This page shows the pre-commit working store (the raw extraction under review). This case was committed to OntServe on 2026-10-24 07:57; the committed record differs by design (deduplication, typing, and agent binding are applied at commit). View the committed record
Overview
Facts Discussion
Provenance Draft

PASS 1: Contextual Framework Facts Section

Case 169: Review of Original Engineer's Design

R Roles
6
Classes
5
Individuals
S States
5
Classes
5
Individuals
Rs Resources
1
Classes
1
Individuals

Extracted Ontology Entities

23 RDF entities extracted organized by concept type

R Roles

Roles Classes
6
changed
DesignEngineerRole
rdfs:subClassOf Roles
Linked
Design Engineer Role
C169
Definition
Extracted from facts primary
A professional engineering role responsible for producing the original design of building systems, here the mechanical and electrical systems of a housing project including the sizing of hot water and heating equipment.
Inherited from DesignEngineerRole · note
An engineer responsible for producing a design (plans, calculations, specifications, drawings) for a project. Project and discipline are case context, not separate role kinds.
Properties
Text References:
"Engineer A had been retained by the prime professional engineer to provide mechanical and electrical engineering services for a large housing project."
"concluded there were design inadequacies in the original sizing of the equipment for hot water and heating"
Confidence: 0.9
Role Category: provider_client
Role Kind: professional
Distinguishing Features:
  • Produces the original design of project systems rather than inspecting or reviewing them
  • Duties run to the retaining party for whom the design services are performed
Professional Scope: Original mechanical and electrical engineering design services for a building project, including equipment sizing for hot water and heating systems
Typical Qualifications:
  • Professional Engineer license
  • Mechanical and electrical design experience
Associated Virtues:
  • Competence
  • Integrity
[facts] "Engineer A had been retained by the prime professional engineer to provide mechanical and electrical engineering services for a large housing project."
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • textReferences content: Engineer A had been retained by the prime professional engineer to provide mechanical and electrical engineering services for a large housing project.; concluded there were design inadequacies in the original sizing of the equipment for hot water and heating
  • roleCategory content: provider_client
  • roleKind content: professional
  • distinguishingFeatures content: Produces the original design of project systems rather than inspecting or reviewing them; Duties run to the retaining party for whom the design services are performed
  • professionalScope content: Original mechanical and electrical engineering design services for a building project, including equipment sizing for hot water and heating systems
  • typicalQualifications content: Professional Engineer license; Mechanical and electrical design experience
  • associatedVirtues content: Competence; Integrity
  • confidence assessment: 0.9
changed
ClientRole
rdfs:subClassOf Roles
Linked
Owner Role
C169
Definition
Extracted from facts primary
A participant role of the party owning a facility, here a new owner who retains an engineer to inspect the facility and receives the resulting report.
Inherited from OwnerRole · note
The role borne by the party that owns the asset or project.
Properties
Text References:
"Approximately seven years after the original occupancy, ownership of the facility changed."
"The owner advised Engineer B of his complaint concerning the plumbing and heating systems."
Confidence: 0.95
Role Kind: participant
Distinguishing Features:
  • Owns the facility and holds standing as the retaining party for the inspection
  • Bears no profession-generated engineering obligations articulated by the case
[facts] "Approximately seven years after the original occupancy, ownership of the facility changed. The new owner informed Engineer A he had retained Engineer B to make an engineering inspection of the facilit..."
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • textReferences content: Approximately seven years after the original occupancy, ownership of the facility changed.; The owner advised Engineer B of his complaint concerning the plumbing and heating systems.
  • roleKind content: participant
  • distinguishingFeatures content: Owns the facility and holds standing as the retaining party for the inspection; Bears no profession-generated engineering obligations articulated by the case
  • confidence assessment: 0.95
changed
ConsultantEngineerRole
rdfs:subClassOf Roles
Linked
Consultant Engineer Role
C169
Definition
Extracted from facts primary
A professional engineering role engaged by an owner in an advisory capacity to inspect a facility, study its systems, and file a report with findings and recommendations.
Inherited from ConsultantEngineerRole · note
An engineer engaged in a consulting or advisory capacity to a client. An engagement-capacity idiom under EngineerRole, not a discipline or function specialization.
Properties
Text References:
"he had retained Engineer B to make an engineering inspection of the facility"
"Engineer B thereafter conducted a further study and filed a report with the owner."
Confidence: 0.9
Role Category: provider_client
Role Kind: professional
Distinguishing Features:
  • Engaged to inspect and evaluate existing work rather than to produce original design
  • Files a report of findings and recommendations to the retaining client
Professional Scope: Engineering inspection, study, and reporting on the condition and design adequacy of building systems for a retaining owner
Typical Qualifications:
  • Professional Engineer license
  • Experience in inspection and evaluation of building systems
Associated Virtues:
  • Objectivity
  • Truthfulness
  • Competence
[facts] "The new owner informed Engineer A he had retained Engineer B to make an engineering inspection of the facility, and there were problems associated with the wiring."
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • textReferences content: he had retained Engineer B to make an engineering inspection of the facility; Engineer B thereafter conducted a further study and filed a report with the owner.
  • roleCategory content: provider_client
  • roleKind content: professional
  • distinguishingFeatures content: Engaged to inspect and evaluate existing work rather than to produce original design; Files a report of findings and recommendations to the retaining client
  • professionalScope content: Engineering inspection, study, and reporting on the condition and design adequacy of building systems for a retaining owner
  • typicalQualifications content: Professional Engineer license; Experience in inspection and evaluation of building systems
  • associatedVirtues content: Objectivity; Truthfulness; Competence
  • confidence assessment: 0.9
changed
PrimeEngineerRole
rdfs:subClassOf Roles
Review
Engineer Role
C169
Definition
Extracted from facts primary
The professional engineer holding the prime engagement on a project who retains other engineers to provide specialty engineering services under that engagement.
Inherited from EngineerRole · note
A professional role involving engineering practice and responsibilities. Occupational archetype head for all engineer specializations and extracted engineer-role leaves.
Properties
Text References:
"Engineer A had been retained by the prime professional engineer to provide mechanical and electrical engineering services for a large housing project."
Confidence: 0.75
Role Kind: professional
Distinguishing Features:
  • Holds the prime professional engagement on the project
  • Retains subconsulting engineers for specialty services
Professional Scope: Overall professional engineering responsibility for a project, including retaining specialty engineers such as mechanical and electrical consultants
Typical Qualifications: Professional Engineer license
Associated Virtues:
  • Competence
  • Responsibility
[facts] "Engineer A had been retained by the prime professional engineer to provide mechanical and electrical engineering services for a large housing project."
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • textReferences content: Engineer A had been retained by the prime professional engineer to provide mechanical and electrical engineering services for a large housing project.
  • roleKind content: professional
  • distinguishingFeatures content: Holds the prime professional engagement on the project; Retains subconsulting engineers for specialty services
  • professionalScope content: Overall professional engineering responsibility for a project, including retaining specialty engineers such as mechanical and electrical consultants
  • typicalQualifications content: Professional Engineer license
  • associatedVirtues content: Competence; Responsibility
  • confidence assessment: 0.75
changed
InspectorRole
rdfs:subClassOf Roles
Review
Regulatory Authority Role
C169
Definition
Extracted from facts primary
A municipal code-enforcement official who participates in the inspection of building wiring to determine whether defects exist.
Inherited from RegulatoryAuthorityRole · note
The role borne by a body or official exercising statutory oversight of engineering practice (a licensure board, a code-enforcement agency, an inspector, or an ethics review board) as a participant in the case. Oversight duties are statutory or institutional case facts, not profession-generated obligations; the engineer-side duty toward such bodies is carried by the reporting and disclosure obligations of the professional roles. No IFC equivalent (IFC has no regulator role).
Properties
Text References:
"a joint inspection of the wiring was made by the two engineers and the city wiring inspector"
Confidence: 0.8
Role Kind: participant
Distinguishing Features:
  • Exercises municipal code-enforcement inspection authority over building wiring
  • Oversight standing is institutional, not profession-generated
[facts] "At the owner's request, a joint inspection of the wiring was made by the two engineers and the city wiring inspector. The inspection did not reveal any defects in the wiring."
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • textReferences content: a joint inspection of the wiring was made by the two engineers and the city wiring inspector
  • roleKind content: participant
  • distinguishingFeatures content: Exercises municipal code-enforcement inspection authority over building wiring; Oversight standing is institutional, not profession-generated
  • confidence assessment: 0.8
changed
RegulatoryAuthorityRole
rdfs:subClassOf Roles
Linked
Regulatory Authority Role
C169
Definition
Extracted from facts primary
The state body with statutory authority over engineering licensure that receives and adjudicates complaints alleging misconduct by registered engineers.
Inherited from RegulatoryAuthorityRole · note
The role borne by a body or official exercising statutory oversight of engineering practice (a licensure board, a code-enforcement agency, an inspector, or an ethics review board) as a participant in the case. Oversight duties are statutory or institutional case facts, not profession-generated obligations; the engineer-side duty toward such bodies is carried by the reporting and disclosure obligations of the professional roles. No IFC equivalent (IFC has no regulator role).
Properties
Text References:
"Engineer A thereafter filed a complaint with the state engineering registration board alleging that Engineer B had acted improperly"
"Engineer A requested the registration board to find Engineer B guilty of "misconduct""
Confidence: 0.9
Role Kind: participant
Distinguishing Features:
  • Holds statutory authority over engineering registration
  • Receives and decides misconduct complaints against engineers
[facts] "Engineer A thereafter filed a complaint with the state engineering registration board alleging that Engineer B had acted improperly in that the report was not objective and did not include all pertine..."
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • textReferences content: Engineer A thereafter filed a complaint with the state engineering registration board alleging that Engineer B had acted improperly; Engineer A requested the registration board to find Engineer B guilty of "misconduct"
  • roleKind content: participant
  • distinguishingFeatures content: Holds statutory authority over engineering registration; Receives and decides misconduct complaints against engineers
  • confidence assessment: 0.9
Roles Individuals
5
Engineer B Consultant Engineer
Consultant Engineer Role
Linked
Consultant Engineer Role
C169
Text References:
"he had retained Engineer B to make an engineering inspection of the facility"
"Engineer B thereafter conducted a further study and filed a report with the owner."
"Engineer B recommended the installation of equipment of higher capacity."
Confidence: 0.92
Actor: Engineer B
Role Class: Consultant Engineer Role
Role Category: provider_client
Role Kind: professional
License: Professional Engineer
Specialty: Engineering inspection and evaluation of building systems
Additional Relationships: {'type': 'accused of misconduct by', 'target': 'Engineer A', 'quote': 'Engineer A requested the registration board to find Engineer B guilty of "misconduct" in that Engineer B had obtained employment by a questionable method of criticizing Engineer A without his knowledge.'}
Case Involvement: Retained by the new owner to inspect the facility, participated in the joint wiring inspection, conducted a further study of the plumbing and heating systems, and filed a report concluding there were design inadequacies in the original equipment sizing and recommending higher capacity equipment.
Hasclient: Owner
"he had retained Engineer B to make an engineering inspection of the facility"
Reviewsworkof: Engineer A
"The report noted there was no problem with the design of the plumbing system, but concluded there were design inadequacies in the original sizing of the equipme..."
Professionalpeerof: Engineer A
"a joint inspection of the wiring was made by the two engineers and the city wiring inspector"
[facts] "The new owner informed Engineer A he had retained Engineer B to make an engineering inspection of the facility, and there were problems associated with the wiring."
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • actor: Engineer B
  • relationships: {'type': 'hasClient', 'target': 'Owner', 'quote': 'he had retained Engineer B to make an engineering inspection of the facility'}; {'type': 'reviewsWorkOf', 'target': 'Engineer A', 'quote': 'The report noted there was no problem with the design of the plumbing system, but concluded there were design inadequacies in the original sizing of the equipment for hot water and heating.'}; {'type': 'professionalPeerOf', 'target': 'Engineer A', 'quote': 'a joint inspection of the wiring was made by the two engineers and the city wiring inspector'}
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • textReferences content: he had retained Engineer B to make an engineering inspection of the facility; Engineer B thereafter conducted a further study and filed a report with the owner.; Engineer B recommended the installation of equipment of higher capacity.
  • roleClass content: Consultant Engineer Role
  • roleCategory content: provider_client
  • roleKind content: professional
  • license content: Professional Engineer
  • specialty content: Engineering inspection and evaluation of building systems
  • additionalRelationships content: {'type': 'accused of misconduct by', 'target': 'Engineer A', 'quote': 'Engineer A requested the registration board to find Engineer B guilty of "misconduct" in that Engineer B had obtained employment by a questionable method of criticizing Engineer A without his knowledge.'}
  • caseInvolvement content: Retained by the new owner to inspect the facility, participated in the joint wiring inspection, conducted a further study of the plumbing and heating systems, and filed a report concluding there were design inadequacies in the original equipment sizing and recommending higher capacity equipment.
  • confidence assessment: 0.92
Engineer A Design Engineer
Design Engineer Role
Linked
Design Engineer Role
C169
Text References:
"Engineer A had been retained by the prime professional engineer to provide mechanical and electrical engineering services for a large housing project."
"The project was completed and occupied four years later, and Engineer A was fully paid for his services."
Confidence: 0.92
Actor: Engineer A
Role Class: Design Engineer Role
Role Category: provider_client
Role Kind: professional
License: Professional Engineer
Specialty: Mechanical and electrical engineering
Technical Background: Mechanical and electrical engineering design for building systems
Additional Relationships: {'type': 'filed complaint against', 'target': 'Engineer B', 'quote': 'Engineer A thereafter filed a complaint with the state engineering registration board alleging that Engineer B had acted improperly'}
Case Involvement: Provided the original mechanical and electrical engineering design services for the housing project, participated in the joint wiring inspection, and later filed a complaint with the state engineering registration board alleging Engineer B acted improperly and requesting a finding of misconduct.
Hasclient: Prime Professional Engineer
"Engineer A had been retained by the prime professional engineer to provide mechanical and electrical engineering services for a large housing project."
Workreviewedby: Engineer B
"concluded there were design inadequacies in the original sizing of the equipment for hot water and heating"
Professionalpeerof: Engineer B
"a joint inspection of the wiring was made by the two engineers and the city wiring inspector"
[facts] "Engineer A had been retained by the prime professional engineer to provide mechanical and electrical engineering services for a large housing project."
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • actor: Engineer A
  • relationships: {'type': 'hasClient', 'target': 'Prime Professional Engineer', 'quote': 'Engineer A had been retained by the prime professional engineer to provide mechanical and electrical engineering services for a large housing project.'}; {'type': 'workReviewedBy', 'target': 'Engineer B', 'quote': 'concluded there were design inadequacies in the original sizing of the equipment for hot water and heating'}; {'type': 'professionalPeerOf', 'target': 'Engineer B', 'quote': 'a joint inspection of the wiring was made by the two engineers and the city wiring inspector'}
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • textReferences content: Engineer A had been retained by the prime professional engineer to provide mechanical and electrical engineering services for a large housing project.; The project was completed and occupied four years later, and Engineer A was fully paid for his services.
  • roleClass content: Design Engineer Role
  • roleCategory content: provider_client
  • roleKind content: professional
  • license content: Professional Engineer
  • specialty content: Mechanical and electrical engineering
  • technicalBackground content: Mechanical and electrical engineering design for building systems
  • additionalRelationships content: {'type': 'filed complaint against', 'target': 'Engineer B', 'quote': 'Engineer A thereafter filed a complaint with the state engineering registration board alleging that Engineer B had acted improperly'}
  • caseInvolvement content: Provided the original mechanical and electrical engineering design services for the housing project, participated in the joint wiring inspection, and later filed a complaint with the state engineering registration board alleging Engineer B acted improperly and requesting a finding of misconduct.
  • confidence assessment: 0.92
New Owner
Owner Role
Linked
Owner Role
C169
Text References:
"Approximately seven years after the original occupancy, ownership of the facility changed."
"At the owner's request, a joint inspection of the wiring was made by the two engineers and the city wiring inspector."
"The owner advised Engineer B of his complaint concerning the plumbing and heating systems."
Confidence: 0.9
Actor: Owner
Role Class: Owner Role
Role Kind: participant
Additional Relationships:
  • {'type': 'retained', 'target': 'Engineer B', 'quote': 'he had retained Engineer B to make an engineering inspection of the facility'}
  • {'type': 'requested joint inspection by', 'target': 'Engineer A and Engineer B and city wiring inspector', 'quote': "At the owner's request, a joint inspection of the wiring was made by the two engineers and the city wiring inspector."}
Case Involvement: Acquired the facility, retained Engineer B to make an engineering inspection, requested the joint wiring inspection, advised Engineer B of his complaint concerning the plumbing and heating systems, and received Engineer B's report.
Ownership history: Acquired the facility approximately seven years after the original occupancy
[facts] "Approximately seven years after the original occupancy, ownership of the facility changed. The new owner informed Engineer A he had retained Engineer B to make an engineering inspection of the facilit..."
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • actor: Owner
  • attributes: {'ownership_history': 'Acquired the facility approximately seven years after the original occupancy'}
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • textReferences content: Approximately seven years after the original occupancy, ownership of the facility changed.; At the owner's request, a joint inspection of the wiring was made by the two engineers and the city wiring inspector.; The owner advised Engineer B of his complaint concerning the plumbing and heating systems.
  • roleClass content: Owner Role
  • roleKind content: participant
  • additionalRelationships content: {'type': 'retained', 'target': 'Engineer B', 'quote': 'he had retained Engineer B to make an engineering inspection of the facility'}; {'type': 'requested joint inspection by', 'target': 'Engineer A and Engineer B and city wiring inspector', 'quote': "At the owner's request, a joint inspection of the wiring was made by the two engineers and the city wiring inspector."}
  • caseInvolvement content: Acquired the facility, retained Engineer B to make an engineering inspection, requested the joint wiring inspection, advised Engineer B of his complaint concerning the plumbing and heating systems, and received Engineer B's report.
  • confidence assessment: 0.9
State Engineering Registration Board
Regulatory Authority Role
Linked
Regulatory Authority Role
C169
Text References:
"Engineer A thereafter filed a complaint with the state engineering registration board alleging that Engineer B had acted improperly"
"Engineer A requested the registration board to find Engineer B guilty of "misconduct""
Confidence: 0.9
Actor: State Engineering Registration Board
Role Class: Engineering Registration Board
Role Kind: participant
Additional Relationships: {'type': 'received complaint from', 'target': 'Engineer A', 'quote': 'Engineer A thereafter filed a complaint with the state engineering registration board alleging that Engineer B had acted improperly'}
Case Involvement: Received Engineer A's complaint alleging that Engineer B acted improperly and was asked to find Engineer B guilty of misconduct for obtaining employment by a questionable method of criticizing Engineer A without his knowledge.
[facts] "Engineer A thereafter filed a complaint with the state engineering registration board alleging that Engineer B had acted improperly in that the report was not objective and did not include all pertine..."
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • actor: State Engineering Registration Board
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • textReferences content: Engineer A thereafter filed a complaint with the state engineering registration board alleging that Engineer B had acted improperly; Engineer A requested the registration board to find Engineer B guilty of "misconduct"
  • roleClass content: Engineering Registration Board
  • roleKind content: participant
  • additionalRelationships content: {'type': 'received complaint from', 'target': 'Engineer A', 'quote': 'Engineer A thereafter filed a complaint with the state engineering registration board alleging that Engineer B had acted improperly'}
  • caseInvolvement content: Received Engineer A's complaint alleging that Engineer B acted improperly and was asked to find Engineer B guilty of misconduct for obtaining employment by a questionable method of criticizing Engineer A without his knowledge.
  • confidence assessment: 0.9
City Wiring Inspector
Regulatory Authority Role
Review
Regulatory Authority Role
C169
Text References:
"a joint inspection of the wiring was made by the two engineers and the city wiring inspector"
"The inspection did not reveal any defects in the wiring."
Confidence: 0.85
Actor: City Wiring Inspector
Role Class: Wiring Inspector
Role Kind: participant
Specialty: Building wiring inspection
Employer: City
Additional Relationships: {'type': 'jointly inspected wiring with', 'target': 'Engineer A and Engineer B', 'quote': 'a joint inspection of the wiring was made by the two engineers and the city wiring inspector'}
Case Involvement: Participated in the joint inspection of the facility wiring with Engineer A and Engineer B, an inspection that did not reveal any defects in the wiring.
[facts] "At the owner's request, a joint inspection of the wiring was made by the two engineers and the city wiring inspector. The inspection did not reveal any defects in the wiring."
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • actor: City Wiring Inspector
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • textReferences content: a joint inspection of the wiring was made by the two engineers and the city wiring inspector; The inspection did not reveal any defects in the wiring.
  • roleClass content: Wiring Inspector
  • roleKind content: participant
  • specialty content: Building wiring inspection
  • employer content: City
  • additionalRelationships content: {'type': 'jointly inspected wiring with', 'target': 'Engineer A and Engineer B', 'quote': 'a joint inspection of the wiring was made by the two engineers and the city wiring inspector'}
  • caseInvolvement content: Participated in the joint inspection of the facility wiring with Engineer A and Engineer B, an inspection that did not reveal any defects in the wiring.
  • confidence assessment: 0.85

S States

States Classes
5
changed
Selective Reporting State
rdfs:subClassOf States
Review
Selective Reporting State
C169
Definition
Extracted from facts primary
A disclosure condition concerning what information a professional report presents to the client, here the condition Engineer A alleges, that Engineer B's report was not objective and did not include all pertinent information.
Inherited from SelectiveReportingState · note
A condition of what information has been disclosed among the parties, here the state in which all available information about both design approaches, including risks and benefits, has been presented to the client's leadership.
Properties
Text References:
"the report was not objective and did not include all pertinent information"
Confidence: 0.85
State Category: disclosure
Persistence Type: inertial
Activation Conditions: A report is filed that allegedly omits pertinent information or lacks objectivity
Termination Conditions: The omitted information is supplied or the report is corrected or the allegation is resolved
Principle Transformation: An alleged omission of pertinent information in the filed report places the report's objectivity at issue before the registration board.
[facts] "Engineer A thereafter filed a complaint with the state engineering registration board alleging that Engineer B had acted improperly in that the report was not objective and did not include all pertine..."
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • textReferences content: the report was not objective and did not include all pertinent information
  • stateCategory content: disclosure
  • persistenceType content: inertial
  • principleTransformation content: An alleged omission of pertinent information in the filed report places the report's objectivity at issue before the registration board.
  • confidence assessment: 0.85
Derived (reconstructable from the graph)
  • activationConditions: A report is filed that allegedly omits pertinent information or lacks objectivity
  • terminationConditions: The omitted information is supplied or the report is corrected or the allegation is resolved
changed
Engagement Termination State
rdfs:subClassOf States
Linked
Engagement Termination State
C169
Definition
Extracted from facts primary
A temporal condition in which a professional's contracted services have been completed and fully paid, so the professional is in a post-engagement phase with respect to the project while the work product remains in service.
Inherited from EngagementTerminationState · note
A temporal condition in which a professional's contract for services has been terminated by the client, with services performed fully paid, so the professional is in a post-engagement phase while knowledge acquired during the engagement remains held.
Properties
Text References:
"The project was completed and occupied four years later, and Engineer A was fully paid for his services."
Confidence: 0.93
State Category: temporal
Persistence Type: inertial
Activation Conditions: Completion of the contracted engineering services and full payment to the engineer
Termination Conditions: No terminating event stated in the case, the post-engagement phase persists
Principle Transformation: After the engagement ends, questions about the original design are evaluated against the engineer's completed and fully compensated work rather than an ongoing duty of service.
[facts] "Engineer A had been retained by the prime professional engineer to provide mechanical and electrical engineering services for a large housing project. The project was completed and occupied four years..."
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • textReferences content: The project was completed and occupied four years later, and Engineer A was fully paid for his services.
  • stateCategory content: temporal
  • persistenceType content: inertial
  • principleTransformation content: After the engagement ends, questions about the original design are evaluated against the engineer's completed and fully compensated work rather than an ongoing duty of service.
  • confidence assessment: 0.93
Derived (reconstructable from the graph)
  • activationConditions: Completion of the contracted engineering services and full payment to the engineer
  • terminationConditions: No terminating event stated in the case, the post-engagement phase persists
changed
Whistleblowing State
rdfs:subClassOf States
Linked
Whistleblowing State
C169
Definition
Extracted from facts primary
A disclosure condition in which an alleged ethics violation has been asserted by one engineer against another, so the allegation is now disclosed and at issue, here Engineer A's complaint to the state engineering registration board alleging that Engineer B acted improperly.
Inherited from WhistleblowingState · note
A disclosure condition in which an alleged ethics violation has been asserted by an engineer against other engineers, so the allegation is now disclosed and at issue, here Engineer A protesting the action of the four departing engineers as a violation of the rule against supplanting.
Properties
Text References:
"Engineer A thereafter filed a complaint with the state engineering registration board alleging that Engineer B had acted improperly"
Confidence: 0.9
State Category: disclosure
Persistence Type: inertial
Activation Conditions: An engineer files a formal complaint alleging improper conduct by another engineer
Termination Conditions: The registration board resolves the complaint
Principle Transformation: Once the allegation is filed, the propriety of Engineer B's conduct becomes a matter for adjudication rather than a private grievance.
[facts] "Engineer A thereafter filed a complaint with the state engineering registration board alleging that Engineer B had acted improperly in that the report was not objective and did not include all pertine..."
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • textReferences content: Engineer A thereafter filed a complaint with the state engineering registration board alleging that Engineer B had acted improperly
  • stateCategory content: disclosure
  • persistenceType content: inertial
  • principleTransformation content: Once the allegation is filed, the propriety of Engineer B's conduct becomes a matter for adjudication rather than a private grievance.
  • confidence assessment: 0.9
Derived (reconstructable from the graph)
  • activationConditions: An engineer files a formal complaint alleging improper conduct by another engineer
  • terminationConditions: The registration board resolves the complaint
changed
ConfirmedRiskState
rdfs:subClassOf States
Review
Confirmed Risk State
C169
Definition
Extracted from facts primary
An epistemic condition in which a professional's identification of a problem in another engineer's work has risen from a client complaint to a concluded technical finding, here Engineer B's further study concluding there were design inadequacies in the original sizing of the hot water and heating equipment.
Inherited from ConfirmedRiskState · note
An epistemic condition in which a professional's identification of a problem has risen from preliminary suspicion to established fact, here Engineer R's independent review revealing a surprising number of serious structural design errors, omissions, and faulty details in both the failed basement and the unbuilt portions of the structure.
Properties
Text References:
"concluded there were design inadequacies in the original sizing of the equipment for hot water and heating"
Confidence: 0.85
State Category: epistemic
Persistence Type: inertial
Activation Conditions: The reviewing engineer completes a further study and reaches a concluded finding of design inadequacy
Termination Conditions: The finding is refuted or the inadequacy is corrected
Principle Transformation: Once the reviewing engineer's study yields a concluded finding, the duty of objective and complete reporting attaches to how that finding is presented to the owner.
[facts] "Engineer B thereafter conducted a further study and filed a report with the owner. The report noted there was no problem with the design of the plumbing system, but concluded there were design inadequ..."
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • textReferences content: concluded there were design inadequacies in the original sizing of the equipment for hot water and heating
  • stateCategory content: epistemic
  • persistenceType content: inertial
  • principleTransformation content: Once the reviewing engineer's study yields a concluded finding, the duty of objective and complete reporting attaches to how that finding is presented to the owner.
  • confidence assessment: 0.85
Derived (reconstructable from the graph)
  • activationConditions: The reviewing engineer completes a further study and reaches a concluded finding of design inadequacy
  • terminationConditions: The finding is refuted or the inadequacy is corrected
changed
SelectiveReportingState
rdfs:subClassOf States
New C169
Definition
Extracted from facts primary
A disclosure condition in which one engineer's criticism of another engineer's work is rendered to a client without the knowledge of the engineer whose work is criticized, here the condition Engineer A alleges, that Engineer B criticized his design work in a report to the owner without Engineer A's knowledge.
Properties
Text References:
"Engineer B had obtained employment by a questionable method of criticizing Engineer A without his knowledge"
Confidence: 0.82
State Category: disclosure
Persistence Type: inertial
Activation Conditions: A reviewing engineer files a report criticizing another engineer's work without informing that engineer
Termination Conditions: The criticized engineer learns of the criticism
Principle Transformation: The condition of criticism rendered without the subject engineer's knowledge is what Engineer A frames as bearing on the dignity and reputation of a fellow engineer.
[facts] "Engineer A requested the registration board to find Engineer B guilty of "misconduct" in that Engineer B had obtained employment by a questionable method of criticizing Engineer A without his knowledg..."
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • textReferences content: Engineer B had obtained employment by a questionable method of criticizing Engineer A without his knowledge
  • stateCategory content: disclosure
  • persistenceType content: inertial
  • principleTransformation content: The condition of criticism rendered without the subject engineer's knowledge is what Engineer A frames as bearing on the dignity and reputation of a fellow engineer.
  • confidence assessment: 0.82
Derived (reconstructable from the graph)
  • activationConditions: A reviewing engineer files a report criticizing another engineer's work without informing that engineer
  • terminationConditions: The criticized engineer learns of the criticism
States Individuals
5
changed
Engineer A Post Engagement Phase
Engagement Termination State
Linked
Engagement Termination State
C169
Text References:
"The project was completed and occupied four years later, and Engineer A was fully paid for his services."
Confidence: 0.93
State Class: Engagement Termination State
Subject: Engineer A's engagement for mechanical and electrical engineering services on the housing project
Active Period: From project completion and full payment onward, including the period seven years after original occupancy when the facility changed ownership
Triggering Event: Completion and occupancy of the housing project and full payment of Engineer A for his services
Terminated By: No terminating event stated in the case
Affected Parties:
  • Engineer A
  • New owner
Urgency Level: low
[facts] "The project was completed and occupied four years later, and Engineer A was fully paid for his services."
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • textReferences content: The project was completed and occupied four years later, and Engineer A was fully paid for his services.
  • stateClass content: Engagement Termination State
  • subject content: Engineer A's engagement for mechanical and electrical engineering services on the housing project
  • activePeriod content: From project completion and full payment onward, including the period seven years after original occupancy when the facility changed ownership
  • triggeringEvent content: Completion and occupancy of the housing project and full payment of Engineer A for his services
  • terminatedBy content: No terminating event stated in the case
  • affectedParties content: Engineer A; New owner
  • confidence assessment: 0.93
  • urgencyLevel assessment: low
changed
Review
Confirmed Risk State
C169
Text References:
"concluded there were design inadequacies in the original sizing of the equipment for hot water and heating"
Confidence: 0.86
State Class: Confirmed Risk State
Subject: Engineer B, whose further study concluded design inadequacies in the original sizing of the hot water and heating equipment
Active Period: From the completion of Engineer B's further study onward
Triggering Event: Engineer B conducted a further study after the owner advised him of the complaint concerning the plumbing and heating systems
Terminated By: No terminating event stated in the case
Affected Parties:
  • Engineer B
  • Engineer A
  • New owner
Urgency Level: medium
[facts] "The report noted there was no problem with the design of the plumbing system, but concluded there were design inadequacies in the original sizing of the equipment for hot water and heating. Engineer B..."
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • textReferences content: concluded there were design inadequacies in the original sizing of the equipment for hot water and heating
  • stateClass content: Confirmed Risk State
  • subject content: Engineer B, whose further study concluded design inadequacies in the original sizing of the hot water and heating equipment
  • activePeriod content: From the completion of Engineer B's further study onward
  • triggeringEvent content: Engineer B conducted a further study after the owner advised him of the complaint concerning the plumbing and heating systems
  • terminatedBy content: No terminating event stated in the case
  • affectedParties content: Engineer B; Engineer A; New owner
  • confidence assessment: 0.86
  • urgencyLevel assessment: medium
changed
New C169
Text References:
"Engineer B had obtained employment by a questionable method of criticizing Engineer A without his knowledge"
Confidence: 0.82
State Class: Undisclosed Peer Criticism State
Subject: Engineer B's report to the owner criticizing the original design work of Engineer A, rendered, as Engineer A alleges, without Engineer A's knowledge
Active Period: From the filing of Engineer B's report with the owner until Engineer A learned of the criticism
Triggering Event: Engineer B filed a report with the owner concluding design inadequacies in Engineer A's original equipment sizing
Terminated By: Engineer A learning of the report and its criticism of his work
Affected Parties:
  • Engineer A
  • Engineer B
  • New owner
Urgency Level: medium
[facts] "Engineer A requested the registration board to find Engineer B guilty of "misconduct" in that Engineer B had obtained employment by a questionable method of criticizing Engineer A without his knowledg..."
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • textReferences content: Engineer B had obtained employment by a questionable method of criticizing Engineer A without his knowledge
  • stateClass content: Undisclosed Peer Criticism State
  • subject content: Engineer B's report to the owner criticizing the original design work of Engineer A, rendered, as Engineer A alleges, without Engineer A's knowledge
  • activePeriod content: From the filing of Engineer B's report with the owner until Engineer A learned of the criticism
  • triggeringEvent content: Engineer B filed a report with the owner concluding design inadequacies in Engineer A's original equipment sizing
  • terminatedBy content: Engineer A learning of the report and its criticism of his work
  • affectedParties content: Engineer A; Engineer B; New owner
  • confidence assessment: 0.82
  • urgencyLevel assessment: medium
changed
Alleged Non Objective Report
Selective Reporting State
Review
Selective Reporting State
C169
Text References:
"the report was not objective and did not include all pertinent information"
Confidence: 0.84
State Class: Selective Reporting State
Subject: Engineer B's report to the owner, which Engineer A alleges was not objective and did not include all pertinent information
Active Period: From the filing of Engineer B's report with the owner, as long as the alleged omission stands unresolved
Triggering Event: Engineer B filed a report with the owner following his further study
Terminated By: Resolution of Engineer A's allegation before the registration board
Affected Parties:
  • Engineer A
  • Engineer B
  • New owner
Urgency Level: medium
[facts] "Engineer A thereafter filed a complaint with the state engineering registration board alleging that Engineer B had acted improperly in that the report was not objective and did not include all pertine..."
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • textReferences content: the report was not objective and did not include all pertinent information
  • stateClass content: Selective Reporting State
  • subject content: Engineer B's report to the owner, which Engineer A alleges was not objective and did not include all pertinent information
  • activePeriod content: From the filing of Engineer B's report with the owner, as long as the alleged omission stands unresolved
  • triggeringEvent content: Engineer B filed a report with the owner following his further study
  • terminatedBy content: Resolution of Engineer A's allegation before the registration board
  • affectedParties content: Engineer A; Engineer B; New owner
  • confidence assessment: 0.84
  • urgencyLevel assessment: medium
changed
Engineer A Misconduct Complaint
Whistleblowing State
Linked
Whistleblowing State
C169
Text References:
"Engineer A thereafter filed a complaint with the state engineering registration board alleging that Engineer B had acted improperly"
Confidence: 0.9
State Class: Whistleblowing State
Subject: Engineer A's complaint to the state engineering registration board alleging misconduct by Engineer B
Active Period: From the filing of the complaint with the state engineering registration board until the board resolves it
Triggering Event: Engineer A filed a complaint with the state engineering registration board
Terminated By: The registration board's disposition of the complaint
Affected Parties:
  • Engineer A
  • Engineer B
Urgency Level: medium
[facts] "Engineer A thereafter filed a complaint with the state engineering registration board alleging that Engineer B had acted improperly in that the report was not objective and did not include all pertine..."
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • textReferences content: Engineer A thereafter filed a complaint with the state engineering registration board alleging that Engineer B had acted improperly
  • stateClass content: Whistleblowing State
  • subject content: Engineer A's complaint to the state engineering registration board alleging misconduct by Engineer B
  • activePeriod content: From the filing of the complaint with the state engineering registration board until the board resolves it
  • triggeringEvent content: Engineer A filed a complaint with the state engineering registration board
  • terminatedBy content: The registration board's disposition of the complaint
  • affectedParties content: Engineer A; Engineer B
  • confidence assessment: 0.9
  • urgencyLevel assessment: medium

Rs Resources

Resources Classes
1
changed
ReferenceMaterial
rdfs:subClassOf Resources
Linked
Reference Material
C169
Definition
Extracted from facts primary
A written engineering study or report documenting inspection findings and conclusions about a facility's systems, supporting professional evaluation and decision making.
Inherited from ReferenceMaterial · note
Handbooks, manuals, guides, and other documentation supporting professional practice with technical and procedural knowledge.
Properties
Text References:
"Engineer B thereafter conducted a further study and filed a report with the owner."
Confidence: 0.85
Resource Category: reference_material
[facts] "Engineer B thereafter conducted a further study and filed a report with the owner. The report noted there was no problem with the design of the plumbing system, but concluded there were design inadequ..."
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • textReferences content: Engineer B thereafter conducted a further study and filed a report with the owner.
  • resourceCategory content: reference_material
  • confidence assessment: 0.85
Resources Individuals
1
Engineer B Inspection Report
Reference Material
Linked
Reference Material
C169
Text References:
"Engineer B thereafter conducted a further study and filed a report with the owner."
"The report noted there was no problem with the design of the plumbing system, but concluded there were design inadequacies in the original sizing of the equipment for hot water and heating."
Confidence: 0.85
Resource Class: Reference Material
Topic: design adequacy of the plumbing, hot water, and heating equipment
Used By: the new owner
[facts] "The owner advised Engineer B of his complaint concerning the plumbing and heating systems. Engineer B thereafter conducted a further study and filed a report with the owner. The report noted there was..."
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • usedBy: the new owner
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • textReferences content: Engineer B thereafter conducted a further study and filed a report with the owner.; The report noted there was no problem with the design of the plumbing system, but concluded there were design inadequacies in the original sizing of the equipment for hot water and heating.
  • resourceClass content: Reference Material
  • topic content: design adequacy of the plumbing, hot water, and heating equipment
  • confidence assessment: 0.85
Pass 1: Contextual Framework - Facts
Review extracted entities, then continue to the next step
Continue to Discussion Review
Case texts: National Society of Professional Engineers, Board of Ethical Review.

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

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

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

© Licensed under the GNU GPL v3