Step 4 Review - Case 17

Step 4: Synthesis Review

Case 17: Siting a Truck Stop

Back to Step 4

149

Entities

6

Provisions

16

Questions

8

Conclusions

Stalemate

Transformation

Stalemate Competing obligations remain in tension without clear resolution

Full Entity Graph

Context: 0 Normative: 0 Temporal: 0 Synthesis: 0

Filter:

Layout:

Hide unconnected

Entity Types

Synthesis Reasoning Flow

Shows how NSPE provisions inform questions and conclusions - the board's reasoning chain

Show Labels

Node Types & Relationships

Nodes:

■ NSPE Provisions ◆ Questions ▬ Conclusions ▬ Entities (labels)

Edge Colors:

→ Provision informs Question
→ Question answered by Conclusion
→ Provision applies to Entity

NSPE Code Provisions Referenced

View Extraction

III.8.a. III.8.a.

Full Text:

Engineers shall conform with state registration laws in the practice of engineering.

Applies To:

role Engineer H

This provision governs H's requirement to be licensed in State I

role Firm C

This provision governs Firm C's responsibility to ensure licensed engineers practice

state EngineerH_UnlicensedPractice_StateI

This provision directly addresses H's unlicensed practice in State I

resource State_Engineering_Practice_Statutes

This provision requires conformance with state engineering practice statutes

principle Competence_H_Licensing

This provision relates to the principle of competence through licensing

principle Competence_Licensure_Discussion

This provision embodies the principle of competence through licensure

obligation H_Licensure_StateI

This provision creates H's obligation to be licensed in State I

obligation FirmC_Competent_Personnel

This provision creates Firm C's obligation to ensure competent licensed personnel

obligation H_Competence_Verification

This provision creates H's obligation to verify competence through licensure

constraint State_I_Licensure_Requirement

This provision creates the licensure requirement constraint in State I

constraint Licensure_Practice_Constraint_H

This provision creates the licensure practice constraint for H

constraint Jurisdictional_Practice_Constraint

This provision creates jurisdictional practice constraints

event Engineer H Licensing Deficiency Discovery

This provision addresses the discovery that H violated licensing requirements

I.1. I.1.

Full Text:

Hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public.

Applies To:

role Engineer R

This provision governs Engineer R's duty to protect public safety by raising environmental concerns about the truck stop site

role Engineer H

This provision governs Engineer H's responsibility to prioritize public safety in site design and testimony

state EngineerR_EnvironmentalRiskAwareness_ZZZSite

This provision addresses R's awareness of environmental risks that could impact public safety

principle PublicWelfare_R_RiskAssessment

This provision embodies the principle of prioritizing public welfare in risk assessment

principle PublicSafety_BER20-4_Discussion

This provision relates to the principle of public safety discussed in BER Case 20-4

obligation R_Public_Safety_Disclosure

This provision creates R's obligation to disclose public safety concerns

obligation H_Safety_Priority

This provision establishes H's obligation to prioritize safety

constraint Environmental_Safety_Constraint

This provision creates the constraint that environmental safety must be paramount

I.3. I.3.

Full Text:

Issue public statements only in an objective and truthful manner.

Applies To:

role Engineer R

This provision governs R's public testimony at the drainage board hearing

role Engineer H

This provision governs H's public statements and testimony, particularly regarding selective disclosure

state EngineerR_PublicTestimony_DrainageBoard

This provision addresses R's public testimony state at the drainage board

state EngineerH_PublicTestimony_DrainageBoard

This provision addresses H's public testimony state at the drainage board

state EngineerH_SelectiveInformationDisclosure_TankLeaks

This provision addresses H's selective disclosure about tank leaks

principle Truthfulness_Canon13_Discussion

This provision embodies the principle of truthfulness in public statements

principle Transparency_H_Response

This provision relates to the principle of transparency in H's responses

obligation H_Complete_Testimony_Duty

This provision creates H's obligation to provide complete and truthful testimony

constraint Public_Forum_Testimony_Constraint

This provision creates constraints on testimony in public forums

constraint Information_Completeness_Constraint_H

This provision creates the constraint that H must provide complete information

capability R_Public_Testimony_Capability

This provision relates to R's capability to provide truthful public testimony

capability H_Incomplete_Testimony_Capability

This provision relates to H's problematic capability of providing incomplete testimony

action Public Hearing Testimony Decision

This provision governs decisions about public hearing testimony

action Redirect Conversation Strategy

This provision prohibits misleading redirection strategies in public statements

action Limited Commitment Response

This provision governs limited responses that may omit material facts

II.1.f. II.1.f.

Full Text:

Engineers having knowledge of any alleged violation of this Code shall report thereon to appropriate professional bodies and, when relevant, also to public authorities, and cooperate with the proper authorities in furnishing such information or assistance as may be required.

Applies To:

role Engineer R

This provision governs R's potential duty to report H's unlicensed practice

role Engineer C

This provision governs C's potential duty to report violations if aware

state EngineerH_UnlicensedPractice_StateI

This provision addresses the state of H's unlicensed practice violation

state EngineerR_RegulatoryEscalationOpportunity_StateAgency

This provision relates to R's opportunity to escalate to regulatory authorities

state EngineersAB_RegulatoryEscalationOpportunity_Case204

This provision relates to the escalation opportunity referenced in Case 20-4

obligation R_Escalation_Option

This provision creates R's obligation/option to escalate violations

capability AB_Regulatory_Compliance_Capability

This provision relates to the capability to report regulatory compliance issues

event Engineer H Licensing Deficiency Discovery

This provision addresses the discovery of H's licensing deficiency

III.2.d. III.2.d.

Full Text:

Engineers are encouraged to adhere to the principles of sustainable development1in order to protect the environment for future generations.Footnote 1"Sustainable development" is the challenge of meeting human needs for natural resources, industrial products, energy, food, transportation, shelter, and effective waste management while conserving and protecting environmental quality and the natural resource base essential for future development.

Relevant Case Excerpts:

From discussion:
"underground tanks is troubling not only because of the failure to address the issues raised and the failure to include all relevant information in testimony, but also because Professional Obligation III.2.d encourages all engineers to adhere to the principles of sustainable development to protect the environment for future generations."
Confidence: 95.0%

Applies To:

role Engineer R

This provision encourages R to protect the environment through his concerns about the site

role Engineer H

This provision encourages H to consider sustainable development in site design

state EngineerR_EnvironmentalRiskAwareness_ZZZSite

This provision addresses R's awareness of environmental risks to future generations

principle EnvironmentalStewardship_R_Testimony

This provision embodies the principle of environmental stewardship in R's testimony

principle SustainableDevelopment_III2d_Discussion

This provision directly relates to the sustainable development principle

obligation H_Environmental_Assessment

This provision relates to H's obligation to assess environmental impacts

obligation H_Sustainable_Development_Duty

This provision creates H's duty to consider sustainable development

constraint Environmental_Safety_Constraint

This provision creates environmental safety constraints for future generations

capability R_Environmental_Impact_Assessment

This provision relates to R's capability to assess environmental impacts

capability R_Environmental_Assessment_Capability

This provision relates to R's environmental assessment capabilities

event Environmental Concerns Discovery

This provision addresses the discovery of environmental concerns

III.3.a. III.3.a.

Full Text:

Engineers shall avoid the use of statements containing a material misrepresentation of fact or omitting a material fact.

Applies To:

role Engineer H

This provision governs H's statements that omitted material facts about tank leaks

role Engineer R

This provision governs R's truthful statements at the hearing

state EngineerH_SelectiveInformationDisclosure_TankLeaks

This provision directly addresses H's selective disclosure omitting material facts

state EngineerH_PublicTestimony_DrainageBoard

This provision addresses H's testimony that may have omitted material facts

principle Truthfulness_Canon13_Discussion

This provision embodies the principle of truthfulness and completeness

principle InformationCompleteness_BER95-5_Discussion

This provision relates to the principle of information completeness from BER Case 95-5

obligation H_Complete_Testimony_Duty

This provision creates H's obligation to not omit material facts

constraint Information_Completeness_Constraint_H

This provision creates the constraint against omitting material facts

action Redirect Conversation Strategy

This provision prohibits redirection that omits material facts

action Limited Commitment Response

This provision prohibits limited responses that omit material facts

Questions & Conclusions

View Extraction

Linked View Side-by-Side

Each question is shown with its corresponding conclusion(s). This reveals the board's reasoning flow.

Question 1 Board Question

Has Engineer R fulfilled ethical obligations by raising concerns and providing public testimony?

Involves: H Engineer R R B

Board's Conclusion

Conclusion 1 Board Conclusion

Engineer R fulfilled ethical obligations regarding environmental concerns at the site of the truck stop through public testimony.

Conclusion 3 Analytical

Beyond the Board's finding that Engineer R fulfilled ethical obligations through public testimony, Engineer R's approach demonstrates the proper application of graduated professional responsibility. By first observing the site conditions, researching historical data including the StateI_IDEM_LUST_Database, and then providing factual testimony rather than inflammatory accusations, Engineer R exemplified how engineers should balance professional courtesy with public safety obligations. The 6% leak rate statistic provided objective, verifiable data that elevated the discourse above mere opinion.

Cites: I.1. I.3.

Question 2 Board Question

Is it ethical for Engineer H to speak before the Drainage Board if Engineer H is not licensed in State I?

Involves: H Engineer H R B

Board's Conclusion

Board's conclusion not yet extracted. Run conclusion extraction.

Question 3 Board Question

After R learns that Engineer H is not licensed in State I, does R have any additional responsibilities?

Involves: H Engineer H R B

Board's Conclusion

Board's conclusion not yet extracted. Run conclusion extraction.

Question 4 Board Question

Engineer H’s response to the Board vice-president’s question about R’s testimony addressed concerns with above-ground spills (“the spill will flow back to the pavement area, not directly toward the creek”). Did Engineer H have an obligation to address the issues R raised regarding an underground leak?

Involves: H Engineer H R B

Board's Conclusion

Conclusion 2 Board Conclusion

Engineer H did not act ethically by failing to address the potential for leaks in underground storage tanks during the presentation and questioning, whether by explaining how the issue had been addressed or by agreeing to re-examine the plans in light of the issue.

Conclusion 4 Analytical

The Board's conclusion that Engineer H acted unethically reveals a deeper systemic issue with Firm C's business model. The case demonstrates how corporate structures can create ethical vulnerabilities when unlicensed personnel are positioned to make technical representations in regulatory proceedings. Engineer H's SelectiveInformationDisclosure_TankLeaks represents not just individual ethical failure, but institutional failure to ensure competent representation of public safety issues.

Cites: III.8.a. I.1. III.3.a.

Question 5 Implicit

III.8.a.

What ethical obligations does the Drainage Board have to verify the licensing status of engineers presenting technical testimony?

Involves: Public_Hearing_Procedural_Requirement EngineerH_PublicTestimony_DrainageBoard

Analysis

Analysis pending - insufficient information in case to address this question.

Question 6 Implicit

III.8.a. I.1.

What are the ethical implications of Firm C's business model that allows unlicensed engineers to represent complex engineering projects in regulatory proceedings?

Involves: Firm C Engineer H State_I_Licensure_Requirement

Analysis

Conclusion 4 Analytical

Cites: III.8.a. I.1. III.3.a.

Conclusion 5 Response

Addressing the implicit question about Firm C's business model (Q101), the ethical implications are profound. When engineering firms systematically deploy unlicensed personnel to represent complex projects in regulatory proceedings, they create a structural conflict between business efficiency and professional competence requirements. This practice undermines the State_I_Licensure_Requirement and violates the public trust that regulatory proceedings will feature qualified professional judgment.

Cites: III.8.a. I.1.

Question 7 Implicit

II.1.f.

Should Engineer R have investigated Engineer H's licensing status before the hearing, given the significance of the environmental concerns?

Involves: Engineer R Engineer H EngineerH_UnlicensedPractice_StateI

Analysis

Analysis pending - insufficient information in case to address this question.

Question 8 Principle Tension

I.1. I.3.

How should Engineer R balance the principle of PublicWelfare_R_RiskAssessment against professional courtesy when challenging Engineer H's incomplete testimony?

Involves: PublicWelfare_R_RiskAssessment Transparency_H_Response EngineerH_SelectiveInformationDisclosure_TankLeaks

Analysis

Conclusion 7 Synthesis

The case reveals how PublicWelfare_R_RiskAssessment and Competence_H_Licensing principles interact to create a hierarchy of professional obligations. When unlicensed practice combines with incomplete technical disclosure, the public welfare principle must override professional courtesy considerations. Engineer R's testimony demonstrates that the Transparency_H_Response principle cannot be satisfied through selective information sharing, particularly regarding environmental risks with long-term consequences.

Cites: I.1. I.3. III.8.a.

Question 9 Principle Tension

III.8.a. I.1.

Does the principle of Competence_H_Licensing conflict with the principle of PublicInterest_BER79-2_Discussion when unlicensed engineers possess relevant technical knowledge?

Involves: Competence_H_Licensing PublicInterest_BER79-2_Discussion H_Site_Design_Capability

Analysis

Conclusion 7 Synthesis

Cites: I.1. I.3. III.8.a.

Question 10 Principle Tension

III.2.d. I.1.

How does the principle of SustainableDevelopment_III2d_Discussion conflict with immediate PublicSafety_BER20-4_Discussion concerns in project approval decisions?

Involves: SustainableDevelopment_III2d_Discussion PublicSafety_BER20-4_Discussion ZZZ_TruckStop_SitePlans

Analysis

Conclusion 8 Synthesis

The tension between SustainableDevelopment_III2d_Discussion and PublicSafety_BER20-4_Discussion principles demonstrates that environmental stewardship and immediate safety concerns are complementary rather than conflicting obligations. Engineer R's focus on underground tank leak potential addresses both immediate groundwater contamination risks and long-term environmental sustainability. The case establishes that sustainable development cannot proceed without adequate safety assessment of infrastructure components.

Cites: I.1. III.2.d.

Question 11 Theoretical

I.3. III.3.a.

From a deontological perspective, did Engineer H fulfill their categorical duty of truthfulness when providing selective information about tank safety?

Involves: Engineer H Truthfulness_Canon13_Discussion EngineerH_SelectiveInformationDisclosure_TankLeaks

Analysis

Analysis pending - insufficient information in case to address this question.

Question 12 Theoretical

I.1.

From a consequentialist perspective, did Engineer R's public testimony achieve the greatest good by potentially preventing environmental damage despite disrupting the approval process?

Involves: Engineer R EngineerR_PublicTestimony_DrainageBoard EngineerR_EnvironmentalRiskAwareness_ZZZSite

Analysis

Conclusion 6 Response

From a consequentialist perspective (Q302), Engineer R's public testimony achieved optimal outcomes by preventing potential environmental damage while maintaining professional standards. The testimony provided the Drainage Board with critical information that Engineer H's incomplete presentation omitted, enabling informed decision-making. The disruption to the approval process represents a necessary cost to protect public welfare and environmental integrity near the creek discharge point.

Cites: I.1. III.2.d.

Question 13 Theoretical

III.8.a.

From a virtue ethics perspective, did Engineer H demonstrate professional integrity when representing a project in a jurisdiction where they lacked proper credentials?

Involves: Engineer H EngineerH_UnlicensedPractice_StateI Licensure_Practice_Constraint_H

Analysis

Analysis pending - insufficient information in case to address this question.

Question 14 Counterfactual

I.1.

Would the environmental risks have been adequately addressed if Engineer R had chosen to escalate concerns to state regulatory authorities instead of public testimony?

Involves: Engineer R EngineerR_RegulatoryEscalationOpportunity_StateAgency Environmental Concerns Discovery

Analysis

Analysis pending - insufficient information in case to address this question.

Question 15 Counterfactual

III.8.a.

What would have been the ethical implications if Firm C had assigned a properly licensed engineer to present the project instead of Engineer H?

Involves: Firm C Engineer H FirmC_Competent_Personnel State_I_Licensure_Requirement

Analysis

Analysis pending - insufficient information in case to address this question.

Question 16 Counterfactual

I.3. III.3.a.

How would the ethical analysis change if Engineer H had acknowledged the underground leak concerns and committed to design modifications during the hearing?

Involves: Engineer H EngineerH_SelectiveInformationDisclosure_TankLeaks InformationCompleteness_BER95-5_Discussion

Analysis

Analysis pending - insufficient information in case to address this question.

Question	Conclusion
Question 1 Board Question Has Engineer R fulfilled ethical obligations by raising concerns and providing public testimony?	Conclusion 1 Board Conclusion Engineer R fulfilled ethical obligations regarding environmental concerns at the site of the truck stop through public testimony. Conclusion 3 Analytical Beyond the Board's finding that Engineer R fulfilled ethical obligations through public testimony, Engineer R's approach demonstrates the proper application of graduated professional responsibility. By first observing the site conditions, researching historical data including the StateI_IDEM_LUST_Database, and then providing factual testimony rather than inflammatory accusations, Engineer R exemplified how engineers should balance professional courtesy with public safety obligations. The 6% leak rate statistic provided objective, verifiable data that elevated the discourse above mere opinion.
Question 2 Board Question Is it ethical for Engineer H to speak before the Drainage Board if Engineer H is not licensed in State I?	Not yet extracted
Question 3 Board Question After R learns that Engineer H is not licensed in State I, does R have any additional responsibilities?	Not yet extracted
Question 4 Board Question Engineer H’s response to the Board vice-president’s question about R’s testimony addressed concerns with above-ground spills (“the spill will flow back to the pavement area, not directly toward the creek”). Did Engineer H have an obligation to address the issues R raised regarding an underground leak?	Conclusion 2 Board Conclusion Engineer H did not act ethically by failing to address the potential for leaks in underground storage tanks during the presentation and questioning, whether by explaining how the issue had been addressed or by agreeing to re-examine the plans in light of the issue. Conclusion 4 Analytical The Board's conclusion that Engineer H acted unethically reveals a deeper systemic issue with Firm C's business model. The case demonstrates how corporate structures can create ethical vulnerabilities when unlicensed personnel are positioned to make technical representations in regulatory proceedings. Engineer H's SelectiveInformationDisclosure_TankLeaks represents not just individual ethical failure, but institutional failure to ensure competent representation of public safety issues.
Question 5 Implicit What ethical obligations does the Drainage Board have to verify the licensing status of engineers presenting technical testimony?	Insufficient information
Question 6 Implicit What are the ethical implications of Firm C's business model that allows unlicensed engineers to represent complex engineering projects in regulatory proceedings?	Conclusion 4 Analytical The Board's conclusion that Engineer H acted unethically reveals a deeper systemic issue with Firm C's business model. The case demonstrates how corporate structures can create ethical vulnerabilities when unlicensed personnel are positioned to make technical representations in regulatory proceedings. Engineer H's SelectiveInformationDisclosure_TankLeaks represents not just individual ethical failure, but institutional failure to ensure competent representation of public safety issues. Conclusion 5 Response Addressing the implicit question about Firm C's business model (Q101), the ethical implications are profound. When engineering firms systematically deploy unlicensed personnel to represent complex projects in regulatory proceedings, they create a structural conflict between business efficiency and professional competence requirements. This practice undermines the State_I_Licensure_Requirement and violates the public trust that regulatory proceedings will feature qualified professional judgment.
Question 7 Implicit Should Engineer R have investigated Engineer H's licensing status before the hearing, given the significance of the environmental concerns?	Insufficient information
Question 8 Principle Tension How should Engineer R balance the principle of PublicWelfare_R_RiskAssessment against professional courtesy when challenging Engineer H's incomplete testimony?	Conclusion 7 Synthesis The case reveals how PublicWelfare_R_RiskAssessment and Competence_H_Licensing principles interact to create a hierarchy of professional obligations. When unlicensed practice combines with incomplete technical disclosure, the public welfare principle must override professional courtesy considerations. Engineer R's testimony demonstrates that the Transparency_H_Response principle cannot be satisfied through selective information sharing, particularly regarding environmental risks with long-term consequences.
Question 9 Principle Tension Does the principle of Competence_H_Licensing conflict with the principle of PublicInterest_BER79-2_Discussion when unlicensed engineers possess relevant technical knowledge?	Conclusion 7 Synthesis The case reveals how PublicWelfare_R_RiskAssessment and Competence_H_Licensing principles interact to create a hierarchy of professional obligations. When unlicensed practice combines with incomplete technical disclosure, the public welfare principle must override professional courtesy considerations. Engineer R's testimony demonstrates that the Transparency_H_Response principle cannot be satisfied through selective information sharing, particularly regarding environmental risks with long-term consequences.
Question 10 Principle Tension How does the principle of SustainableDevelopment_III2d_Discussion conflict with immediate PublicSafety_BER20-4_Discussion concerns in project approval decisions?	Conclusion 8 Synthesis The tension between SustainableDevelopment_III2d_Discussion and PublicSafety_BER20-4_Discussion principles demonstrates that environmental stewardship and immediate safety concerns are complementary rather than conflicting obligations. Engineer R's focus on underground tank leak potential addresses both immediate groundwater contamination risks and long-term environmental sustainability. The case establishes that sustainable development cannot proceed without adequate safety assessment of infrastructure components.
Question 11 Theoretical From a deontological perspective, did Engineer H fulfill their categorical duty of truthfulness when providing selective information about tank safety?	Insufficient information
Question 12 Theoretical From a consequentialist perspective, did Engineer R's public testimony achieve the greatest good by potentially preventing environmental damage despite disrupting the approval process?	Conclusion 6 Response From a consequentialist perspective (Q302), Engineer R's public testimony achieved optimal outcomes by preventing potential environmental damage while maintaining professional standards. The testimony provided the Drainage Board with critical information that Engineer H's incomplete presentation omitted, enabling informed decision-making. The disruption to the approval process represents a necessary cost to protect public welfare and environmental integrity near the creek discharge point.
Question 13 Theoretical From a virtue ethics perspective, did Engineer H demonstrate professional integrity when representing a project in a jurisdiction where they lacked proper credentials?	Insufficient information
Question 14 Counterfactual Would the environmental risks have been adequately addressed if Engineer R had chosen to escalate concerns to state regulatory authorities instead of public testimony?	Insufficient information
Question 15 Counterfactual What would have been the ethical implications if Firm C had assigned a properly licensed engineer to present the project instead of Engineer H?	Insufficient information
Question 16 Counterfactual How would the ethical analysis change if Engineer H had acknowledged the underground leak concerns and committed to design modifications during the hearing?	Insufficient information

Rich Analysis Results

View Extraction

Causal-Normative Links 4

Public Hearing Testimony Decision

Fulfills

Public Challenge Obligation
Complete Testimony Obligation
R_Public_Challenge_Duty
H_Complete_Testimony_Duty

Violates

Jurisdictional Licensure Obligation
H_Licensure_StateI

Redirect Conversation Strategy

Fulfills None

Violates

Complete Testimony Obligation
H_Complete_Testimony_Duty

Limited Commitment Response

Fulfills None

Violates

Environmental Risk Assessment Obligation
Sustainable Development Obligation
H_Environmental_Assessment
H_Safety_Priority

Proceed Without Tank Changes

Fulfills None

Violates

Environmental Risk Assessment Obligation
Sustainable Development Obligation
H_Environmental_Assessment
H_Safety_Priority
R_Public_Safety_Disclosure

Question Emergence 16

Triggering Events

Engineer H Licensing Deficiency Discovery

Triggering Actions

Public Hearing Testimony Decision

Competing Warrants

Jurisdictional Licensure Obligation Public Challenge Obligation

Triggering Events

Environmental Concerns Discovery
Public Hearing Testimony Decision

Triggering Actions

Limited Commitment Response
Redirect Conversation Strategy

Competing Warrants

Public Challenge Obligation Complete Testimony Obligation

Triggering Events

Engineer H Licensing Deficiency Discovery
Environmental Concerns Discovery
Public Hearing Testimony Decision

Triggering Actions

Public Hearing Testimony Decision

Competing Warrants

Jurisdictional Licensure Obligation Environmental Risk Assessment Obligation
H_Licensure_StateI Public Challenge Obligation

Triggering Events

Environmental Concerns Discovery
Drainage Board Approval

Triggering Actions

Construction Implementation Without Changes
Public Hearing Testimony Decision

Competing Warrants

Sustainable Development Obligation Environmental Risk Assessment Obligation

Triggering Events

Public Hearing Testimony Decision

Triggering Actions

Redirect Conversation Strategy
Limited Commitment Response

Competing Warrants

Complete Testimony Obligation H_Complete_Testimony_Duty

Triggering Events

Environmental Concerns Discovery
Drainage Board Approval
Construction Implementation Without Changes

Triggering Actions

Public Hearing Testimony Decision

Competing Warrants

Public Challenge Obligation Environmental Risk Assessment Obligation
Sustainable Development Obligation Escalation Obligation

Triggering Events

Engineer H Licensing Deficiency Discovery
Public Hearing Testimony Decision

Triggering Actions

Public Hearing Testimony Decision

Competing Warrants

Jurisdictional Licensure Obligation Complete Testimony Obligation
H_Licensure_StateI H_Complete_Testimony_Duty

Triggering Events

Environmental Concerns Discovery
Drainage Board Approval
Construction Implementation Without Changes

Triggering Actions

Public Hearing Testimony Decision

Competing Warrants

Escalation Obligation Public Challenge Obligation
Environmental Risk Assessment Obligation R_Public_Safety_Disclosure

Triggering Events

Engineer H Licensing Deficiency Discovery
Public Hearing Testimony Decision

Triggering Actions

Public Hearing Testimony Decision

Competing Warrants

Jurisdictional Licensure Obligation FirmC_Competent_Personnel
Complete Testimony Obligation Environmental Risk Assessment Obligation

Triggering Events

Environmental Concerns Discovery
Public Hearing Testimony Decision

Triggering Actions

Limited Commitment Response
Redirect Conversation Strategy

Competing Warrants

Complete Testimony Obligation Environmental Risk Assessment Obligation
H_Complete_Testimony_Duty H_Environmental_Assessment

Triggering Events

Environmental Concerns Discovery
Drainage Board Approval
Construction Implementation Without Changes
Public Hearing Testimony Decision

Triggering Actions

Public Hearing Testimony Decision
Limited Commitment Response

Competing Warrants

Public Challenge Obligation Escalation Obligation
R_Public_Challenge_Duty R_Escalation_Option

Triggering Events

Engineer H Licensing Deficiency Discovery
Environmental Concerns Discovery

Triggering Actions

Public Hearing Testimony Decision

Competing Warrants

Jurisdictional Licensure Obligation Public Challenge Obligation
H_Licensure_StateI R_Public_Challenge_Duty

Triggering Events

Engineer H Licensing Deficiency Discovery

Triggering Actions

Public Hearing Testimony Decision

Competing Warrants

Jurisdictional Licensure Obligation Public Challenge Obligation
Escalation Obligation FirmC_Competent_Personnel

Triggering Events

Public Hearing Testimony Decision

Triggering Actions

Limited Commitment Response
Redirect Conversation Strategy

Competing Warrants

Complete Testimony Obligation Environmental Risk Assessment Obligation

Triggering Events

Engineer H Licensing Deficiency Discovery
Public Hearing Testimony Decision

Triggering Actions

Public Hearing Testimony Decision

Competing Warrants

Jurisdictional Licensure Obligation FirmC_Competent_Personnel
Complete Testimony Obligation H_Competence_Verification

Triggering Events

Environmental Concerns Discovery
Engineer H Licensing Deficiency Discovery

Triggering Actions

Public Hearing Testimony Decision

Competing Warrants

Jurisdictional Licensure Obligation Environmental Risk Assessment Obligation
Public Challenge Obligation Complete Testimony Obligation

Resolution Patterns 8

Determinative Principles

Public welfare paramount
Professional duty to protect public safety
Transparency in regulatory proceedings

Determinative Facts

Engineer R observed site conditions
Engineer R researched StateI_IDEM_LUST_Database
Engineer R provided factual testimony about 6% leak rate
Environmental concerns near creek discharge point

Determinative Principles

Duty of truthfulness
Complete disclosure of material facts
Professional competence requirements

Determinative Facts

Engineer H only addressed above-ground spills
Engineer H failed to address underground leak concerns
Engineer H provided selective information disclosure
Engineer H was unlicensed in State I

Determinative Principles

Graduated professional responsibility
Objective factual presentation
Balance of professional courtesy with public safety
Evidence-based decision making

Determinative Facts

Engineer R observed site conditions first
Engineer R researched StateI_IDEM_LUST_Database
Engineer R provided 6% leak rate statistic
Engineer R avoided inflammatory accusations
Engineer R used factual rather than opinion-based testimony

Determinative Principles

Institutional responsibility for ethical practice
Competence requirements in regulatory proceedings
Corporate accountability for professional standards

Determinative Facts

Firm C's business model uses unlicensed engineers
Engineer H was unlicensed in State I
Firm C positioned unlicensed personnel for technical representations
Systemic rather than individual ethical failure

Determinative Principles

Professional competence requirements
Public trust in regulatory proceedings
Licensure as public protection
Structural integrity of professional practice

Determinative Facts

Firm C systematically uses unlicensed personnel
Complex projects require professional competence
Regulatory proceedings depend on qualified judgment
State I licensure requirements exist for public protection

Determinative Principles

Greatest good for greatest number
Prevention of environmental damage
Informed decision-making in regulatory processes
Public welfare optimization

Determinative Facts

Potential environmental damage prevented
Critical information provided to Drainage Board
Engineer H's presentation was incomplete
Creek discharge point environmental sensitivity
Approval process disruption occurred

Determinative Principles

Hierarchy of professional obligations
Public welfare as paramount principle
Competence requirements
Transparency in technical disclosure

Determinative Facts

Unlicensed practice by Engineer H
Incomplete technical disclosure occurred
Environmental risks have long-term consequences
Selective information sharing inadequate for transparency

Determinative Principles

Sustainable development
Public safety
Environmental stewardship
Complementary rather than conflicting obligations
Infrastructure safety assessment

Determinative Facts

Underground tank leak potential identified
Immediate groundwater contamination risks present
Long-term environmental sustainability concerns
Infrastructure components require safety assessment

Loading entity-grounded arguments...

Decision Points

View Extraction

Legend: PRO CON | N% = Validation Score

DP1 An engineer faces the decision of whether to testify at a public hearing about safety concerns regarding a project, knowing they may not be licensed in the jurisdiction where the hearing is taking place.

Should the engineer testify at the public hearing despite potential licensure violations?

Options:

Testify at Public Hearing
Decline to Testify
Seek Alternative Forum

Arguments:

A1 Score: 0%

Engineer should fulfill the obligation to publicly challenge unsafe designs and provide complete testimony, accepting the risk of violating jurisdictional licensure requirements

Because this promotes Professional Judgment

A2 Score: 20%

Engineer should NOT fulfill the obligation to publicly challenge unsafe designs and provide complete testimony, accepting the risk of violating jurisdictional licensure requirements

Because this may conflict with client relationship obligations

A3 Score: 40%

Engineer should adopt the Avoid potential licensure violations but fail to fulfill the professional obligation to publicly challenge safety concerns

Because this promotes Professional Judgment

A4 Score: 60%

Engineer should NOT adopt the Avoid potential licensure violations but fail to fulfill the professional obligation to publicly challenge safety concerns

Because this may reduce operational efficiency

A5 Score: 40%

Engineer should adopt the Find another way to raise safety concerns that doesn't violate jurisdictional requirements

Because this promotes Professional Judgment

A6 Score: 60%

Engineer should NOT adopt the Find another way to raise safety concerns that doesn't violate jurisdictional requirements

Because this may reduce operational efficiency

70% aligned

DP2 During testimony or consultation, a professional must decide how to respond to questions about safety concerns - whether to provide complete information or redirect the conversation away from potentially controversial topics.

Should the professional provide complete testimony about safety concerns or redirect the conversation?

Options:

Provide Complete Testimony
Redirect Conversation

Arguments:

A7 Score: 60%

Professional/Engineer should fulfill the obligation to provide complete and honest information about safety concerns

Because this promotes Professional Judgment

A8 Score: 60%

Professional/Engineer should NOT fulfill the obligation to provide complete and honest information about safety concerns

Because professional discretion may require withholding information

A9 Score: 40%

Professional/Engineer should adopt the Avoid direct confrontation by steering discussion away from safety issues, violating completeness obligations

Because this promotes Professional Judgment

A10 Score: 60%

Professional/Engineer should NOT adopt the Avoid direct confrontation by steering discussion away from safety issues, violating completeness obligations

Because this may reduce operational efficiency

70% aligned

DP3 When addressing environmental and safety risks in a project, decision-makers must choose between making limited commitments that may be politically or economically feasible versus comprehensive risk assessment and mitigation.

Should the response to environmental and safety concerns be limited or comprehensive?

Options:

Limited Commitment Response
Comprehensive Risk Assessment

Arguments:

A11 Score: 20%

Project Decision-Maker/Engineer should provide minimal response to environmental concerns, potentially violating thorough risk assessment obligations

Because this promotes Professional Judgment

A12 Score: 20%

Project Decision-Maker/Engineer should NOT provide minimal response to environmental concerns, potentially violating thorough risk assessment obligations

Because this may reduce necessary human judgment and oversight

A13 Score: 60%

Project Decision-Maker/Engineer should conduct thorough environmental and safety evaluation, fulfilling professional obligations despite potential costs or delays

Because this promotes Cost Effectiveness

A14 Score: 60%

Project Decision-Maker/Engineer should NOT conduct thorough environmental and safety evaluation, fulfilling professional obligations despite potential costs or delays

Because this may reduce operational efficiency

70% aligned

DP4 Faced with identified safety concerns about existing infrastructure (tanks), decision-makers must choose whether to proceed with the project as planned or require modifications to address safety issues.

Should the project proceed without addressing tank safety concerns or require modifications?

Options:

Proceed Without Changes
Require Tank Modifications
Halt Project Pending Resolution

Arguments:

A15 Score: 40%

Project Authority/Engineer should continue with project as planned, violating multiple safety and environmental obligations but avoiding delays and additional costs

Because this promotes Cost Effectiveness

A16 Score: 60%

Project Authority/Engineer should NOT continue with project as planned, violating multiple safety and environmental obligations but avoiding delays and additional costs

Because this may reduce operational efficiency

A17 Score: 40%

Project Authority/Engineer should adopt the Mandate safety improvements to fulfill environmental and public safety obligations despite physical and financial constraints

Because this promotes Professional Judgment

A18 Score: 60%

Project Authority/Engineer should NOT adopt the Mandate safety improvements to fulfill environmental and public safety obligations despite physical and financial constraints

Because this may reduce operational efficiency

A19 Score: 40%

Project Authority/Engineer should adopt the Stop project until safety concerns are adequately addressed

Because this promotes Professional Judgment

A20 Score: 60%

Project Authority/Engineer should NOT adopt the Stop project until safety concerns are adequately addressed

Because this may reduce operational efficiency

70% aligned

Case Narrative

Phase 4 narrative construction results for Case 17

Characters

Events

Conflicts

Fluents

Opening Context

You are Engineer A working in a jurisdiction where engineering licensure is not required and environmental concerns are increasingly scrutinized by regulatory bodies. Your firm has been selectively sharing project information with stakeholders, a practice that falls within legal boundaries but raises questions about transparency and professional responsibility. As you review the latest project documentation, you realize that critical decisions ahead will test the balance between competitive advantage and ethical disclosure obligations.

From the perspective of Engineer A

Characters (10)

Person B Stakeholder

A professional stakeholder involved in the engineering project who may have oversight or decision-making responsibilities regarding compliance and safety standards.

Motivations:

Likely motivated to ensure project completion while maintaining regulatory compliance and avoiding legal liability.

ZZZ Stakeholder

An unspecified entity (possibly a regulatory body, client, or third party) with interest in the jurisdictional and environmental aspects of the engineering work.

Motivations:

Presumably motivated to enforce standards, protect interests, or ensure proper procedures are followed according to their organizational mandate.

Engineer C Stakeholder

A licensed professional engineer responsible for technical work and compliance with professional engineering standards, particularly regarding environmental assessments and public safety.

Motivations:

Motivated to uphold professional engineering ethics while balancing client demands, career advancement, and legal obligations to public welfare.

H Stakeholder

An individual engineer who must maintain proper licensure in State I and conduct environmental assessments as part of their professional duties.

Motivations:

Driven to maintain professional standing and licensure while fulfilling technical obligations and potentially managing pressure from supervisors or clients.

Firm C Stakeholder

An engineering consulting firm responsible for ensuring its employees meet licensure requirements and deliver compliant environmental assessments while maintaining business operations.

Motivations:

Motivated to maximize profitability and client satisfaction while minimizing legal exposure and maintaining the firm's professional reputation and regulatory standing.

Engineer R Stakeholder

Engineer H Stakeholder

R Stakeholder

Engineer A Protagonist

B Stakeholder

Ethical Tensions (5)

Engineer H has a duty to provide complete testimony but is constrained by incomplete information about environmental risks and site conditions, creating tension between transparency obligations and knowledge limitations LLM

Complete Testimony Obligation Information Completeness Constraint

Obligation vs Constraint

Affects: Engineer H Public Testimony Role

Moral Intensity (Jones 1991):

Magnitude: high Probability: high immediate direct concentrated

Engineer R has obligation to disclose public safety concerns but may be constrained by jurisdictional licensure requirements that limit practice authority in State I, creating tension between safety duties and legal practice boundaries LLM

R_Public_Safety_Disclosure Licensure_Practice_Constraint_H

Obligation vs Constraint

Affects: Engineer R Engineer H

Moral Intensity (Jones 1991):

Magnitude: high Probability: medium immediate direct concentrated

Engineer H must conduct thorough environmental assessment but is constrained by historical environmental contamination and legacy issues that limit assessment scope and accuracy LLM

H_Environmental_Assessment Environmental Legacy Constraint

Obligation vs Constraint

Affects: Engineer H

Moral Intensity (Jones 1991):

Magnitude: high Probability: high near-term direct diffuse

Firm C has obligation to provide competent personnel but is constrained by State I licensure requirements, potentially forcing use of less qualified but properly licensed engineers over more competent unlicensed ones LLM

FirmC_Competent_Personnel State_I_Licensure_Requirement

Obligation vs Constraint

Affects: Firm C Engineer H Engineer R

Moral Intensity (Jones 1991):

Magnitude: medium Probability: medium immediate direct concentrated

Engineer H must prioritize safety regarding tank operations but faces logistical constraints that limit access for proper safety assessment and monitoring, creating tension between safety obligations and practical limitations LLM

H_Safety_Priority Tank_Access_Logistics_Requirement

Obligation vs Constraint

Affects: Engineer H

Moral Intensity (Jones 1991):

Magnitude: high Probability: medium near-term direct concentrated

States (10)

Selective Information Disclosure State Unlicensed Practice State Environmental Risk Awareness State Public Testimony State EngineerH_UnlicensedPractice_StateI EngineerR_EnvironmentalRiskAwareness_ZZZSite Public Testimony Disagreement State EngineerR_PublicTestimony_DrainageBoard EngineerH_PublicTestimony_DrainageBoard Regulatory Escalation Opportunity State

Event Timeline (12)

#	Event	Type
1	An engineering ethics case begins involving concerns about selective information disclosure and potential unlicensed practice. The initial situation establishes a professional environment where critical information may not be fully transparent to all stakeholders.	state
2	A decision is made regarding testimony to be provided at a public hearing, representing a pivotal moment where professional obligations to public disclosure are tested. This decision will significantly impact how technical information is communicated to the public and regulatory bodies.	action
3	A strategic approach is employed to redirect conversations away from certain technical issues or concerns. This represents an attempt to control the narrative and potentially avoid addressing uncomfortable or problematic aspects of the project.	action
4	A response is given that deliberately limits commitment to specific actions or acknowledgments of responsibility. This measured approach suggests reluctance to fully engage with identified problems or take definitive corrective action.	action
5	A decision is made to continue with the project without implementing recommended changes to tank systems or infrastructure. This choice prioritizes project timeline and costs over technical recommendations that may address safety or performance concerns.	action
6	Significant environmental concerns are discovered that could impact the project's safety, compliance, or public welfare. This discovery introduces new technical and ethical considerations that must be addressed by the engineering professionals involved.	automatic
7	The local drainage board grants approval for the project to proceed, representing official regulatory endorsement. This approval may have been obtained despite ongoing technical concerns or incomplete disclosure of potential issues.	automatic
8	Construction begins and proceeds according to original plans without incorporating the previously recommended technical changes. This implementation phase represents the culmination of earlier decisions to prioritize schedule and budget over engineering recommendations.	automatic
9	Engineer H Licensing Deficiency Discovery	automatic
10	Engineer H has a duty to provide complete testimony but is constrained by incomplete information about environmental risks and site conditions, creating tension between transparency obligations and knowledge limitations	automatic
11	Engineer R has obligation to disclose public safety concerns but may be constrained by jurisdictional licensure requirements that limit practice authority in State I, creating tension between safety duties and legal practice boundaries	automatic
12	Engineer R fulfilled ethical obligations regarding environmental concerns at the site of the truck stop through public testimony.	outcome

Timeline Flow

Sequential action-event relationships. See Analysis tab for action-obligation links.

Enables (action → event)

Public Hearing Testimony Decision Redirect Conversation Strategy
Redirect Conversation Strategy Limited Commitment Response
Limited Commitment Response Proceed Without Tank Changes
Proceed Without Tank Changes Environmental Concerns Discovery

Key Takeaways

Engineers have a paramount duty to protect public health and safety that can override professional constraints like incomplete information or jurisdictional limitations.
Public testimony serves as a critical mechanism for engineers to fulfill their ethical obligations when formal channels may be inadequate or unavailable.
The duty to disclose safety concerns extends beyond perfect knowledge - engineers must act on reasonable concerns even when complete information is unavailable.

Step 4: Synthesis Review

149

6

16

8

Stalemate

Full Entity Graph

Entity Types

Synthesis Reasoning Flow

Node Types & Relationships

NSPE Code Provisions Referenced

III.8.a. III.8.a.

I.1. I.1.

I.3. I.3.

II.1.f. II.1.f.

III.2.d. III.2.d.

III.3.a. III.3.a.

Questions & Conclusions

Question 1 Board Question

Question 2 Board Question

Question 3 Board Question

Question 4 Board Question

Question 5 Implicit

Question 6 Implicit

Question 7 Implicit

Question 8 Principle Tension

Question 9 Principle Tension

Question 10 Principle Tension

Question 11 Theoretical

Question 12 Theoretical

Question 13 Theoretical

Question 14 Counterfactual

Question 15 Counterfactual

Question 16 Counterfactual

Rich Analysis Results

Causal-Normative Links 4

Public Hearing Testimony Decision

Redirect Conversation Strategy

Limited Commitment Response

Proceed Without Tank Changes

Question Emergence 16

What ethical obligations does the Drainage Board have to verify the licensing status of engineers presenting technical testimony? 2 triggers 1 competing warrants

Triggering Events

Triggering Actions

Competing Warrants

How should Engineer R balance the principle of PublicWelfare_R_RiskAssessment against professional courtesy when challenging Engineer H's incomplete testimony? 4 triggers 1 competing warrants

Triggering Events

Triggering Actions

Competing Warrants

Does the principle of Competence_H_Licensing conflict with the principle of PublicInterest_BER79-2_Discussion when unlicensed engineers possess relevant technical knowledge? 4 triggers 2 competing warrants

Triggering Events

Triggering Actions

Competing Warrants

How does the principle of SustainableDevelopment_III2d_Discussion conflict with immediate PublicSafety_BER20-4_Discussion concerns in project approval decisions? 4 triggers 1 competing warrants

Triggering Events

Triggering Actions

Competing Warrants

From a deontological perspective, did Engineer H fulfill their categorical duty of truthfulness when providing selective information about tank safety? 3 triggers 1 competing warrants

Triggering Events

Triggering Actions

Competing Warrants

From a consequentialist perspective, did Engineer R's public testimony achieve the greatest good by potentially preventing environmental damage despite disrupting the approval process? 4 triggers 2 competing warrants

Triggering Events

Triggering Actions

Competing Warrants

From a virtue ethics perspective, did Engineer H demonstrate professional integrity when representing a project in a jurisdiction where they lacked proper credentials? 3 triggers 2 competing warrants

Triggering Events

Triggering Actions

Competing Warrants

Would the environmental risks have been adequately addressed if Engineer R had chosen to escalate concerns to state regulatory authorities instead of public testimony? 4 triggers 2 competing warrants

Triggering Events

Triggering Actions

Competing Warrants

What would have been the ethical implications if Firm C had assigned a properly licensed engineer to present the project instead of Engineer H? 3 triggers 2 competing warrants

Triggering Events

Triggering Actions

Competing Warrants

How would the ethical analysis change if Engineer H had acknowledged the underground leak concerns and committed to design modifications during the hearing? 4 triggers 2 competing warrants

Triggering Events

Triggering Actions