proeth:intendedOutcome": "Persuade former clients to retain Firm A rather than engage Firm B",
  "proeth:raisesObligation": [],
  "proeth:temporalExtent": "interval",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "During Engineer A\u0027s discussions with former clients",
  "proeth:temporalSequence": 10,
  "proeth:textReferences": [
    "In his discussions with the former clients Engineer A indicated doubt that Firm B was qualified to provide quality services"
  ],
  "proeth:violatesObligation": [
    "Duty Not to Injure Another Engineer\u0027s Reputation (Section 12)"
  ],
  "proeth:withinCompetence": false,
  "rdfs:label": "Counter-Disparagement of Competitor"
}

Description: Engineer A protested the actions of the four engineers on ethical grounds, alleging that they violated the rule against supplanting.

Temporal Marker: After Firm B's solicitation of former clients instant

Fluent Transitions:
Initiates (1)
  • Ethics Dispute Under Board Review

Mental State: deliberate

Intended Outcome: Obtain an ethical determination that the four engineers violated the supplanting rule and halt their solicitation of his former clients

Foreseen Unintended Effects:

  • Formal ethics review of both parties' conduct
Obligation Engagement:
Fulfills (1)
  • Duty to Present Information of Unethical Practice to Proper Authority (Section 12)
Required Capabilities:
Knowledge of the code of ethics
Within Competence: Yes
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • fulfillsObligation: Duty to Present Information of Unethical Practice to Proper Authority (Section 12)
  • requiresCapability: Knowledge of the code of ethics
  • initiates: Ethics Dispute Under Board Review
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • description content: Engineer A protested the actions of the four engineers on ethical grounds, alleging that they violated the rule against supplanting.
  • hasAgent content: Engineer A
  • temporalMarker content: After Firm B's solicitation of former clients
  • eventRoleContext content: head of Firm A
  • hasMentalState content: deliberate
  • intendedOutcome content: Obtain an ethical determination that the four engineers violated the supplanting rule and halt their solicitation of his former clients
  • foreseenUnintendedEffects content: Formal ethics review of both parties' conduct
  • textReferences content: Engineer A has protested the action of the four engineers on ethical grounds, alleging that they violated the rule against supplanting
  • temporalExtent content: instant
  • temporalSequence content: 11
  • withinCompetence assessment: True
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/168#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#",
    "time": "http://www.w3.org/2006/time#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/168#Action_Ethics_Protest_Filing",
  "@type": "proeth:Action",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-12T07:30:58.902162+00:00",
  "proeth:description": "Engineer A protested the actions of the four engineers on ethical grounds, alleging that they violated the rule against supplanting.",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "facts",
  "proeth:eventRoleContext": "head of Firm A",
  "proeth:foreseenUnintendedEffects": [
    "Formal ethics review of both parties\u0027 conduct"
  ],
  "proeth:fulfillsObligation": [
    "Duty to Present Information of Unethical Practice to Proper Authority (Section 12)"
  ],
  "proeth:hasAgent": "Engineer A",
  "proeth:hasMentalState": "deliberate",
  "proeth:initiates": [
    "Ethics Dispute Under Board Review"
  ],
  "proeth:intendedOutcome": "Obtain an ethical determination that the four engineers violated the supplanting rule and halt their solicitation of his former clients",
  "proeth:raisesObligation": [],
  "proeth:requiresCapability": [
    "Knowledge of the code of ethics"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalExtent": "instant",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "After Firm B\u0027s solicitation of former clients",
  "proeth:temporalSequence": 11,
  "proeth:textReferences": [
    "Engineer A has protested the action of the four engineers on ethical grounds, alleging that they violated the rule against supplanting"
  ],
  "proeth:violatesObligation": [],
  "proeth:withinCompetence": true,
  "rdfs:label": "Ethics Protest Filing"
}
Extracted Events (4)
Occurrences that trigger ethical considerations and state changes

Description: A disagreement arose between Engineer A and four key engineering employees over certain firm policies, precipitating the engineers' simultaneous departure.

Temporal Marker: Before the four engineers left Firm A interval

Fluent Transitions:
Initiates (1)
  • Firm Policy Disagreement State
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • initiates: Firm Policy Disagreement State
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • description content: A disagreement arose between Engineer A and four key engineering employees over certain firm policies, precipitating the engineers' simultaneous departure.
  • temporalMarker content: Before the four engineers left Firm A
  • textReferences content: left the firm at the same time following disagreement on certain firm policies
  • eventType content: exogenous
  • temporalExtent content: interval
  • temporalSequence content: 1
  • confidence assessment: 0.8
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/168#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#",
    "time": "http://www.w3.org/2006/time#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/168#Event_Firm_Policy_Disagreement",
  "@type": "proeth:Event",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-12T07:30:58.902243+00:00",
  "proeth:confidence": "0.8",
  "proeth:description": "A disagreement arose between Engineer A and four key engineering employees over certain firm policies, precipitating the engineers\u0027 simultaneous departure.",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "facts",
  "proeth:eventType": "exogenous",
  "proeth:initiates": [
    "Firm Policy Disagreement State"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalExtent": "interval",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "Before the four engineers left Firm A",
  "proeth:temporalSequence": 1,
  "proeth:textReferences": [
    "left the firm at the same time following disagreement on certain firm policies"
  ],
  "rdfs:label": "Firm Policy Disagreement"
}

Description: Through their involvement with Engineer A's clients on specific projects under consideration while employed by Firm A, one or more of the four engineers gained particular and specialized knowledge relevant to those projects.

Temporal Marker: During the four engineers' employment with Firm A interval

Fluent Transitions:
Initiates (1)
  • Specialized Project Knowledge State
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • initiates: Specialized Project Knowledge State
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • description content: Through their involvement with Engineer A's clients on specific projects under consideration while employed by Firm A, one or more of the four engineers gained particular and specialized knowledge relevant to those projects.
  • temporalMarker content: During the four engineers' employment with Firm A
  • textReferences content: In some instances one or more of the four engineers had been involved with the former clients of Engineer A while in his employ; a specific project for which the employed engineer has gained particular and specialized knowledge
  • eventType content: outcome
  • temporalExtent content: interval
  • temporalSequence content: 2
  • confidence assessment: 0.78
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/168#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#",
    "time": "http://www.w3.org/2006/time#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/168#Event_Specialized_Knowledge_Acquisition",
  "@type": "proeth:Event",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-12T07:30:58.902302+00:00",
  "proeth:confidence": "0.78",
  "proeth:description": "Through their involvement with Engineer A\u0027s clients on specific projects under consideration while employed by Firm A, one or more of the four engineers gained particular and specialized knowledge relevant to those projects.",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "discussion",
  "proeth:eventType": "outcome",
  "proeth:initiates": [
    "Specialized Project Knowledge State"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalExtent": "interval",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "During the four engineers\u0027 employment with Firm A",
  "proeth:temporalSequence": 2,
  "proeth:textReferences": [
    "In some instances one or more of the four engineers had been involved with the former clients of Engineer A while in his employ",
    "a specific project for which the employed engineer has gained particular and specialized knowledge"
  ],
  "rdfs:label": "Specialized Knowledge Acquisition"
}

Description: Firm A lost four of its key engineering employees at once, creating the competitive situation in which both firms solicited the same former clients and prompting Engineer A to reassure clients of his firm's retained capacity.

Temporal Marker: At the time the four engineers left Firm A instant

Fluent Transitions:
Initiates (2)
  • Firm A Reduced Personnel State
  • Competitive Rivalry State
Terminates (1)
  • Employment Relationship State

Caused By Action: Action_Simultaneous_Resignation

Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • causedByAction: http://proethica.org/ontology/case/168#Action_Simultaneous_Resignation
  • initiates: Firm A Reduced Personnel State; Competitive Rivalry State
  • terminates: Employment Relationship State
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • description content: Firm A lost four of its key engineering employees at once, creating the competitive situation in which both firms solicited the same former clients and prompting Engineer A to reassure clients of his firm's retained capacity.
  • temporalMarker content: At the time the four engineers left Firm A
  • textReferences content: Four of the key engineering employees of a firm headed by Engineer A left the firm at the same time; retained its capacity to provide proper services despite the departure of the four engineers
  • eventType content: outcome
  • temporalExtent content: instant
  • temporalSequence content: 4
  • confidence assessment: 0.85
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/168#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#",
    "time": "http://www.w3.org/2006/time#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/168#Event_Key_Personnel_Loss",
  "@type": "proeth:Event",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-12T07:30:58.902278+00:00",
  "proeth:causedByAction": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/168#Action_Simultaneous_Resignation",
  "proeth:confidence": "0.85",
  "proeth:description": "Firm A lost four of its key engineering employees at once, creating the competitive situation in which both firms solicited the same former clients and prompting Engineer A to reassure clients of his firm\u0027s retained capacity.",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "facts",
  "proeth:eventType": "outcome",
  "proeth:initiates": [
    "Firm A Reduced Personnel State",
    "Competitive Rivalry State"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalExtent": "instant",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "At the time the four engineers left Firm A",
  "proeth:temporalSequence": 4,
  "proeth:terminates": [
    "Employment Relationship State"
  ],
  "proeth:textReferences": [
    "Four of the key engineering employees of a firm headed by Engineer A left the firm at the same time",
    "retained its capacity to provide proper services despite the departure of the four engineers"
  ],
  "rdfs:label": "Key Personnel Loss"
}

Description: Engineer A was told by the former clients that Firm B had cast doubt on his firm's ability to provide quality services, making him aware of the disparagement against him.

Temporal Marker: During the period of parallel client solicitation instant

Fluent Transitions:
Initiates (1)
  • Engineer A Awareness of Disparagement State

Caused By Action: Action_Disparagement_of_Competitor

Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • causedByAction: http://proethica.org/ontology/case/168#Action_Disparagement_of_Competitor
  • initiates: Engineer A Awareness of Disparagement State
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • description content: Engineer A was told by the former clients that Firm B had cast doubt on his firm's ability to provide quality services, making him aware of the disparagement against him.
  • temporalMarker content: During the period of parallel client solicitation
  • textReferences content: he was told by the clients that Firm B had cast doubt on the ability of A to provide quality services
  • eventType content: outcome
  • temporalExtent content: instant
  • temporalSequence content: 9
  • confidence assessment: 0.88
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/168#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#",
    "time": "http://www.w3.org/2006/time#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/168#Event_Disparagement_Disclosure",
  "@type": "proeth:Event",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-12T07:30:58.902324+00:00",
  "proeth:causedByAction": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/168#Action_Disparagement_of_Competitor",
  "proeth:confidence": "0.88",
  "proeth:description": "Engineer A was told by the former clients that Firm B had cast doubt on his firm\u0027s ability to provide quality services, making him aware of the disparagement against him.",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "facts",
  "proeth:eventType": "outcome",
  "proeth:initiates": [
    "Engineer A Awareness of Disparagement State"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalExtent": "instant",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "During the period of parallel client solicitation",
  "proeth:temporalSequence": 9,
  "proeth:textReferences": [
    "he was told by the clients that Firm B had cast doubt on the ability of A to provide quality services"
  ],
  "rdfs:label": "Disparagement Disclosure"
}
Causal Chains (9)
NESS test analysis: Necessary Element of Sufficient Set

Causal Language: left the firm at the same time following disagreement on certain firm policies and promptly organized a new engineering firm, B, with the four engineers as the principals

Necessary Factors (NESS):
  • Freedom from employment obligations to Firm A
  • Availability of all four engineers as prospective principals
  • Intent to continue practicing engineering as principals
Sufficient Factors:
  • Combination of resignation + shared intent to practice together + professional qualifications of the four engineers
Counterfactual Test: Had the engineers remained employed by Firm A, they could not have organized and operated Firm B as principals; the Board notes they 'did not undertake the promotional efforts with the former clients of A while in his employ'
Responsibility Attribution:

Agent: The four engineers
Type: direct
Within Agent Control: Yes

Causal Sequence:
  1. Simultaneous Resignation
    The four engineers leave Firm A
  2. New Firm Formation
    They promptly organize Firm B with themselves as principals
  3. Competitive Market Entry
    Firm B becomes a direct competitor to Firm A for the same client base
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • cause: Simultaneous Resignation
  • effect: New Firm Formation
  • responsibleAgent: The four engineers
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • causalLanguage content: left the firm at the same time following disagreement on certain firm policies and promptly organized a new engineering firm, B, with the four engineers as the principals
  • necessaryFactors content: Freedom from employment obligations to Firm A; Availability of all four engineers as prospective principals; Intent to continue practicing engineering as principals
  • sufficientFactors content: Combination of resignation + shared intent to practice together + professional qualifications of the four engineers
  • counterfactual content: Had the engineers remained employed by Firm A, they could not have organized and operated Firm B as principals; the Board notes they 'did not undertake the promotional efforts with the former clients of A while in his employ'
  • agentKnowledge content: They 'possibly discussed among themselves the idea of soliciting work of former clients of A while still in his employ,' but formed the firm only after leaving
  • interveningFactors content: Market opportunity presented by Firm A's former client base
  • causalSequence content: {'proeth:step': 1, 'proeth:element': 'Simultaneous Resignation', 'proeth:description': 'The four engineers leave Firm A'}; {'proeth:step': 2, 'proeth:element': 'New Firm Formation', 'proeth:description': 'They promptly organize Firm B with themselves as principals'}; {'proeth:step': 3, 'proeth:element': 'Competitive Market Entry', 'proeth:description': 'Firm B becomes a direct competitor to Firm A for the same client base'}
  • responsibilityType assessment: direct
  • withinAgentControl assessment: True
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/168#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/168#CausalChain_3",
  "@type": "proeth:CausalChain",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-12T07:30:58.902438+00:00",
  "proeth:agentKnowledge": "They \u0027possibly discussed among themselves the idea of soliciting work of former clients of A while still in his employ,\u0027 but formed the firm only after leaving",
  "proeth:causalLanguage": "left the firm at the same time following disagreement on certain firm policies and promptly organized a new engineering firm, B, with the four engineers as the principals",
  "proeth:causalSequence": [
    {
      "proeth:description": "The four engineers leave Firm A",
      "proeth:element": "Simultaneous Resignation",
      "proeth:step": 1
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "They promptly organize Firm B with themselves as principals",
      "proeth:element": "New Firm Formation",
      "proeth:step": 2
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Firm B becomes a direct competitor to Firm A for the same client base",
      "proeth:element": "Competitive Market Entry",
      "proeth:step": 3
    }
  ],
  "proeth:cause": "Simultaneous Resignation",
  "proeth:counterfactual": "Had the engineers remained employed by Firm A, they could not have organized and operated Firm B as principals; the Board notes they \u0027did not undertake the promotional efforts with the former clients of A while in his employ\u0027",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "facts",
  "proeth:effect": "New Firm Formation",
  "proeth:interveningFactors": [
    "Market opportunity presented by Firm A\u0027s former client base"
  ],
  "proeth:necessaryFactors": [
    "Freedom from employment obligations to Firm A",
    "Availability of all four engineers as prospective principals",
    "Intent to continue practicing engineering as principals"
  ],
  "proeth:responsibilityType": "direct",
  "proeth:responsibleAgent": "The four engineers",
  "proeth:sufficientFactors": [
    "Combination of resignation + shared intent to practice together + professional qualifications of the four engineers"
  ],
  "proeth:withinAgentControl": true
}

Causal Language: Firm B promptly contacted the former clients of Firm A, including some former clients of Firm A which had projects under discussion with Firm A, but for which specific selection or negotiation had not taken place

Necessary Factors (NESS):
  • Existence of Firm B as an operating entity capable of taking assignments
  • The engineers' prior relationships and knowledge of Firm A's client base
  • Absence of existing contracts or selected negotiations binding those clients to Firm A
Sufficient Factors:
  • Combination of new firm's need for work + preexisting client relationships + legal freedom to solicit (no supplanting bar since 'Engineer A did not have an existing contract, nor was he engaged in negotiations for a particular project')
Counterfactual Test: Without Firm B's formation, there would have been no entity through which the four engineers could solicit assignments from Firm A's former clients
Responsibility Attribution:

Agent: The four engineers (principals of Firm B)
Type: direct
Within Agent Control: Yes

Causal Sequence:
  1. New Firm Formation
    Firm B is organized with the four engineers as principals
  2. Client Solicitation
    Firm B promptly contacts Firm A's former clients to indicate availability for assignments
  3. Competitive Conflict
    Direct competition arises between Firms A and B over the same clients
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • cause: New Firm Formation
  • effect: Client Solicitation
  • responsibleAgent: The four engineers (principals of Firm B)
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • causalLanguage content: Firm B promptly contacted the former clients of Firm A, including some former clients of Firm A which had projects under discussion with Firm A, but for which specific selection or negotiation had not taken place
  • necessaryFactors content: Existence of Firm B as an operating entity capable of taking assignments; The engineers' prior relationships and knowledge of Firm A's client base; Absence of existing contracts or selected negotiations binding those clients to Firm A
  • sufficientFactors content: Combination of new firm's need for work + preexisting client relationships + legal freedom to solicit (no supplanting bar since 'Engineer A did not have an existing contract, nor was he engaged in negotiations for a particular project')
  • counterfactual content: Without Firm B's formation, there would have been no entity through which the four engineers could solicit assignments from Firm A's former clients
  • agentKnowledge content: They knew the clients from prior involvement; 'in some instances one or more of the four engineers had been involved with the former clients of Engineer A while in his employ'
  • interveningFactors content: Clients' openness to being contacted; Specialized project knowledge gained during prior employment (§7(a) concern)
  • causalSequence content: {'proeth:step': 1, 'proeth:element': 'New Firm Formation', 'proeth:description': 'Firm B is organized with the four engineers as principals'}; {'proeth:step': 2, 'proeth:element': 'Client Solicitation', 'proeth:description': "Firm B promptly contacts Firm A's former clients to indicate availability for assignments"}; {'proeth:step': 3, 'proeth:element': 'Competitive Conflict', 'proeth:description': 'Direct competition arises between Firms A and B over the same clients'}
  • responsibilityType assessment: direct
  • withinAgentControl assessment: True
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/168#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/168#CausalChain_4",
  "@type": "proeth:CausalChain",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-12T07:30:58.902459+00:00",
  "proeth:agentKnowledge": "They knew the clients from prior involvement; \u0027in some instances one or more of the four engineers had been involved with the former clients of Engineer A while in his employ\u0027",
  "proeth:causalLanguage": "Firm B promptly contacted the former clients of Firm A, including some former clients of Firm A which had projects under discussion with Firm A, but for which specific selection or negotiation had not taken place",
  "proeth:causalSequence": [
    {
      "proeth:description": "Firm B is organized with the four engineers as principals",
      "proeth:element": "New Firm Formation",
      "proeth:step": 1
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Firm B promptly contacts Firm A\u0027s former clients to indicate availability for assignments",
      "proeth:element": "Client Solicitation",
      "proeth:step": 2
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Direct competition arises between Firms A and B over the same clients",
      "proeth:element": "Competitive Conflict",
      "proeth:step": 3
    }
  ],
  "proeth:cause": "New Firm Formation",
  "proeth:counterfactual": "Without Firm B\u0027s formation, there would have been no entity through which the four engineers could solicit assignments from Firm A\u0027s former clients",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "facts",
  "proeth:effect": "Client Solicitation",
  "proeth:interveningFactors": [
    "Clients\u0027 openness to being contacted",
    "Specialized project knowledge gained during prior employment (\u00a77(a) concern)"
  ],
  "proeth:necessaryFactors": [
    "Existence of Firm B as an operating entity capable of taking assignments",
    "The engineers\u0027 prior relationships and knowledge of Firm A\u0027s client base",
    "Absence of existing contracts or selected negotiations binding those clients to Firm A"
  ],
  "proeth:responsibilityType": "direct",
  "proeth:responsibleAgent": "The four engineers (principals of Firm B)",
  "proeth:sufficientFactors": [
    "Combination of new firm\u0027s need for work + preexisting client relationships + legal freedom to solicit (no supplanting bar since \u0027Engineer A did not have an existing contract, nor was he engaged in negotiations for a particular project\u0027)"
  ],
  "proeth:withinAgentControl": true
}

Causal Language: While Firm B was making these contacts to indicate the availability of the new firm for assignments from the former clients, Engineer A was also making contact with the former clients to indicate that his firm was still available for future commissions and retained its capacity to provide proper services despite the departure of the four engineers.

Necessary Factors (NESS):
  • Firm B's active solicitation creating competitive threat
  • Engineer A's awareness of the threat to his client relationships
  • Client concern about Firm A's capacity after losing four key engineers
Sufficient Factors:
  • Combination of competitive solicitation by Firm B + Engineer A's interest in retaining clients + diminished perceived capacity
Counterfactual Test: Engineer A might have contacted clients anyway to reassure them after the departures, but the urgency and defensive framing were driven by Firm B's simultaneous solicitation; the Board notes 'each interest felt compelled to react to the other's claims or statements'
Responsibility Attribution:

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

Causal Sequence:
  1. Client Solicitation
    Firm B contacts Firm A's former clients
  2. Perceived Competitive Threat
    Engineer A perceives risk of losing former clients to Firm B
  3. Client Retention Outreach
    Engineer A contacts the same clients to affirm his firm's continued availability and capacity
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • cause: Client Solicitation
  • effect: Client Retention Outreach
  • responsibleAgent: Engineer A
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • causalLanguage content: While Firm B was making these contacts to indicate the availability of the new firm for assignments from the former clients, Engineer A was also making contact with the former clients to indicate that his firm was still available for future commissions and retained its capacity to provide proper services despite the departure of the four engineers.
  • necessaryFactors content: Firm B's active solicitation creating competitive threat; Engineer A's awareness of the threat to his client relationships; Client concern about Firm A's capacity after losing four key engineers
  • sufficientFactors content: Combination of competitive solicitation by Firm B + Engineer A's interest in retaining clients + diminished perceived capacity
  • counterfactual content: Engineer A might have contacted clients anyway to reassure them after the departures, but the urgency and defensive framing were driven by Firm B's simultaneous solicitation; the Board notes 'each interest felt compelled to react to the other's claims or statements'
  • agentKnowledge content: Knew Firm B was contacting his former clients and that his firm's capacity might be questioned
  • interveningFactors content: Firm B's competing outreach; Client concerns about Firm A's remaining capacity
  • causalSequence content: {'proeth:step': 1, 'proeth:element': 'Client Solicitation', 'proeth:description': "Firm B contacts Firm A's former clients"}; {'proeth:step': 2, 'proeth:element': 'Perceived Competitive Threat', 'proeth:description': 'Engineer A perceives risk of losing former clients to Firm B'}; {'proeth:step': 3, 'proeth:element': 'Client Retention Outreach', 'proeth:description': "Engineer A contacts the same clients to affirm his firm's continued availability and capacity"}
  • responsibilityType assessment: direct
  • withinAgentControl assessment: True
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/168#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/168#CausalChain_5",
  "@type": "proeth:CausalChain",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-12T07:30:58.902477+00:00",
  "proeth:agentKnowledge": "Knew Firm B was contacting his former clients and that his firm\u0027s capacity might be questioned",
  "proeth:causalLanguage": "While Firm B was making these contacts to indicate the availability of the new firm for assignments from the former clients, Engineer A was also making contact with the former clients to indicate that his firm was still available for future commissions and retained its capacity to provide proper services despite the departure of the four engineers.",
  "proeth:causalSequence": [
    {
      "proeth:description": "Firm B contacts Firm A\u0027s former clients",
      "proeth:element": "Client Solicitation",
      "proeth:step": 1
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer A perceives risk of losing former clients to Firm B",
      "proeth:element": "Perceived Competitive Threat",
      "proeth:step": 2
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer A contacts the same clients to affirm his firm\u0027s continued availability and capacity",
      "proeth:element": "Client Retention Outreach",
      "proeth:step": 3
    }
  ],
  "proeth:cause": "Client Solicitation",
  "proeth:counterfactual": "Engineer A might have contacted clients anyway to reassure them after the departures, but the urgency and defensive framing were driven by Firm B\u0027s simultaneous solicitation; the Board notes \u0027each interest felt compelled to react to the other\u0027s claims or statements\u0027",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "facts",
  "proeth:effect": "Client Retention Outreach",
  "proeth:interveningFactors": [
    "Firm B\u0027s competing outreach",
    "Client concerns about Firm A\u0027s remaining capacity"
  ],
  "proeth:necessaryFactors": [
    "Firm B\u0027s active solicitation creating competitive threat",
    "Engineer A\u0027s awareness of the threat to his client relationships",
    "Client concern about Firm A\u0027s capacity after losing four key engineers"
  ],
  "proeth:responsibilityType": "direct",
  "proeth:responsibleAgent": "Engineer A",
  "proeth:sufficientFactors": [
    "Combination of competitive solicitation by Firm B + Engineer A\u0027s interest in retaining clients + diminished perceived capacity"
  ],
  "proeth:withinAgentControl": true
}

Causal Language: Further, he was told by the clients that Firm B had cast doubt on the ability of A to provide quality services.

Necessary Factors (NESS):
  • Firm B's disparaging statements to clients about Firm A's ability
  • Clients' willingness to relay those statements to Engineer A
  • Engineer A's ongoing contact with those clients
Sufficient Factors:
  • Combination of disparaging remarks made to clients + clients' communication of them to Engineer A during his outreach
Counterfactual Test: Had Firm B not cast doubt on Firm A's ability, there would have been nothing for the clients to disclose to Engineer A
Responsibility Attribution:

Agent: The four engineers of Firm B
Type: direct
Within Agent Control: Yes

Causal Sequence:
  1. Disparagement of Competitor
    Firm B casts doubt on Engineer A's ability to provide quality services during client contacts
  2. Client Awareness
    Former clients hear and register Firm B's criticisms of Firm A
  3. Disparagement Disclosure
    Clients tell Engineer A that Firm B cast doubt on his firm's ability
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • cause: Disparagement of Competitor
  • effect: Disparagement Disclosure
  • responsibleAgent: The four engineers of Firm B
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • causalLanguage content: Further, he was told by the clients that Firm B had cast doubt on the ability of A to provide quality services.
  • necessaryFactors content: Firm B's disparaging statements to clients about Firm A's ability; Clients' willingness to relay those statements to Engineer A; Engineer A's ongoing contact with those clients
  • sufficientFactors content: Combination of disparaging remarks made to clients + clients' communication of them to Engineer A during his outreach
  • counterfactual content: Had Firm B not cast doubt on Firm A's ability, there would have been nothing for the clients to disclose to Engineer A
  • agentKnowledge content: The Board found their 'motivation and intent... were to injure the prospects of the other,' with aspersions 'cast purely in terms of attempting to secure a personal benefit'
  • interveningFactors content: Clients' decision to inform Engineer A
  • causalSequence content: {'proeth:step': 1, 'proeth:element': 'Disparagement of Competitor', 'proeth:description': "Firm B casts doubt on Engineer A's ability to provide quality services during client contacts"}; {'proeth:step': 2, 'proeth:element': 'Client Awareness', 'proeth:description': "Former clients hear and register Firm B's criticisms of Firm A"}; {'proeth:step': 3, 'proeth:element': 'Disparagement Disclosure', 'proeth:description': "Clients tell Engineer A that Firm B cast doubt on his firm's ability"}
  • responsibilityType assessment: direct
  • withinAgentControl assessment: True
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/168#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/168#CausalChain_6",
  "@type": "proeth:CausalChain",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-12T07:30:58.902494+00:00",
  "proeth:agentKnowledge": "The Board found their \u0027motivation and intent... were to injure the prospects of the other,\u0027 with aspersions \u0027cast purely in terms of attempting to secure a personal benefit\u0027",
  "proeth:causalLanguage": "Further, he was told by the clients that Firm B had cast doubt on the ability of A to provide quality services.",
  "proeth:causalSequence": [
    {
      "proeth:description": "Firm B casts doubt on Engineer A\u0027s ability to provide quality services during client contacts",
      "proeth:element": "Disparagement of Competitor",
      "proeth:step": 1
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Former clients hear and register Firm B\u0027s criticisms of Firm A",
      "proeth:element": "Client Awareness",
      "proeth:step": 2
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Clients tell Engineer A that Firm B cast doubt on his firm\u0027s ability",
      "proeth:element": "Disparagement Disclosure",
      "proeth:step": 3
    }
  ],
  "proeth:cause": "Disparagement of Competitor",
  "proeth:counterfactual": "Had Firm B not cast doubt on Firm A\u0027s ability, there would have been nothing for the clients to disclose to Engineer A",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "facts",
  "proeth:effect": "Disparagement Disclosure",
  "proeth:interveningFactors": [
    "Clients\u0027 decision to inform Engineer A"
  ],
  "proeth:necessaryFactors": [
    "Firm B\u0027s disparaging statements to clients about Firm A\u0027s ability",
    "Clients\u0027 willingness to relay those statements to Engineer A",
    "Engineer A\u0027s ongoing contact with those clients"
  ],
  "proeth:responsibilityType": "direct",
  "proeth:responsibleAgent": "The four engineers of Firm B",
  "proeth:sufficientFactors": [
    "Combination of disparaging remarks made to clients + clients\u0027 communication of them to Engineer A during his outreach"
  ],
  "proeth:withinAgentControl": true
}

Causal Language: It is easy to understand that in such a case where the "divorce" of A and the four engineers was on a note of disagreement, each interest felt compelled to react to the other’s claims or statements.

Necessary Factors (NESS):
  • Engineer A's knowledge that Firm B had disparaged his firm
  • Ongoing competitive contest for the same clients
  • Engineer A's self-interest in retaining clients
Sufficient Factors:
  • Combination of learning of Firm B's disparagement + competitive pressure + acrimonious separation
Counterfactual Test: The Board declined to 'enter into speculation as to which threw the first stone,' but the reactive dynamic indicates Engineer A's counter-criticism was substantially provoked by learning of Firm B's disparagement; both were nonetheless 'in clear error'
Responsibility Attribution:

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

Causal Sequence:
  1. Disparagement Disclosure
    Clients inform Engineer A of Firm B's criticisms
  2. Retaliatory Motivation
    Engineer A feels compelled to react to Firm B's statements
  3. Counter-Disparagement of Competitor
    Engineer A indicates doubt to clients that Firm B is qualified to provide quality services
  4. Mutual §12 Violation
    Both sides commit 'affronts to §12' by criticizing the other to secure personal benefit
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • cause: Disparagement Disclosure
  • effect: Counter-Disparagement of Competitor
  • responsibleAgent: Engineer A
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • causalLanguage content: It is easy to understand that in such a case where the "divorce" of A and the four engineers was on a note of disagreement, each interest felt compelled to react to the other’s claims or statements.
  • necessaryFactors content: Engineer A's knowledge that Firm B had disparaged his firm; Ongoing competitive contest for the same clients; Engineer A's self-interest in retaining clients
  • sufficientFactors content: Combination of learning of Firm B's disparagement + competitive pressure + acrimonious separation
  • counterfactual content: The Board declined to 'enter into speculation as to which threw the first stone,' but the reactive dynamic indicates Engineer A's counter-criticism was substantially provoked by learning of Firm B's disparagement; both were nonetheless 'in clear error'
  • agentKnowledge content: Knew Firm B had criticized him; chose to respond with criticism 'tinged by self-interest' rather than objective comment
  • interveningFactors content: Firm B's prior disparagement; Acrimonious nature of the split
  • causalSequence content: {'proeth:step': 1, 'proeth:element': 'Disparagement Disclosure', 'proeth:description': "Clients inform Engineer A of Firm B's criticisms"}; {'proeth:step': 2, 'proeth:element': 'Retaliatory Motivation', 'proeth:description': "Engineer A feels compelled to react to Firm B's statements"}; {'proeth:step': 3, 'proeth:element': 'Counter-Disparagement of Competitor', 'proeth:description': 'Engineer A indicates doubt to clients that Firm B is qualified to provide quality services'}; {'proeth:step': 4, 'proeth:element': 'Mutual §12 Violation', 'proeth:description': "Both sides commit 'affronts to §12' by criticizing the other to secure personal benefit"}
  • responsibilityType assessment: shared
  • withinAgentControl assessment: True
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/168#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/168#CausalChain_7",
  "@type": "proeth:CausalChain",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-12T07:30:58.902512+00:00",
  "proeth:agentKnowledge": "Knew Firm B had criticized him; chose to respond with criticism \u0027tinged by self-interest\u0027 rather than objective comment",
  "proeth:causalLanguage": "It is easy to understand that in such a case where the \"divorce\" of A and the four engineers was on a note of disagreement, each interest felt compelled to react to the other\u2019s claims or statements.",
  "proeth:causalSequence": [
    {
      "proeth:description": "Clients inform Engineer A of Firm B\u0027s criticisms",
      "proeth:element": "Disparagement Disclosure",
      "proeth:step": 1
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer A feels compelled to react to Firm B\u0027s statements",
      "proeth:element": "Retaliatory Motivation",
      "proeth:step": 2
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer A indicates doubt to clients that Firm B is qualified to provide quality services",
      "proeth:element": "Counter-Disparagement of Competitor",
      "proeth:step": 3
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Both sides commit \u0027affronts to \u00a712\u0027 by criticizing the other to secure personal benefit",
      "proeth:element": "Mutual \u00a712 Violation",
      "proeth:step": 4
    }
  ],
  "proeth:cause": "Disparagement Disclosure",
  "proeth:counterfactual": "The Board declined to \u0027enter into speculation as to which threw the first stone,\u0027 but the reactive dynamic indicates Engineer A\u0027s counter-criticism was substantially provoked by learning of Firm B\u0027s disparagement; both were nonetheless \u0027in clear error\u0027",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "discussion",
  "proeth:effect": "Counter-Disparagement of Competitor",
  "proeth:interveningFactors": [
    "Firm B\u0027s prior disparagement",
    "Acrimonious nature of the split"
  ],
  "proeth:necessaryFactors": [
    "Engineer A\u0027s knowledge that Firm B had disparaged his firm",
    "Ongoing competitive contest for the same clients",
    "Engineer A\u0027s self-interest in retaining clients"
  ],
  "proeth:responsibilityType": "shared",
  "proeth:responsibleAgent": "Engineer A",
  "proeth:sufficientFactors": [
    "Combination of learning of Firm B\u0027s disparagement + competitive pressure + acrimonious separation"
  ],
  "proeth:withinAgentControl": true
}

Causal Language: Engineer A has protested the action of the four engineers on ethical grounds, alleging that they violated the rule against supplanting.

Necessary Factors (NESS):
  • Firm B's contacts with Firm A's former clients, including those with projects under discussion
  • Engineer A's awareness of those contacts
  • Engineer A's belief that the supplanting rule (§11(a)) applied
Sufficient Factors:
  • Combination of Firm B's solicitation of clients with projects under discussion + Engineer A's competitive injury and belief in an ethical violation
Counterfactual Test: Without Firm B's solicitation of his former clients, Engineer A would have had no basis for alleging supplanting; the Board ultimately found 'the four engineers of Firm B had a right to seek assignments from the former clients of Engineer A'
Responsibility Attribution:

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

Causal Sequence:
  1. Client Solicitation
    Firm B contacts Firm A's former clients, including some with projects under discussion
  2. Perceived Supplanting
    Engineer A interprets the contacts as violations of the supplanting rule
  3. Ethics Protest Filing
    Engineer A formally protests the four engineers' actions on ethical grounds
  4. Board Resolution
    The Board holds §11(a) inapplicable because no contract or selected negotiation existed
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • cause: Client Solicitation
  • effect: Ethics Protest Filing
  • responsibleAgent: Engineer A
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • causalLanguage content: Engineer A has protested the action of the four engineers on ethical grounds, alleging that they violated the rule against supplanting.
  • necessaryFactors content: Firm B's contacts with Firm A's former clients, including those with projects under discussion; Engineer A's awareness of those contacts; Engineer A's belief that the supplanting rule (§11(a)) applied
  • sufficientFactors content: Combination of Firm B's solicitation of clients with projects under discussion + Engineer A's competitive injury and belief in an ethical violation
  • counterfactual content: Without Firm B's solicitation of his former clients, Engineer A would have had no basis for alleging supplanting; the Board ultimately found 'the four engineers of Firm B had a right to seek assignments from the former clients of Engineer A'
  • agentKnowledge content: Believed §11(a) barred the solicitation, though he 'did not have an existing contract, nor was he engaged in negotiations for a particular project'
  • interveningFactors content: Ambiguity over whether projects 'under discussion' triggered the supplanting rule
  • causalSequence content: {'proeth:step': 1, 'proeth:element': 'Client Solicitation', 'proeth:description': "Firm B contacts Firm A's former clients, including some with projects under discussion"}; {'proeth:step': 2, 'proeth:element': 'Perceived Supplanting', 'proeth:description': 'Engineer A interprets the contacts as violations of the supplanting rule'}; {'proeth:step': 3, 'proeth:element': 'Ethics Protest Filing', 'proeth:description': "Engineer A formally protests the four engineers' actions on ethical grounds"}; {'proeth:step': 4, 'proeth:element': 'Board Resolution', 'proeth:description': 'The Board holds §11(a) inapplicable because no contract or selected negotiation existed'}
  • responsibilityType assessment: direct
  • withinAgentControl assessment: True
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/168#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/168#CausalChain_8",
  "@type": "proeth:CausalChain",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-12T07:30:58.902529+00:00",
  "proeth:agentKnowledge": "Believed \u00a711(a) barred the solicitation, though he \u0027did not have an existing contract, nor was he engaged in negotiations for a particular project\u0027",
  "proeth:causalLanguage": "Engineer A has protested the action of the four engineers on ethical grounds, alleging that they violated the rule against supplanting.",
  "proeth:causalSequence": [
    {
      "proeth:description": "Firm B contacts Firm A\u0027s former clients, including some with projects under discussion",
      "proeth:element": "Client Solicitation",
      "proeth:step": 1
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer A interprets the contacts as violations of the supplanting rule",
      "proeth:element": "Perceived Supplanting",
      "proeth:step": 2
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer A formally protests the four engineers\u0027 actions on ethical grounds",
      "proeth:element": "Ethics Protest Filing",
      "proeth:step": 3
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "The Board holds \u00a711(a) inapplicable because no contract or selected negotiation existed",
      "proeth:element": "Board Resolution",
      "proeth:step": 4
    }
  ],
  "proeth:cause": "Client Solicitation",
  "proeth:counterfactual": "Without Firm B\u0027s solicitation of his former clients, Engineer A would have had no basis for alleging supplanting; the Board ultimately found \u0027the four engineers of Firm B had a right to seek assignments from the former clients of Engineer A\u0027",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "facts",
  "proeth:effect": "Ethics Protest Filing",
  "proeth:interveningFactors": [
    "Ambiguity over whether projects \u0027under discussion\u0027 triggered the supplanting rule"
  ],
  "proeth:necessaryFactors": [
    "Firm B\u0027s contacts with Firm A\u0027s former clients, including those with projects under discussion",
    "Engineer A\u0027s awareness of those contacts",
    "Engineer A\u0027s belief that the supplanting rule (\u00a711(a)) applied"
  ],
  "proeth:responsibilityType": "direct",
  "proeth:responsibleAgent": "Engineer A",
  "proeth:sufficientFactors": [
    "Combination of Firm B\u0027s solicitation of clients with projects under discussion + Engineer A\u0027s competitive injury and belief in an ethical violation"
  ],
  "proeth:withinAgentControl": true
}

Causal Language: In some instances one or more of the four engineers had been involved with the former clients of Engineer A while in his employ.

Necessary Factors (NESS):
  • Prior involvement with Firm A's clients on specific projects during employment
  • Retention of that particular and specialized knowledge after departure
Sufficient Factors:
  • Knowledge of clients and projects, combined with the new firm's need for work, was sufficient to direct solicitation toward those particular clients
Counterfactual Test: Firm B could have solicited some clients regardless, but targeted contact with clients having 'projects under discussion' depended on the specialized knowledge gained during employment; the Board flags this under §7(a) as 'not nearly so clear'
Responsibility Attribution:

Agent: The four engineers
Type: indirect
Within Agent Control: Yes

Causal Sequence:
  1. Specialized Knowledge Acquisition
    Engineers gain particular and specialized knowledge of clients' specific projects while employed by A
  2. Simultaneous Resignation
    Engineers leave Firm A carrying that knowledge
  3. Client Solicitation
    Firm B contacts those clients, including ones with projects under discussion with Firm A
  4. Potential §7(a) Violation
    The Board finds this aspect 'not nearly so clear' regarding practice on projects involving specialized knowledge
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • cause: Specialized Knowledge Acquisition
  • effect: Client Solicitation
  • responsibleAgent: The four engineers
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • causalLanguage content: In some instances one or more of the four engineers had been involved with the former clients of Engineer A while in his employ.
  • necessaryFactors content: Prior involvement with Firm A's clients on specific projects during employment; Retention of that particular and specialized knowledge after departure
  • sufficientFactors content: Knowledge of clients and projects, combined with the new firm's need for work, was sufficient to direct solicitation toward those particular clients
  • counterfactual content: Firm B could have solicited some clients regardless, but targeted contact with clients having 'projects under discussion' depended on the specialized knowledge gained during employment; the Board flags this under §7(a) as 'not nearly so clear'
  • agentKnowledge content: Knew of 'specific projects under consideration at the time' from their involvement while employed by Engineer A
  • interveningFactors content: Absence of consent from 'all interested parties' as contemplated by §7(a)
  • causalSequence content: {'proeth:step': 1, 'proeth:element': 'Specialized Knowledge Acquisition', 'proeth:description': "Engineers gain particular and specialized knowledge of clients' specific projects while employed by A"}; {'proeth:step': 2, 'proeth:element': 'Simultaneous Resignation', 'proeth:description': 'Engineers leave Firm A carrying that knowledge'}; {'proeth:step': 3, 'proeth:element': 'Client Solicitation', 'proeth:description': 'Firm B contacts those clients, including ones with projects under discussion with Firm A'}; {'proeth:step': 4, 'proeth:element': 'Potential §7(a) Violation', 'proeth:description': "The Board finds this aspect 'not nearly so clear' regarding practice on projects involving specialized knowledge"}
  • responsibilityType assessment: indirect
  • withinAgentControl assessment: True
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/168#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/168#CausalChain_9",
  "@type": "proeth:CausalChain",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-12T07:30:58.902546+00:00",
  "proeth:agentKnowledge": "Knew of \u0027specific projects under consideration at the time\u0027 from their involvement while employed by Engineer A",
  "proeth:causalLanguage": "In some instances one or more of the four engineers had been involved with the former clients of Engineer A while in his employ.",
  "proeth:causalSequence": [
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineers gain particular and specialized knowledge of clients\u0027 specific projects while employed by A",
      "proeth:element": "Specialized Knowledge Acquisition",
      "proeth:step": 1
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineers leave Firm A carrying that knowledge",
      "proeth:element": "Simultaneous Resignation",
      "proeth:step": 2
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Firm B contacts those clients, including ones with projects under discussion with Firm A",
      "proeth:element": "Client Solicitation",
      "proeth:step": 3
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "The Board finds this aspect \u0027not nearly so clear\u0027 regarding practice on projects involving specialized knowledge",
      "proeth:element": "Potential \u00a77(a) Violation",
      "proeth:step": 4
    }
  ],
  "proeth:cause": "Specialized Knowledge Acquisition",
  "proeth:counterfactual": "Firm B could have solicited some clients regardless, but targeted contact with clients having \u0027projects under discussion\u0027 depended on the specialized knowledge gained during employment; the Board flags this under \u00a77(a) as \u0027not nearly so clear\u0027",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "facts",
  "proeth:effect": "Client Solicitation",
  "proeth:interveningFactors": [
    "Absence of consent from \u0027all interested parties\u0027 as contemplated by \u00a77(a)"
  ],
  "proeth:necessaryFactors": [
    "Prior involvement with Firm A\u0027s clients on specific projects during employment",
    "Retention of that particular and specialized knowledge after departure"
  ],
  "proeth:responsibilityType": "indirect",
  "proeth:responsibleAgent": "The four engineers",
  "proeth:sufficientFactors": [
    "Knowledge of clients and projects, combined with the new firm\u0027s need for work, was sufficient to direct solicitation toward those particular clients"
  ],
  "proeth:withinAgentControl": true
}

Causal Language: Four of the key engineering employees of a firm headed by Engineer A left the firm at the same time

Necessary Factors (NESS):
  • The four engineers were 'key' personnel of Firm A
  • The departures occurred simultaneously rather than gradually
Sufficient Factors:
  • Coordinated resignation of four key employees is by itself sufficient to constitute the personnel loss
Counterfactual Test: Without the simultaneous resignation, Firm A would not have suffered the abrupt loss of key personnel that created the competitive situation
Responsibility Attribution:

Agent: The four engineers
Type: direct
Within Agent Control: Yes

Causal Sequence:
  1. Simultaneous Resignation
    Four key engineers resign at the same time
  2. Key Personnel Loss
    Firm A loses a substantial part of its engineering capability at once
  3. Competitive Vulnerability
    Engineer A must reassure clients that his firm 'retained its capacity to provide proper services despite the departure of the four engineers'
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • cause: Simultaneous Resignation
  • effect: Key Personnel Loss
  • responsibleAgent: The four engineers
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • causalLanguage content: Four of the key engineering employees of a firm headed by Engineer A left the firm at the same time
  • necessaryFactors content: The four engineers were 'key' personnel of Firm A; The departures occurred simultaneously rather than gradually
  • sufficientFactors content: Coordinated resignation of four key employees is by itself sufficient to constitute the personnel loss
  • counterfactual content: Without the simultaneous resignation, Firm A would not have suffered the abrupt loss of key personnel that created the competitive situation
  • agentKnowledge content: They knew they were key employees and that leaving together would significantly affect Firm A's capacity
  • interveningFactors content: Firm A's dependence on the four engineers
  • causalSequence content: {'proeth:step': 1, 'proeth:element': 'Simultaneous Resignation', 'proeth:description': 'Four key engineers resign at the same time'}; {'proeth:step': 2, 'proeth:element': 'Key Personnel Loss', 'proeth:description': 'Firm A loses a substantial part of its engineering capability at once'}; {'proeth:step': 3, 'proeth:element': 'Competitive Vulnerability', 'proeth:description': "Engineer A must reassure clients that his firm 'retained its capacity to provide proper services despite the departure of the four engineers'"}
  • responsibilityType assessment: direct
  • withinAgentControl assessment: True
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/168#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/168#CausalChain_2",
  "@type": "proeth:CausalChain",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-12T07:30:58.902415+00:00",
  "proeth:agentKnowledge": "They knew they were key employees and that leaving together would significantly affect Firm A\u0027s capacity",
  "proeth:causalLanguage": "Four of the key engineering employees of a firm headed by Engineer A left the firm at the same time",
  "proeth:causalSequence": [
    {
      "proeth:description": "Four key engineers resign at the same time",
      "proeth:element": "Simultaneous Resignation",
      "proeth:step": 1
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Firm A loses a substantial part of its engineering capability at once",
      "proeth:element": "Key Personnel Loss",
      "proeth:step": 2
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer A must reassure clients that his firm \u0027retained its capacity to provide proper services despite the departure of the four engineers\u0027",
      "proeth:element": "Competitive Vulnerability",
      "proeth:step": 3
    }
  ],
  "proeth:cause": "Simultaneous Resignation",
  "proeth:counterfactual": "Without the simultaneous resignation, Firm A would not have suffered the abrupt loss of key personnel that created the competitive situation",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "facts",
  "proeth:effect": "Key Personnel Loss",
  "proeth:interveningFactors": [
    "Firm A\u0027s dependence on the four engineers"
  ],
  "proeth:necessaryFactors": [
    "The four engineers were \u0027key\u0027 personnel of Firm A",
    "The departures occurred simultaneously rather than gradually"
  ],
  "proeth:responsibilityType": "direct",
  "proeth:responsibleAgent": "The four engineers",
  "proeth:sufficientFactors": [
    "Coordinated resignation of four key employees is by itself sufficient to constitute the personnel loss"
  ],
  "proeth:withinAgentControl": true
}

Causal Language: Four of the key engineering employees of a firm headed by Engineer A left the firm at the same time following disagreement on certain firm policies

Necessary Factors (NESS):
  • Existence of substantive disagreement over firm policies
  • Employees' shared dissatisfaction strong enough to prompt departure
  • Employees' status as employees with freedom to resign
Sufficient Factors:
  • Combination of policy disagreement + collective willingness of all four engineers to leave together
Counterfactual Test: Without the disagreement over firm policies, the four engineers would likely have remained at Firm A and the coordinated departure would not have occurred
Responsibility Attribution:

Agent: Engineer A and the four engineers (jointly, as parties to the disagreement)
Type: shared
Within Agent Control: Yes

Causal Sequence:
  1. Firm Policy Disagreement
    A disagreement arises between Engineer A and four key employees over firm policies
  2. Breakdown of Working Relationship
    The 'divorce' between A and the four engineers proceeds 'on a note of disagreement'
  3. Simultaneous Resignation
    All four key engineers leave the firm at the same time
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • cause: Firm Policy Disagreement
  • effect: Simultaneous Resignation
  • responsibleAgent: Engineer A and the four engineers (jointly, as parties to the disagreement)
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • causalLanguage content: Four of the key engineering employees of a firm headed by Engineer A left the firm at the same time following disagreement on certain firm policies
  • necessaryFactors content: Existence of substantive disagreement over firm policies; Employees' shared dissatisfaction strong enough to prompt departure; Employees' status as employees with freedom to resign
  • sufficientFactors content: Combination of policy disagreement + collective willingness of all four engineers to leave together
  • counterfactual content: Without the disagreement over firm policies, the four engineers would likely have remained at Firm A and the coordinated departure would not have occurred
  • agentKnowledge content: Both sides knew of the policy dispute and that it was unresolved
  • interveningFactors content: Nature of the specific firm policies in dispute; Internal firm governance dynamics
  • causalSequence content: {'proeth:step': 1, 'proeth:element': 'Firm Policy Disagreement', 'proeth:description': 'A disagreement arises between Engineer A and four key employees over firm policies'}; {'proeth:step': 2, 'proeth:element': 'Breakdown of Working Relationship', 'proeth:description': "The 'divorce' between A and the four engineers proceeds 'on a note of disagreement'"}; {'proeth:step': 3, 'proeth:element': 'Simultaneous Resignation', 'proeth:description': 'All four key engineers leave the firm at the same time'}
  • responsibilityType assessment: shared
  • withinAgentControl assessment: True
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/168#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/168#CausalChain_1",
  "@type": "proeth:CausalChain",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-12T07:30:58.902382+00:00",
  "proeth:agentKnowledge": "Both sides knew of the policy dispute and that it was unresolved",
  "proeth:causalLanguage": "Four of the key engineering employees of a firm headed by Engineer A left the firm at the same time following disagreement on certain firm policies",
  "proeth:causalSequence": [
    {
      "proeth:description": "A disagreement arises between Engineer A and four key employees over firm policies",
      "proeth:element": "Firm Policy Disagreement",
      "proeth:step": 1
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "The \u0027divorce\u0027 between A and the four engineers proceeds \u0027on a note of disagreement\u0027",
      "proeth:element": "Breakdown of Working Relationship",
      "proeth:step": 2
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "All four key engineers leave the firm at the same time",
      "proeth:element": "Simultaneous Resignation",
      "proeth:step": 3
    }
  ],
  "proeth:cause": "Firm Policy Disagreement",
  "proeth:counterfactual": "Without the disagreement over firm policies, the four engineers would likely have remained at Firm A and the coordinated departure would not have occurred",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "facts",
  "proeth:effect": "Simultaneous Resignation",
  "proeth:interveningFactors": [
    "Nature of the specific firm policies in dispute",
    "Internal firm governance dynamics"
  ],
  "proeth:necessaryFactors": [
    "Existence of substantive disagreement over firm policies",
    "Employees\u0027 shared dissatisfaction strong enough to prompt departure",
    "Employees\u0027 status as employees with freedom to resign"
  ],
  "proeth:responsibilityType": "shared",
  "proeth:responsibleAgent": "Engineer A and the four engineers (jointly, as parties to the disagreement)",
  "proeth:sufficientFactors": [
    "Combination of policy disagreement + collective willingness of all four engineers to leave together"
  ],
  "proeth:withinAgentControl": true
}
Allen Temporal Relations (14)
Interval algebra relationships with OWL-Time standard properties
From Entity Allen Relation To Entity OWL-Time Property Evidence
policy disagreement before
Entity1 is before Entity2 		resignation of the four engineers time:intervalBefore
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#intervalBefore 		left the firm at the same time following disagreement on certain firm policies
four engineers' individual resignations equals
Entity1 and Entity2 have the same start and end times 		each other's resignations time:intervalEquals
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#intervalEquals 		Four of the key engineering employees... left the firm at the same time
resignation of the four engineers meets
Entity1 ends exactly when Entity2 begins 		organization of Firm B time:intervalMeets
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#intervalMeets 		left the firm at the same time... and promptly organized a new engineering firm, B
organization of Firm B meets
Entity1 ends exactly when Entity2 begins 		Firm B contacting former clients of Firm A time:intervalMeets
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#intervalMeets 		Firm B promptly contacted the former clients of Firm A
engineers' involvement with Firm A's clients during
Entity1 occurs entirely within the duration of Entity2 		engineers' employment at Firm A time:intervalDuring
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#intervalDuring 		one or more of the four engineers had been involved with the former clients of Engineer A while in h... [more]
projects under discussion (no selection or negotiation yet) overlaps
Entity1 starts before Entity2 and ends during Entity2 		Firm B's client contacts time:intervalOverlaps
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#intervalOverlaps 		including some former clients of Firm A which had projects under discussion with Firm A, but for whi... [more]
Firm B's solicitation contacts equals
Entity1 and Entity2 have the same start and end times 		Engineer A's contacts with former clients time:intervalEquals
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#intervalEquals 		While Firm B was making these contacts to indicate the availability of the new firm... Engineer A wa... [more]
departure of the four engineers before
Entity1 is before Entity2 		Engineer A's assurances to clients of continued capability time:intervalBefore
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#intervalBefore 		retained its capacity to provide proper services despite the departure of the four engineers
possible internal discussions about soliciting Firm A's clients during
Entity1 occurs entirely within the duration of Entity2 		engineers' employment at Firm A time:intervalDuring
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#intervalDuring 		the four engineers possibly discussed among themselves the idea of soliciting work of former clients... [more]
Firm B casting doubt on Engineer A's ability during
Entity1 occurs entirely within the duration of Entity2 		period of parallel solicitation time:intervalDuring
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#intervalDuring 		he was told by the clients that Firm B had cast doubt on the ability of A to provide quality service... [more]
Engineer A expressing doubt about Firm B's qualifications during
Entity1 occurs entirely within the duration of Entity2 		period of parallel solicitation time:intervalDuring
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#intervalDuring 		In his discussions with the former clients Engineer A indicated doubt that Firm B was qualified to p... [more]
mutual disparagement by A and B before
Entity1 is before Entity2 		Engineer A's ethics protest time:intervalBefore
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#intervalBefore 		Engineer A has protested the action of the four engineers on ethical grounds, alleging that they vio... [more]
Engineer A's ethics protest before
Entity1 is before Entity2 		Board's retrospective analysis time:intervalBefore
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#intervalBefore 		Engineer A then filed an ethics protest alleging supplanting, leading to the Board's retrospective a... [more]
engineers' promotional efforts/negotiations with A's clients after
Entity1 is after Entity2 		engineers' employment at Firm A time:intervalAfter
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#intervalAfter 		the four engineers did not undertake the promotional efforts with the former clients of A while in h... [more]
About Allen Relations & OWL-Time

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

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

Back to Extraction Continue to Step 4

© Licensed under the GNU GPL v3