Enhanced Temporal Review

Timeline Overview

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

Timeline Elements: 8

Actions on Timeline: 4 (of 4 extracted)

Events on Timeline: 4 (of 4 extracted)

Temporal Markers

During public hearing 1 elements
During response to R's testimony 2 elements
After construction began 1 elements
Initial site evaluation phase 1 elements
After public hearing 1 elements
After construction begins 2 elements

Temporal Consistency Check

Valid

Extracted Actions (4)

Volitional professional decisions with intentions and ethical context

Description: Engineer R decided to testify at a public hearing about environmental concerns regarding underground fuel tanks and problematic fill material at a truck stop site near a waterway.

Temporal Marker: During public hearing

Mental State: deliberate

Intended Outcome: Alert public and officials to environmental risks

Fulfills Obligations:

Public health and safety
Environmental protection
Professional duty to report

Guided By Principles:

Hold paramount public health and safety
Environmental stewardship

Required Capabilities:

Environmental engineering knowledge Professional judgment

Within Competence: Yes

Scenario Metadata

Pedagogical context for interactive teaching scenarios

Character Motivation: Professional duty to protect public health and safety; obligation to prevent environmental harm to waterway

Ethical Tension: Professional responsibility vs potential professional relationships and business consequences

Learning Significance: Demonstrates courage to speak truth to power and prioritize public welfare over personal comfort

Stakes: Environmental contamination of waterway, groundwater pollution, public health risks, professional credibility

Decision Point: Yes - Story can branch here

Alternative Actions:

Stay silent and avoid confrontation
Privately contact regulatory agencies instead
Approach Engineer H directly before going public

Narrative Role: inciting_incident

RDF JSON-LD

{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/17#",
    "proeth-scenario": "http://proethica.org/ontology/scenario#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#",
    "time": "http://www.w3.org/2006/time#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/cases/17#Action_Public_Hearing_Testimony_Decision",
  "@type": "proeth:Action",
  "proeth-scenario:alternativeActions": [
    "Stay silent and avoid confrontation",
    "Privately contact regulatory agencies instead",
    "Approach Engineer H directly before going public"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:characterMotivation": "Professional duty to protect public health and safety; obligation to prevent environmental harm to waterway",
  "proeth-scenario:consequencesIfAlternative": [
    "Environmental damage proceeds unchallenged",
    "Regulatory investigation without public awareness",
    "Opportunity for private resolution but potential suppression of concerns"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:decisionSignificance": "Demonstrates courage to speak truth to power and prioritize public welfare over personal comfort",
  "proeth-scenario:ethicalTension": "Professional responsibility vs potential professional relationships and business consequences",
  "proeth-scenario:isDecisionPoint": true,
  "proeth-scenario:narrativeRole": "inciting_incident",
  "proeth-scenario:stakes": "Environmental contamination of waterway, groundwater pollution, public health risks, professional credibility",
  "proeth:description": "Engineer R decided to testify at a public hearing about environmental concerns regarding underground fuel tanks and problematic fill material at a truck stop site near a waterway.",
  "proeth:foreseenUnintendedEffects": [
    "Project delays",
    "Professional conflict"
  ],
  "proeth:fulfillsObligation": [
    "Public health and safety",
    "Environmental protection",
    "Professional duty to report"
  ],
  "proeth:guidedByPrinciple": [
    "Hold paramount public health and safety",
    "Environmental stewardship"
  ],
  "proeth:hasAgent": "Engineer R",
  "proeth:hasCompetingPriorities": {
    "@type": "proeth:CompetingPriorities",
    "proeth:priorityConflict": "Environmental protection vs Economic development",
    "proeth:resolutionReasoning": "Prioritized environmental protection and public safety"
  },
  "proeth:hasMentalState": "deliberate",
  "proeth:intendedOutcome": "Alert public and officials to environmental risks",
  "proeth:requiresCapability": [
    "Environmental engineering knowledge",
    "Professional judgment"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "During public hearing",
  "proeth:withinCompetence": true,
  "rdfs:label": "Public Hearing Testimony Decision"
}

Description: Engineer H decided to redirect the conversation away from leak concerns and instead focus on setback distances and grading design aspects of the project.

Temporal Marker: During response to R's testimony

Mental State: deliberate

Intended Outcome: Minimize focus on environmental concerns and maintain project approval

Fulfills Obligations:

Client advocacy

Guided By Principles:

Client service

Required Capabilities:

Valid state licensing Environmental expertise

Within Competence: No

Scenario Metadata

Pedagogical context for interactive teaching scenarios

Character Motivation: Deflect criticism and protect project approval; maintain client relationship and business interests

Ethical Tension: Client loyalty vs honest acknowledgment of legitimate safety concerns

Learning Significance: Shows how engineers can fail their duty by avoiding difficult conversations about real risks

Stakes: Professional integrity, public trust in engineering profession, actual environmental risks remain unaddressed

Decision Point: Yes - Story can branch here

Alternative Actions:

Directly address the leak concerns with technical details
Acknowledge concerns and propose specific mitigation measures
Admit limitations and defer to environmental specialists

Narrative Role: rising_action

RDF JSON-LD

{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/17#",
    "proeth-scenario": "http://proethica.org/ontology/scenario#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#",
    "time": "http://www.w3.org/2006/time#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/cases/17#Action_Redirect_Conversation_Strategy",
  "@type": "proeth:Action",
  "proeth-scenario:alternativeActions": [
    "Directly address the leak concerns with technical details",
    "Acknowledge concerns and propose specific mitigation measures",
    "Admit limitations and defer to environmental specialists"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:characterMotivation": "Deflect criticism and protect project approval; maintain client relationship and business interests",
  "proeth-scenario:consequencesIfAlternative": [
    "Transparent technical debate and potential design improvements",
    "Collaborative problem-solving and enhanced safety measures",
    "Professional honesty and appropriate expertise application"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:decisionSignificance": "Shows how engineers can fail their duty by avoiding difficult conversations about real risks",
  "proeth-scenario:ethicalTension": "Client loyalty vs honest acknowledgment of legitimate safety concerns",
  "proeth-scenario:isDecisionPoint": true,
  "proeth-scenario:narrativeRole": "rising_action",
  "proeth-scenario:stakes": "Professional integrity, public trust in engineering profession, actual environmental risks remain unaddressed",
  "proeth:description": "Engineer H decided to redirect the conversation away from leak concerns and instead focus on setback distances and grading design aspects of the project.",
  "proeth:foreseenUnintendedEffects": [
    "Inadequate addressing of safety concerns"
  ],
  "proeth:fulfillsObligation": [
    "Client advocacy"
  ],
  "proeth:guidedByPrinciple": [
    "Client service"
  ],
  "proeth:hasAgent": "Engineer H",
  "proeth:hasCompetingPriorities": {
    "@type": "proeth:CompetingPriorities",
    "proeth:priorityConflict": "Client advocacy vs Public safety concerns",
    "proeth:resolutionReasoning": "Prioritized client interests over comprehensive safety discussion"
  },
  "proeth:hasMentalState": "deliberate",
  "proeth:intendedOutcome": "Minimize focus on environmental concerns and maintain project approval",
  "proeth:requiresCapability": [
    "Valid state licensing",
    "Environmental expertise"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "During response to R\u0027s testimony",
  "proeth:violatesObligation": [
    "Public health and safety",
    "Complete disclosure"
  ],
  "proeth:withinCompetence": false,
  "rdfs:label": "Redirect Conversation Strategy"
}

Description: ZZZ representative decided to promise consultation with environmental team but make no specific commitments to address the raised concerns.

Temporal Marker: During response to R's testimony

Mental State: deliberate

Intended Outcome: Appear responsive while maintaining project flexibility

Fulfills Obligations:

Client interests
Project continuity

Guided By Principles:

Business efficiency

Required Capabilities:

Project management Stakeholder communication

Within Competence: Yes

Scenario Metadata

Pedagogical context for interactive teaching scenarios

Character Motivation: Appear responsive to concerns while preserving maximum flexibility to avoid costly changes

Ethical Tension: Stakeholder engagement vs commitment avoidance for cost control

Learning Significance: Illustrates how vague promises can undermine genuine environmental protection and public participation

Stakes: Public trust in development process, actual environmental protection, legitimacy of public hearing process

Decision Point: Yes - Story can branch here

Alternative Actions:

Make specific commitments with timelines for environmental review
Reject the concerns outright with technical justification
Request project delay for comprehensive environmental assessment

Narrative Role: rising_action

RDF JSON-LD

{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/17#",
    "proeth-scenario": "http://proethica.org/ontology/scenario#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#",
    "time": "http://www.w3.org/2006/time#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/cases/17#Action_Limited_Commitment_Response",
  "@type": "proeth:Action",
  "proeth-scenario:alternativeActions": [
    "Make specific commitments with timelines for environmental review",
    "Reject the concerns outright with technical justification",
    "Request project delay for comprehensive environmental assessment"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:characterMotivation": "Appear responsive to concerns while preserving maximum flexibility to avoid costly changes",
  "proeth-scenario:consequencesIfAlternative": [
    "Accountable environmental review with measurable outcomes",
    "Clear position enabling informed board decision",
    "Thorough risk evaluation but potential project delays and costs"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:decisionSignificance": "Illustrates how vague promises can undermine genuine environmental protection and public participation",
  "proeth-scenario:ethicalTension": "Stakeholder engagement vs commitment avoidance for cost control",
  "proeth-scenario:isDecisionPoint": true,
  "proeth-scenario:narrativeRole": "rising_action",
  "proeth-scenario:stakes": "Public trust in development process, actual environmental protection, legitimacy of public hearing process",
  "proeth:description": "ZZZ representative decided to promise consultation with environmental team but make no specific commitments to address the raised concerns.",
  "proeth:foreseenUnintendedEffects": [
    "Unresolved environmental risks"
  ],
  "proeth:fulfillsObligation": [
    "Client interests",
    "Project continuity"
  ],
  "proeth:guidedByPrinciple": [
    "Business efficiency"
  ],
  "proeth:hasAgent": "ZZZ representative",
  "proeth:hasCompetingPriorities": {
    "@type": "proeth:CompetingPriorities",
    "proeth:priorityConflict": "Operational efficiency vs Environmental safety",
    "proeth:resolutionReasoning": "Prioritized operational and cost considerations"
  },
  "proeth:hasMentalState": "deliberate",
  "proeth:intendedOutcome": "Appear responsive while maintaining project flexibility",
  "proeth:requiresCapability": [
    "Project management",
    "Stakeholder communication"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "During response to R\u0027s testimony",
  "proeth:violatesObligation": [
    "Environmental stewardship",
    "Good faith response"
  ],
  "proeth:withinCompetence": true,
  "rdfs:label": "Limited Commitment Response"
}

Description: ZZZ decided to proceed with construction using the original tank locations without implementing changes to address the environmental concerns raised.

Temporal Marker: After construction began

Mental State: deliberate

Intended Outcome: Proceed with approved plan without costly modifications

Fulfills Obligations:

Approved plan compliance

Guided By Principles:

Cost efficiency
Schedule adherence

Required Capabilities:

Project management Risk assessment

Within Competence: Yes

Scenario Metadata

Pedagogical context for interactive teaching scenarios

Character Motivation: Minimize project costs and delays; belief that approved plans are sufficient despite raised concerns

Ethical Tension: Economic efficiency vs environmental precaution and public safety

Learning Significance: Demonstrates how ignoring expert warnings can lead to environmental harm and professional liability

Stakes: Actual environmental contamination, legal liability, public health consequences, professional accountability

Decision Point: Yes - Story can branch here

Alternative Actions:

Relocate tanks to safer positions before construction
Implement additional containment measures around original locations
Conduct independent environmental impact assessment

Narrative Role: climax

RDF JSON-LD

{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/17#",
    "proeth-scenario": "http://proethica.org/ontology/scenario#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#",
    "time": "http://www.w3.org/2006/time#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/cases/17#Action_Proceed_Without_Tank_Changes",
  "@type": "proeth:Action",
  "proeth-scenario:alternativeActions": [
    "Relocate tanks to safer positions before construction",
    "Implement additional containment measures around original locations",
    "Conduct independent environmental impact assessment"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:characterMotivation": "Minimize project costs and delays; belief that approved plans are sufficient despite raised concerns",
  "proeth-scenario:consequencesIfAlternative": [
    "Higher upfront costs but reduced long-term environmental risk",
    "Compromise solution addressing some concerns while maintaining schedule",
    "Informed decision-making based on comprehensive risk analysis"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:decisionSignificance": "Demonstrates how ignoring expert warnings can lead to environmental harm and professional liability",
  "proeth-scenario:ethicalTension": "Economic efficiency vs environmental precaution and public safety",
  "proeth-scenario:isDecisionPoint": true,
  "proeth-scenario:narrativeRole": "climax",
  "proeth-scenario:stakes": "Actual environmental contamination, legal liability, public health consequences, professional accountability",
  "proeth:description": "ZZZ decided to proceed with construction using the original tank locations without implementing changes to address the environmental concerns raised.",
  "proeth:foreseenUnintendedEffects": [
    "Continued environmental risk",
    "Potential regulatory issues"
  ],
  "proeth:fulfillsObligation": [
    "Approved plan compliance"
  ],
  "proeth:guidedByPrinciple": [
    "Cost efficiency",
    "Schedule adherence"
  ],
  "proeth:hasAgent": "ZZZ (company decision)",
  "proeth:hasCompetingPriorities": {
    "@type": "proeth:CompetingPriorities",
    "proeth:priorityConflict": "Tank operational efficiency vs Environmental safety",
    "proeth:resolutionReasoning": "Prioritized operational efficiency and avoided additional costs"
  },
  "proeth:hasMentalState": "deliberate",
  "proeth:intendedOutcome": "Proceed with approved plan without costly modifications",
  "proeth:requiresCapability": [
    "Project management",
    "Risk assessment"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "After construction began",
  "proeth:violatesObligation": [
    "Environmental stewardship",
    "Good faith consideration of concerns"
  ],
  "proeth:withinCompetence": true,
  "rdfs:label": "Proceed Without Tank Changes"
}

Extracted Events (4)

Occurrences that trigger ethical considerations and state changes

Description: Engineer R discovers significant environmental concerns about the truck stop site, including risks from underground fuel tanks near a waterway and problematic fill material.

Temporal Marker: Initial site evaluation phase

Activates Constraints:

PublicSafety_Paramount_Constraint
Environmental_Protection_Constraint

Scenario Metadata

Pedagogical context for interactive teaching scenarios

Emotional Impact: Alarm and concern for Engineer R about environmental risks; potential anxiety about professional obligations versus client relationships

Stakeholder Consequences:

engineer_r: Professional obligation triggered to protect public safety
public: Exposed to potential environmental contamination if risks not addressed
waterway_ecosystem: At risk from fuel contamination
development_project: Faces potential complications and redesign requirements

Learning Moment: Demonstrates how technical discovery creates immediate professional ethical obligations; shows conflict between project advancement and environmental protection

Ethical Implications: Reveals tension between loyalty to client/project and duty to protect public welfare; demonstrates environmental stewardship as engineering responsibility

Discussion Prompts:

What are Engineer R's professional obligations upon discovering these environmental risks?
How should engineers balance project advancement against environmental concerns?
What factors should guide the decision to speak publicly about technical concerns?

Crisis / Turning Point Tension: high Pacing: escalation

RDF JSON-LD

{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/17#",
    "proeth-scenario": "http://proethica.org/ontology/scenario#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#",
    "time": "http://www.w3.org/2006/time#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/cases/17#Event_Environmental_Concerns_Discovery",
  "@type": "proeth:Event",
  "proeth-scenario:crisisIdentification": true,
  "proeth-scenario:discussionPrompts": [
    "What are Engineer R\u0027s professional obligations upon discovering these environmental risks?",
    "How should engineers balance project advancement against environmental concerns?",
    "What factors should guide the decision to speak publicly about technical concerns?"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:dramaticTension": "high",
  "proeth-scenario:emotionalImpact": "Alarm and concern for Engineer R about environmental risks; potential anxiety about professional obligations versus client relationships",
  "proeth-scenario:ethicalImplications": "Reveals tension between loyalty to client/project and duty to protect public welfare; demonstrates environmental stewardship as engineering responsibility",
  "proeth-scenario:learningMoment": "Demonstrates how technical discovery creates immediate professional ethical obligations; shows conflict between project advancement and environmental protection",
  "proeth-scenario:narrativePacing": "escalation",
  "proeth-scenario:stakeholderConsequences": {
    "development_project": "Faces potential complications and redesign requirements",
    "engineer_r": "Professional obligation triggered to protect public safety",
    "public": "Exposed to potential environmental contamination if risks not addressed",
    "waterway_ecosystem": "At risk from fuel contamination"
  },
  "proeth:activatesConstraint": [
    "PublicSafety_Paramount_Constraint",
    "Environmental_Protection_Constraint"
  ],
  "proeth:causesStateChange": "Environmental risks identified; professional duty to disclose triggered; public safety concerns documented",
  "proeth:createsObligation": [
    "Report_Environmental_Risks",
    "Advocate_For_Public_Safety",
    "Professional_Testimony"
  ],
  "proeth:description": "Engineer R discovers significant environmental concerns about the truck stop site, including risks from underground fuel tanks near a waterway and problematic fill material.",
  "proeth:emergencyStatus": "high",
  "proeth:eventType": "outcome",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "Initial site evaluation phase",
  "proeth:urgencyLevel": "high",
  "rdfs:label": "Environmental Concerns Discovery"
}

Description: The Drainage Board approves the development plan despite Engineer R's testimony about environmental concerns and risks to the waterway.

Temporal Marker: After public hearing

Activates Constraints:

Professional_Monitoring_Required

Scenario Metadata

Pedagogical context for interactive teaching scenarios

Emotional Impact: Frustration and concern for Engineer R that safety warnings were not heeded; potential relief for project proponents; anxiety about future consequences

Stakeholder Consequences:

engineer_r: Professional duty fulfilled but concerns remain unaddressed
public: Exposed to risks that regulatory process did not adequately address
project_team: Can proceed with development as planned
environment: Remains at risk from documented but unmitigated hazards

Learning Moment: Shows limitation of engineer's authority and the complexity of regulatory processes; demonstrates need for continued professional vigilance even after formal processes conclude

Ethical Implications: Demonstrates tension between regulatory approval and professional engineering judgment; raises questions about engineer's role when safety concerns are formally acknowledged but not acted upon

Discussion Prompts:

What are Engineer R's ongoing obligations after the board approval?
How should engineers respond when their safety concerns are overruled by regulatory bodies?
What does this reveal about the relationship between technical expertise and regulatory authority?

Tension: medium Pacing: slow_burn

RDF JSON-LD

{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/17#",
    "proeth-scenario": "http://proethica.org/ontology/scenario#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#",
    "time": "http://www.w3.org/2006/time#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/cases/17#Event_Drainage_Board_Approval",
  "@type": "proeth:Event",
  "proeth-scenario:crisisIdentification": false,
  "proeth-scenario:discussionPrompts": [
    "What are Engineer R\u0027s ongoing obligations after the board approval?",
    "How should engineers respond when their safety concerns are overruled by regulatory bodies?",
    "What does this reveal about the relationship between technical expertise and regulatory authority?"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:dramaticTension": "medium",
  "proeth-scenario:emotionalImpact": "Frustration and concern for Engineer R that safety warnings were not heeded; potential relief for project proponents; anxiety about future consequences",
  "proeth-scenario:ethicalImplications": "Demonstrates tension between regulatory approval and professional engineering judgment; raises questions about engineer\u0027s role when safety concerns are formally acknowledged but not acted upon",
  "proeth-scenario:learningMoment": "Shows limitation of engineer\u0027s authority and the complexity of regulatory processes; demonstrates need for continued professional vigilance even after formal processes conclude",
  "proeth-scenario:narrativePacing": "slow_burn",
  "proeth-scenario:stakeholderConsequences": {
    "engineer_r": "Professional duty fulfilled but concerns remain unaddressed",
    "environment": "Remains at risk from documented but unmitigated hazards",
    "project_team": "Can proceed with development as planned",
    "public": "Exposed to risks that regulatory process did not adequately address"
  },
  "proeth:activatesConstraint": [
    "Professional_Monitoring_Required"
  ],
  "proeth:causedByAction": "http://proethica.org/cases/17#Action_Public_Hearing_Testimony_Decision",
  "proeth:causesStateChange": "Project approved for construction; Engineer R\u0027s concerns officially documented but overruled; ongoing monitoring obligation created",
  "proeth:createsObligation": [
    "Monitor_Construction_Implementation",
    "Verify_Safety_Measures",
    "Document_Compliance"
  ],
  "proeth:description": "The Drainage Board approves the development plan despite Engineer R\u0027s testimony about environmental concerns and risks to the waterway.",
  "proeth:emergencyStatus": "high",
  "proeth:eventType": "exogenous",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "After public hearing",
  "proeth:urgencyLevel": "medium",
  "rdfs:label": "Drainage Board Approval"
}

Description: Construction begins with tank locations unchanged from the original problematic design, confirming that Engineer R's environmental concerns were not addressed in implementation.

Temporal Marker: After construction begins

Activates Constraints:

PublicSafety_Paramount_Constraint
Professional_Duty_To_Report

Scenario Metadata

Pedagogical context for interactive teaching scenarios

Emotional Impact: Deep concern and potential professional distress for Engineer R seeing fears realized; vindication mixed with alarm about environmental consequences

Stakeholder Consequences:

engineer_r: Witnesses confirmation of professional concerns; faces decision about further action
waterway_ecosystem: Now faces imminent threat from construction proceeding with problematic design
public: Environmental risks becoming permanent without their knowledge
future_generations: Will inherit environmental legacy of this construction decision

Learning Moment: Demonstrates how regulatory approval does not eliminate professional responsibility; shows consequences of inadequate design review processes

Ethical Implications: Reveals gap between regulatory compliance and professional engineering standards; demonstrates ongoing duty to protect public welfare even after formal processes conclude

Discussion Prompts:

What options does Engineer R have now that construction has begun without addressing the concerns?
How do an engineer's responsibilities change when they observe implementation of designs they consider unsafe?
What does this case teach about the persistence of professional obligations throughout a project lifecycle?

Crisis / Turning Point Tension: high Pacing: crisis

RDF JSON-LD

{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/17#",
    "proeth-scenario": "http://proethica.org/ontology/scenario#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#",
    "time": "http://www.w3.org/2006/time#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/cases/17#Event_Construction_Implementation_Without_Changes",
  "@type": "proeth:Event",
  "proeth-scenario:crisisIdentification": true,
  "proeth-scenario:discussionPrompts": [
    "What options does Engineer R have now that construction has begun without addressing the concerns?",
    "How do an engineer\u0027s responsibilities change when they observe implementation of designs they consider unsafe?",
    "What does this case teach about the persistence of professional obligations throughout a project lifecycle?"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:dramaticTension": "high",
  "proeth-scenario:emotionalImpact": "Deep concern and potential professional distress for Engineer R seeing fears realized; vindication mixed with alarm about environmental consequences",
  "proeth-scenario:ethicalImplications": "Reveals gap between regulatory compliance and professional engineering standards; demonstrates ongoing duty to protect public welfare even after formal processes conclude",
  "proeth-scenario:learningMoment": "Demonstrates how regulatory approval does not eliminate professional responsibility; shows consequences of inadequate design review processes",
  "proeth-scenario:narrativePacing": "crisis",
  "proeth-scenario:stakeholderConsequences": {
    "engineer_r": "Witnesses confirmation of professional concerns; faces decision about further action",
    "future_generations": "Will inherit environmental legacy of this construction decision",
    "public": "Environmental risks becoming permanent without their knowledge",
    "waterway_ecosystem": "Now faces imminent threat from construction proceeding with problematic design"
  },
  "proeth:activatesConstraint": [
    "PublicSafety_Paramount_Constraint",
    "Professional_Duty_To_Report"
  ],
  "proeth:causedByAction": "http://proethica.org/cases/17#Action_Proceed_Without_Tank_Changes",
  "proeth:causesStateChange": "Documented environmental risks now being implemented without mitigation; Engineer R\u0027s worst-case scenario materializing; potential for environmental damage increased",
  "proeth:createsObligation": [
    "Document_Non_Compliance",
    "Escalate_Safety_Concerns",
    "Consider_Regulatory_Notification"
  ],
  "proeth:description": "Construction begins with tank locations unchanged from the original problematic design, confirming that Engineer R\u0027s environmental concerns were not addressed in implementation.",
  "proeth:emergencyStatus": "high",
  "proeth:eventType": "outcome",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "After construction begins",
  "proeth:urgencyLevel": "high",
  "rdfs:label": "Construction Implementation Without Changes"
}

Description: Engineer R discovers that Engineer H, who contradicted the environmental concerns and influenced the board's decision, was not licensed to practice engineering in State I.

Temporal Marker: After construction begins

Activates Constraints:

Professional_Integrity_Paramount
Regulatory_Violation_Reporting

Scenario Metadata

Pedagogical context for interactive teaching scenarios

Emotional Impact: Shock and outrage for Engineer R discovering regulatory fraud; potential vindication mixed with alarm about system failures; anger at professional misrepresentation

Stakeholder Consequences:

engineer_r: Vindication of concerns but also obligation to report serious violation
engineer_h: Faces potential criminal charges and professional sanctions
drainage_board: Decision credibility compromised; may need to reconsider approval
public: Regulatory protection system revealed as compromised
engineering_profession: Professional integrity and licensing system threatened

Learning Moment: Demonstrates critical importance of professional licensing verification; shows how credential fraud undermines entire regulatory system

Ethical Implications: Reveals fundamental breach of professional integrity; demonstrates how credential fraud can override legitimate safety concerns; shows vulnerability of regulatory systems to professional misrepresentation

Discussion Prompts:

How does this discovery change the validity of the board's approval process?
What are Engineer R's obligations regarding Engineer H's licensing violation?
How does unlicensed practice threaten the integrity of the engineering profession?

Crisis / Turning Point Tension: high Pacing: crisis

RDF JSON-LD

{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/17#",
    "proeth-scenario": "http://proethica.org/ontology/scenario#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#",
    "time": "http://www.w3.org/2006/time#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/cases/17#Event_Engineer_H_Licensing_Deficiency_Discovery",
  "@type": "proeth:Event",
  "proeth-scenario:crisisIdentification": true,
  "proeth-scenario:discussionPrompts": [
    "How does this discovery change the validity of the board\u0027s approval process?",
    "What are Engineer R\u0027s obligations regarding Engineer H\u0027s licensing violation?",
    "How does unlicensed practice threaten the integrity of the engineering profession?"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:dramaticTension": "high",
  "proeth-scenario:emotionalImpact": "Shock and outrage for Engineer R discovering regulatory fraud; potential vindication mixed with alarm about system failures; anger at professional misrepresentation",
  "proeth-scenario:ethicalImplications": "Reveals fundamental breach of professional integrity; demonstrates how credential fraud can override legitimate safety concerns; shows vulnerability of regulatory systems to professional misrepresentation",
  "proeth-scenario:learningMoment": "Demonstrates critical importance of professional licensing verification; shows how credential fraud undermines entire regulatory system",
  "proeth-scenario:narrativePacing": "crisis",
  "proeth-scenario:stakeholderConsequences": {
    "drainage_board": "Decision credibility compromised; may need to reconsider approval",
    "engineer_h": "Faces potential criminal charges and professional sanctions",
    "engineer_r": "Vindication of concerns but also obligation to report serious violation",
    "engineering_profession": "Professional integrity and licensing system threatened",
    "public": "Regulatory protection system revealed as compromised"
  },
  "proeth:activatesConstraint": [
    "Professional_Integrity_Paramount",
    "Regulatory_Violation_Reporting"
  ],
  "proeth:causesStateChange": "Project credibility compromised; regulatory violation discovered; entire approval process validity questioned; professional licensing system integrity threatened",
  "proeth:createsObligation": [
    "Report_Unlicensed_Practice",
    "Question_Project_Validity",
    "Protect_Professional_Integrity"
  ],
  "proeth:description": "Engineer R discovers that Engineer H, who contradicted the environmental concerns and influenced the board\u0027s decision, was not licensed to practice engineering in State I.",
  "proeth:emergencyStatus": "critical",
  "proeth:eventType": "outcome",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "After construction begins",
  "proeth:urgencyLevel": "critical",
  "rdfs:label": "Engineer H Licensing Deficiency Discovery"
}

Causal Chains (3)

NESS test analysis: Necessary Element of Sufficient Set

Causal Language: Engineer R testified at public hearing about environmental concerns, but the Drainage Board approved the development plan despite this testimony

Necessary Factors (NESS):

Engineer R's environmental testimony
Engineer H's contradictory testimony redirecting focus
Board's decision-making process favoring development

Sufficient Factors:

Combination of conflicting expert testimony + board bias toward approval + inadequate environmental consideration

Counterfactual Test: Without Engineer R's testimony, approval would likely have occurred with less scrutiny of environmental issues

Responsibility Attribution:

Agent: Drainage Board
Type: direct
Within Agent Control: Yes

Causal Sequence:

Environmental Concerns Discovery
Engineer R discovers significant environmental risks at truck stop site
Public Hearing Testimony Decision
Engineer R decides to testify publicly about environmental concerns
Redirect Conversation Strategy
Engineer H redirects discussion away from leak concerns to setback issues
Limited Commitment Response
ZZZ representative makes vague promises without specific commitments
Drainage Board Approval
Board approves development despite environmental testimony

RDF JSON-LD

{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/17#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/cases/17#CausalChain_6a783bbf",
  "@type": "proeth:CausalChain",
  "proeth:causalLanguage": "Engineer R testified at public hearing about environmental concerns, but the Drainage Board approved the development plan despite this testimony",
  "proeth:causalSequence": [
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer R discovers significant environmental risks at truck stop site",
      "proeth:element": "Environmental Concerns Discovery",
      "proeth:step": 1
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer R decides to testify publicly about environmental concerns",
      "proeth:element": "Public Hearing Testimony Decision",
      "proeth:step": 2
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer H redirects discussion away from leak concerns to setback issues",
      "proeth:element": "Redirect Conversation Strategy",
      "proeth:step": 3
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "ZZZ representative makes vague promises without specific commitments",
      "proeth:element": "Limited Commitment Response",
      "proeth:step": 4
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Board approves development despite environmental testimony",
      "proeth:element": "Drainage Board Approval",
      "proeth:step": 5
    }
  ],
  "proeth:cause": "Public Hearing Testimony Decision",
  "proeth:counterfactual": "Without Engineer R\u0027s testimony, approval would likely have occurred with less scrutiny of environmental issues",
  "proeth:effect": "Drainage Board Approval",
  "proeth:necessaryFactors": [
    "Engineer R\u0027s environmental testimony",
    "Engineer H\u0027s contradictory testimony redirecting focus",
    "Board\u0027s decision-making process favoring development"
  ],
  "proeth:responsibilityType": "direct",
  "proeth:responsibleAgent": "Drainage Board",
  "proeth:sufficientFactors": [
    "Combination of conflicting expert testimony + board bias toward approval + inadequate environmental consideration"
  ],
  "proeth:withinAgentControl": true
}

Causal Language: Following the Drainage Board's approval despite environmental concerns, construction begins with tank locations unchanged from the original problematic design

Necessary Factors (NESS):

Official approval from regulatory body
ZZZ's decision to proceed without changes
Absence of binding environmental requirements

Sufficient Factors:

Regulatory approval + company decision to use original design + lack of enforceable environmental conditions

Counterfactual Test: Without board approval, construction could not have proceeded legally

Responsibility Attribution:

Agent: ZZZ Corporation
Type: direct
Within Agent Control: Yes

Causal Sequence:

Drainage Board Approval
Board grants approval despite environmental testimony
Proceed Without Tank Changes Decision
ZZZ decides to use original tank locations without environmental modifications
Construction Implementation Without Changes
Construction begins with unchanged problematic tank design

RDF JSON-LD

{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/17#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/cases/17#CausalChain_671d018c",
  "@type": "proeth:CausalChain",
  "proeth:causalLanguage": "Following the Drainage Board\u0027s approval despite environmental concerns, construction begins with tank locations unchanged from the original problematic design",
  "proeth:causalSequence": [
    {
      "proeth:description": "Board grants approval despite environmental testimony",
      "proeth:element": "Drainage Board Approval",
      "proeth:step": 1
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "ZZZ decides to use original tank locations without environmental modifications",
      "proeth:element": "Proceed Without Tank Changes Decision",
      "proeth:step": 2
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Construction begins with unchanged problematic tank design",
      "proeth:element": "Construction Implementation Without Changes",
      "proeth:step": 3
    }
  ],
  "proeth:cause": "Drainage Board Approval",
  "proeth:counterfactual": "Without board approval, construction could not have proceeded legally",
  "proeth:effect": "Construction Implementation Without Changes",
  "proeth:necessaryFactors": [
    "Official approval from regulatory body",
    "ZZZ\u0027s decision to proceed without changes",
    "Absence of binding environmental requirements"
  ],
  "proeth:responsibilityType": "direct",
  "proeth:responsibleAgent": "ZZZ Corporation",
  "proeth:sufficientFactors": [
    "Regulatory approval + company decision to use original design + lack of enforceable environmental conditions"
  ],
  "proeth:withinAgentControl": true
}

Causal Language: Engineer H's strategy to redirect conversation away from leak concerns to setback issues enabled ZZZ representative to avoid addressing environmental risks directly and make only vague consultation promises

Necessary Factors (NESS):

Engineer H's redirection away from leak concerns
Focus shift to less critical setback issues
ZZZ representative's willingness to avoid commitments

Sufficient Factors:

Successful redirection + reduced pressure on environmental issues + corporate reluctance to commit

Counterfactual Test: If conversation had remained focused on leak concerns, ZZZ would have faced greater pressure for specific environmental commitments

Responsibility Attribution:

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

Causal Sequence:

Environmental Concerns Discovery
Engineer R raises significant environmental leak concerns
Redirect Conversation Strategy
Engineer H deflects from leak issues to focus on setback requirements
Limited Commitment Response
ZZZ representative makes vague promises about environmental consultation without specific commitments

RDF JSON-LD

{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/17#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/cases/17#CausalChain_d863aa8c",
  "@type": "proeth:CausalChain",
  "proeth:causalLanguage": "Engineer H\u0027s strategy to redirect conversation away from leak concerns to setback issues enabled ZZZ representative to avoid addressing environmental risks directly and make only vague consultation promises",
  "proeth:causalSequence": [
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer R raises significant environmental leak concerns",
      "proeth:element": "Environmental Concerns Discovery",
      "proeth:step": 1
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer H deflects from leak issues to focus on setback requirements",
      "proeth:element": "Redirect Conversation Strategy",
      "proeth:step": 2
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "ZZZ representative makes vague promises about environmental consultation without specific commitments",
      "proeth:element": "Limited Commitment Response",
      "proeth:step": 3
    }
  ],
  "proeth:cause": "Redirect Conversation Strategy",
  "proeth:counterfactual": "If conversation had remained focused on leak concerns, ZZZ would have faced greater pressure for specific environmental commitments",
  "proeth:effect": "Limited Commitment Response",
  "proeth:necessaryFactors": [
    "Engineer H\u0027s redirection away from leak concerns",
    "Focus shift to less critical setback issues",
    "ZZZ representative\u0027s willingness to avoid commitments"
  ],
  "proeth:responsibilityType": "indirect",
  "proeth:responsibleAgent": "Engineer H",
  "proeth:sufficientFactors": [
    "Successful redirection + reduced pressure on environmental issues + corporate reluctance to commit"
  ],
  "proeth:withinAgentControl": true
}

Allen Temporal Relations (5)

Interval algebra relationships with OWL-Time standard properties

From Entity	Allen Relation	To Entity	OWL-Time Property	Evidence
BER Case 63-6	before Entity1 is before Entity2	BER Case 79-2	`time:before` http://www.w3.org/2006/time#before	The BER pointed to BER Case 63-6 where they observed... [referenced in 1979 case]
underground tank installation	during Entity1 occurs entirely within the duration of Entity2	previous 5 years	`time:intervalDuring` http://www.w3.org/2006/time#intervalDuring	6% of the underground tanks installed in the previous 5 years experienced a reportable leak or spill
site filling	before Entity1 is before Entity2	current regulations	`time:before` http://www.w3.org/2006/time#before	the county surveyor corroborated R's observations but confirmed that filling occurred before current...
site filling	before Entity1 is before Entity2	flood plain designation	`time:before` http://www.w3.org/2006/time#before	As a result of the fill, the proposed construction site is not in a flood plain
R's testimony	before Entity1 is before Entity2	Drainage Board vice president questioning	`time:before` http://www.w3.org/2006/time#before	Following up R's presentation, the Drainage Board vice president asks Engineer H about R's testimony

About Allen Relations & OWL-Time

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

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

PASS 3: Temporal Dynamics

Extraction Complete

Timeline Overview

Temporal Markers

Temporal Consistency Check

Extracted Actions (4)

Public Hearing Testimony Decision Engineer R

Fulfills Obligations:

Guided By Principles:

Required Capabilities:

Scenario Metadata

Redirect Conversation Strategy Engineer H

Fulfills Obligations:

Guided By Principles:

Required Capabilities:

Scenario Metadata

Limited Commitment Response ZZZ representative

Fulfills Obligations:

Guided By Principles:

Required Capabilities:

Scenario Metadata

Proceed Without Tank Changes ZZZ (company decision)

Fulfills Obligations:

Guided By Principles:

Required Capabilities:

Scenario Metadata

Extracted Events (4)

Environmental Concerns Discovery

Activates Constraints:

Scenario Metadata

Drainage Board Approval

Activates Constraints:

Scenario Metadata

Construction Implementation Without Changes

Activates Constraints:

Scenario Metadata

Engineer H Licensing Deficiency Discovery

Activates Constraints:

Scenario Metadata

Causal Chains (3)

Public Hearing Testimony Decision Drainage Board Approval

Necessary Factors (NESS):

Sufficient Factors:

Responsibility Attribution:

Causal Sequence:

Drainage Board Approval Construction Implementation Without Changes

Necessary Factors (NESS):

Sufficient Factors:

Responsibility Attribution:

Causal Sequence:

Redirect Conversation Strategy Limited Commitment Response

Necessary Factors (NESS):

Sufficient Factors:

Responsibility Attribution:

Causal Sequence:

Allen Temporal Relations (5)

About Allen Relations & OWL-Time