This page shows the pre-commit working store (the raw extraction under review). This case was committed to OntServe on 2026-07-13 03:44; the committed record differs by design (deduplication, typing, and agent binding are applied at commit). View the committed record
Overview
Provenance Draft

PASS 3: Temporal Dynamics

Case 171: Conflict Of Interest - Duty of Loyalty of Terminated Employed Engineer to Employer - Misleading Brochure

26 entities 6 actions 2 events 7 causal chains 10 temporal relations
Timeline Overview
Action Event 8 sequenced markers
Employment Termination Several months after November 15, 1982
Continued Interim Employment November 1982 through actual termination several months later
Termination Notification November 15, 1982
Current Client Solicitation Immediately after the November 15, 1982 termination notice, while still employed
Work Shortage Onset Prior to November 15, 1982
Nondisclosure to Employer During the interim employment period following the termination notice
Interim Brochure Distribution During the interim period between the termination notice and Engineer A's actual departure
Post-Termination Brochure Use Well after Engineer A's actual termination
OWL-Time Temporal Structure 10 relations time: = w3.org/2006/time
Engineer B's termination notice to Engineer A time:intervalMeets Engineer A's solicitation of Engineer B's current clients
Engineer A's solicitation of clients time:intervalDuring Engineer A's employment with Engineer B
termination notice (November 15, 1982) time:intervalBefore Engineer A's actual termination
brochure printing time:intervalBefore brochure distribution during interim period
Engineer B's distribution of brochure time:intervalDuring interim period between termination notice and actual termination
Engineer A's actual termination time:intervalBefore Engineer B's continued use of the brochure
Engineer B's brochure distribution time:intervalOverlaps Engineer A's employment with Engineer B
Engineer B's obligation to inform prospective clients of pending termination time:intervalDuring interim period between notice and actual termination
Engineer A's formal dismissal time:intervalBefore Engineer B's obligation to cease using the brochure
Engineer A's employment with Engineer B time:intervalBefore Engineer A's planned new engineering firm
Extracted Actions (6)
Volitional professional decisions with intentions and ethical context

Description: Engineer B notified Engineer A that employment would be terminated because of lack of work.

Temporal Marker: November 15, 1982 instant

Fluent Transitions:
Initiates (1)
  • Pending Termination State

Mental State: deliberate

Intended Outcome: Reduce firm staffing in response to lack of work

Foreseen Unintended Effects:

  • Engineer A would need to seek other employment or work
Required Capabilities:
Personnel management judgment
Within Competence: Yes
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • requiresCapability: Personnel management judgment
  • initiates: Pending Termination State
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • description content: Engineer B notified Engineer A that employment would be terminated because of lack of work.
  • hasAgent content: Engineer B
  • temporalMarker content: November 15, 1982
  • eventRoleContext content: Employer, Principal of Firm
  • hasMentalState content: deliberate
  • intendedOutcome content: Reduce firm staffing in response to lack of work
  • foreseenUnintendedEffects content: Engineer A would need to seek other employment or work
  • textReferences content: On November 15, 1982 Engineer B notified Engineer A that Engineer B was going to terminate Engineer A because of lack of work.
  • temporalExtent content: instant
  • temporalSequence content: 2
  • withinCompetence assessment: True
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/171#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#",
    "time": "http://www.w3.org/2006/time#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/171#Action_Termination_Notification",
  "@type": "proeth:Action",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-12T16:34:49.878309+00:00",
  "proeth:description": "Engineer B notified Engineer A that employment would be terminated because of lack of work.",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "facts",
  "proeth:eventRoleContext": "Employer, Principal of Firm",
  "proeth:foreseenUnintendedEffects": [
    "Engineer A would need to seek other employment or work"
  ],
  "proeth:hasAgent": "Engineer B",
  "proeth:hasMentalState": "deliberate",
  "proeth:initiates": [
    "Pending Termination State"
  ],
  "proeth:intendedOutcome": "Reduce firm staffing in response to lack of work",
  "proeth:requiresCapability": [
    "Personnel management judgment"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalExtent": "instant",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "November 15, 1982",
  "proeth:temporalSequence": 2,
  "proeth:textReferences": [
    "On November 15, 1982 Engineer B notified Engineer A that Engineer B was going to terminate Engineer A because of lack of work."
  ],
  "proeth:withinCompetence": true,
  "rdfs:label": "Termination Notification"
}

Description: While still employed by Engineer B, Engineer A contacted Engineer B's current clients announcing plans to start a new engineering firm and asking to be considered for future work.

Temporal Marker: Immediately after the November 15, 1982 termination notice, while still employed instant

Fluent Transitions:
Initiates (1)
  • Undisclosed Competition with Employer State

Mental State: deliberate

Intended Outcome: Secure future work for a planned new engineering firm

Foreseen Unintended Effects:

  • Diversion of Engineer B's current clients to the detriment of the employer
Obligation Engagement:
At stake (2)
  • Act as Faithful Agent and Trustee (Section I.4)
  • Avoid Questionable Methods of Competition (Section III.7)
Required Capabilities:
Client relations Business promotion
Within Competence: Yes
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • requiresCapability: Client relations; Business promotion
  • initiates: Undisclosed Competition with Employer State
  • raisesObligation: Act as Faithful Agent and Trustee (Section I.4); Avoid Questionable Methods of Competition (Section III.7)
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • description content: While still employed by Engineer B, Engineer A contacted Engineer B's current clients announcing plans to start a new engineering firm and asking to be considered for future work.
  • hasAgent content: Engineer A
  • temporalMarker content: Immediately after the November 15, 1982 termination notice, while still employed
  • eventRoleContext content: Employee Engineer
  • hasMentalState content: deliberate
  • intendedOutcome content: Secure future work for a planned new engineering firm
  • foreseenUnintendedEffects content: Diversion of Engineer B's current clients to the detriment of the employer
  • textReferences content: Engineer A thereupon notified clients of Engineer B that Engineer A was planning to start another engineering firm and would appreciate being considered for future work.
  • temporalExtent content: instant
  • temporalSequence content: 3
  • withinCompetence assessment: True
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/171#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#",
    "time": "http://www.w3.org/2006/time#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/171#Action_Current_Client_Solicitation",
  "@type": "proeth:Action",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-12T16:34:49.878541+00:00",
  "proeth:description": "While still employed by Engineer B, Engineer A contacted Engineer B\u0027s current clients announcing plans to start a new engineering firm and asking to be considered for future work.",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "facts",
  "proeth:eventRoleContext": "Employee Engineer",
  "proeth:foreseenUnintendedEffects": [
    "Diversion of Engineer B\u0027s current clients to the detriment of the employer"
  ],
  "proeth:fulfillsObligation": [],
  "proeth:hasAgent": "Engineer A",
  "proeth:hasMentalState": "deliberate",
  "proeth:initiates": [
    "Undisclosed Competition with Employer State"
  ],
  "proeth:intendedOutcome": "Secure future work for a planned new engineering firm",
  "proeth:raisesObligation": [
    "Act as Faithful Agent and Trustee (Section I.4)",
    "Avoid Questionable Methods of Competition (Section III.7)"
  ],
  "proeth:requiresCapability": [
    "Client relations",
    "Business promotion"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalExtent": "instant",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "Immediately after the November 15, 1982 termination notice, while still employed",
  "proeth:temporalSequence": 3,
  "proeth:textReferences": [
    "Engineer A thereupon notified clients of Engineer B that Engineer A was planning to start another engineering firm and would appreciate being considered for future work."
  ],
  "proeth:violatesObligation": [],
  "proeth:withinCompetence": true,
  "rdfs:label": "Current Client Solicitation"
}

Description: Engineer A did not inform Engineer B of the promotional activity directed at Engineer B's current clients, an omission the Board treats as a breach of the duty to disclose.

Temporal Marker: During the interim employment period following the termination notice interval

Fluent Transitions:
Initiates (1)
  • Breach of Duty of Loyalty and Good Faith State

Mental State: deliberate

Intended Outcome: Avoid employer interference with efforts to secure future work from current clients

Foreseen Unintended Effects:

  • Employer detriment from concealed competition
Obligation Engagement:
Violates (3)
  • Act as Faithful Agent and Trustee (Section I.4)
  • Duty of Disclosure to All Interested Parties (Section III.4.a)
  • Avoid Questionable Methods of Competition (Section III.7)
Required Capabilities:
Professional judgment regarding disclosure
Within Competence: Yes
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • violatesObligation: Act as Faithful Agent and Trustee (Section I.4); Duty of Disclosure to All Interested Parties (Section III.4.a); Avoid Questionable Methods of Competition (Section III.7)
  • requiresCapability: Professional judgment regarding disclosure
  • initiates: Breach of Duty of Loyalty and Good Faith State
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • description content: Engineer A did not inform Engineer B of the promotional activity directed at Engineer B's current clients, an omission the Board treats as a breach of the duty to disclose.
  • hasAgent content: Engineer A
  • temporalMarker content: During the interim employment period following the termination notice
  • eventRoleContext content: Employee Engineer
  • hasMentalState content: deliberate
  • intendedOutcome content: Avoid employer interference with efforts to secure future work from current clients
  • foreseenUnintendedEffects content: Employer detriment from concealed competition
  • textReferences content: by failing to act as a faithful employee and by failing to disclose the actions to Engineer B, Engineer A engaged in questionable methods of competition
  • temporalExtent content: interval
  • temporalSequence content: 4
  • withinCompetence assessment: True
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/171#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#",
    "time": "http://www.w3.org/2006/time#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/171#Action_Nondisclosure_to_Employer",
  "@type": "proeth:Action",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-12T16:34:49.878588+00:00",
  "proeth:description": "Engineer A did not inform Engineer B of the promotional activity directed at Engineer B\u0027s current clients, an omission the Board treats as a breach of the duty to disclose.",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "discussion",
  "proeth:eventRoleContext": "Employee Engineer",
  "proeth:foreseenUnintendedEffects": [
    "Employer detriment from concealed competition"
  ],
  "proeth:fulfillsObligation": [],
  "proeth:hasAgent": "Engineer A",
  "proeth:hasMentalState": "deliberate",
  "proeth:initiates": [
    "Breach of Duty of Loyalty and Good Faith State"
  ],
  "proeth:intendedOutcome": "Avoid employer interference with efforts to secure future work from current clients",
  "proeth:raisesObligation": [],
  "proeth:requiresCapability": [
    "Professional judgment regarding disclosure"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalExtent": "interval",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "During the interim employment period following the termination notice",
  "proeth:temporalSequence": 4,
  "proeth:textReferences": [
    "by failing to act as a faithful employee and by failing to disclose the actions to Engineer B, Engineer A engaged in questionable methods of competition"
  ],
  "proeth:violatesObligation": [
    "Act as Faithful Agent and Trustee (Section I.4)",
    "Duty of Disclosure to All Interested Parties (Section III.4.a)",
    "Avoid Questionable Methods of Competition (Section III.7)"
  ],
  "proeth:withinCompetence": true,
  "rdfs:label": "Nondisclosure to Employer"
}

Description: During the interim period after the termination notice, Engineer B distributed a previously printed brochure listing Engineer A as a key employee without informing prospective clients of the pending termination.

Temporal Marker: During the interim period between the termination notice and Engineer A's actual departure interval

Fluent Transitions:
Initiates (1)
  • Client Misrepresentation State

Mental State: deliberate

Intended Outcome: Enhance the firm's qualifications and work in soliciting clients

Foreseen Unintended Effects:

  • Potential clients misled into believing Engineer A would be available for future projects
Obligation Engagement:
At stake (1)
  • Not Misrepresent Pertinent Facts in Brochures (Section II.5.a)
Violates (1)
  • Inform Prospective Clients of Pending Termination
Required Capabilities:
Firm marketing and promotion
Within Competence: Yes
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • violatesObligation: Inform Prospective Clients of Pending Termination
  • requiresCapability: Firm marketing and promotion
  • initiates: Client Misrepresentation State
  • raisesObligation: Not Misrepresent Pertinent Facts in Brochures (Section II.5.a)
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • description content: During the interim period after the termination notice, Engineer B distributed a previously printed brochure listing Engineer A as a key employee without informing prospective clients of the pending termination.
  • hasAgent content: Engineer B
  • temporalMarker content: During the interim period between the termination notice and Engineer A's actual departure
  • eventRoleContext content: Employer, Principal of Firm
  • hasMentalState content: deliberate
  • intendedOutcome content: Enhance the firm's qualifications and work in soliciting clients
  • foreseenUnintendedEffects content: Potential clients misled into believing Engineer A would be available for future projects
  • textReferences content: During that period, Engineer B distributed a previously printed brochure listing Engineer A as one of Engineer B's key employees; Engineer B distributed the brochure while Engineer A was still employed but had been given a notice of termination by Engineer B.
  • temporalExtent content: interval
  • temporalSequence content: 5
  • withinCompetence assessment: True
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/171#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#",
    "time": "http://www.w3.org/2006/time#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/171#Action_Interim_Brochure_Distribution",
  "@type": "proeth:Action",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-12T16:34:49.878643+00:00",
  "proeth:description": "During the interim period after the termination notice, Engineer B distributed a previously printed brochure listing Engineer A as a key employee without informing prospective clients of the pending termination.",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "facts",
  "proeth:eventRoleContext": "Employer, Principal of Firm",
  "proeth:foreseenUnintendedEffects": [
    "Potential clients misled into believing Engineer A would be available for future projects"
  ],
  "proeth:fulfillsObligation": [],
  "proeth:hasAgent": "Engineer B",
  "proeth:hasMentalState": "deliberate",
  "proeth:initiates": [
    "Client Misrepresentation State"
  ],
  "proeth:intendedOutcome": "Enhance the firm\u0027s qualifications and work in soliciting clients",
  "proeth:raisesObligation": [
    "Not Misrepresent Pertinent Facts in Brochures (Section II.5.a)"
  ],
  "proeth:requiresCapability": [
    "Firm marketing and promotion"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalExtent": "interval",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "During the interim period between the termination notice and Engineer A\u0027s actual departure",
  "proeth:temporalSequence": 5,
  "proeth:textReferences": [
    "During that period, Engineer B distributed a previously printed brochure listing Engineer A as one of Engineer B\u0027s key employees",
    "Engineer B distributed the brochure while Engineer A was still employed but had been given a notice of termination by Engineer B."
  ],
  "proeth:violatesObligation": [
    "Inform Prospective Clients of Pending Termination"
  ],
  "proeth:withinCompetence": true,
  "rdfs:label": "Interim Brochure Distribution"
}

Description: Engineer A chose to continue working for Engineer B for several additional months after the termination notice while simultaneously engaging in undisclosed promotional activity.

Temporal Marker: November 1982 through actual termination several months later interval

Fluent Transitions:
Initiates (1)
  • Concurrent Employment and Competition State

Mental State: deliberate

Intended Outcome: Retain income and position until actual termination

Foreseen Unintended Effects:

  • Simultaneous employment and competition placing loyalty obligations in tension
Obligation Engagement:
Violates (1)
  • Act as Faithful Agent and Trustee (Section I.4)
Required Capabilities:
Engineering services for employer
Within Competence: Yes
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • violatesObligation: Act as Faithful Agent and Trustee (Section I.4)
  • requiresCapability: Engineering services for employer
  • initiates: Concurrent Employment and Competition State
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • description content: Engineer A chose to continue working for Engineer B for several additional months after the termination notice while simultaneously engaging in undisclosed promotional activity.
  • hasAgent content: Engineer A
  • temporalMarker content: November 1982 through actual termination several months later
  • eventRoleContext content: Employee Engineer
  • hasMentalState content: deliberate
  • intendedOutcome content: Retain income and position until actual termination
  • foreseenUnintendedEffects content: Simultaneous employment and competition placing loyalty obligations in tension
  • textReferences content: Engineer A continued to work for Engineer B for several additional months after the November termination notice.
  • temporalExtent content: interval
  • temporalSequence content: 6
  • withinCompetence assessment: True
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/171#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#",
    "time": "http://www.w3.org/2006/time#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/171#Action_Continued_Interim_Employment",
  "@type": "proeth:Action",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-12T16:34:49.878618+00:00",
  "proeth:description": "Engineer A chose to continue working for Engineer B for several additional months after the termination notice while simultaneously engaging in undisclosed promotional activity.",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "facts",
  "proeth:eventRoleContext": "Employee Engineer",
  "proeth:foreseenUnintendedEffects": [
    "Simultaneous employment and competition placing loyalty obligations in tension"
  ],
  "proeth:fulfillsObligation": [],
  "proeth:hasAgent": "Engineer A",
  "proeth:hasMentalState": "deliberate",
  "proeth:initiates": [
    "Concurrent Employment and Competition State"
  ],
  "proeth:intendedOutcome": "Retain income and position until actual termination",
  "proeth:raisesObligation": [],
  "proeth:requiresCapability": [
    "Engineering services for employer"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalExtent": "interval",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "November 1982 through actual termination several months later",
  "proeth:temporalSequence": 6,
  "proeth:textReferences": [
    "Engineer A continued to work for Engineer B for several additional months after the November termination notice."
  ],
  "proeth:violatesObligation": [
    "Act as Faithful Agent and Trustee (Section I.4)"
  ],
  "proeth:withinCompetence": true,
  "rdfs:label": "Continued Interim Employment"
}

Description: Engineer B continued to use the brochure containing Engineer A's name well after Engineer A had actually been terminated, misrepresenting the firm's current personnel.

Temporal Marker: Well after Engineer A's actual termination interval

Fluent Transitions:
Initiates (1)
  • Misrepresentation of Firm Personnel State

Mental State: deliberate

Intended Outcome: Enhance the firm's qualifications and work by presenting Engineer A as a member of the firm

Foreseen Unintended Effects:

  • Clients selecting the firm based on the presence of an engineer no longer employed there
Obligation Engagement:
Violates (3)
  • Not Misrepresent Pertinent Facts in Brochures (Section II.5.a)
  • Avoid Misleading Statements (Section III.3.a)
  • Cease Using Brochure After Termination
Required Capabilities:
Firm marketing and promotion
Within Competence: Yes
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • violatesObligation: Not Misrepresent Pertinent Facts in Brochures (Section II.5.a); Avoid Misleading Statements (Section III.3.a); Cease Using Brochure After Termination
  • requiresCapability: Firm marketing and promotion
  • initiates: Misrepresentation of Firm Personnel State
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • description content: Engineer B continued to use the brochure containing Engineer A's name well after Engineer A had actually been terminated, misrepresenting the firm's current personnel.
  • hasAgent content: Engineer B
  • temporalMarker content: Well after Engineer A's actual termination
  • eventRoleContext content: Employer, Principal of Firm
  • hasMentalState content: deliberate
  • intendedOutcome content: Enhance the firm's qualifications and work by presenting Engineer A as a member of the firm
  • foreseenUnintendedEffects content: Clients selecting the firm based on the presence of an engineer no longer employed there
  • textReferences content: continued to use the previously printed brochure with Engineer A's name in it well after Engineer B did in fact terminate Engineer A; That is a clear misrepresentation of a pertinent fact with the intent to enhance the firm's qualifications and as such constitutes a violation of the Code.
  • temporalExtent content: interval
  • temporalSequence content: 8
  • withinCompetence assessment: True
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/171#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#",
    "time": "http://www.w3.org/2006/time#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/171#Action_Post-Termination_Brochure_Use",
  "@type": "proeth:Action",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-12T16:34:49.878670+00:00",
  "proeth:description": "Engineer B continued to use the brochure containing Engineer A\u0027s name well after Engineer A had actually been terminated, misrepresenting the firm\u0027s current personnel.",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "facts",
  "proeth:eventRoleContext": "Employer, Principal of Firm",
  "proeth:foreseenUnintendedEffects": [
    "Clients selecting the firm based on the presence of an engineer no longer employed there"
  ],
  "proeth:fulfillsObligation": [],
  "proeth:hasAgent": "Engineer B",
  "proeth:hasMentalState": "deliberate",
  "proeth:initiates": [
    "Misrepresentation of Firm Personnel State"
  ],
  "proeth:intendedOutcome": "Enhance the firm\u0027s qualifications and work by presenting Engineer A as a member of the firm",
  "proeth:raisesObligation": [],
  "proeth:requiresCapability": [
    "Firm marketing and promotion"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalExtent": "interval",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "Well after Engineer A\u0027s actual termination",
  "proeth:temporalSequence": 8,
  "proeth:textReferences": [
    "continued to use the previously printed brochure with Engineer A\u0027s name in it well after Engineer B did in fact terminate Engineer A",
    "That is a clear misrepresentation of a pertinent fact with the intent to enhance the firm\u0027s qualifications and as such constitutes a violation of the Code."
  ],
  "proeth:violatesObligation": [
    "Not Misrepresent Pertinent Facts in Brochures (Section II.5.a)",
    "Avoid Misleading Statements (Section III.3.a)",
    "Cease Using Brochure After Termination"
  ],
  "proeth:withinCompetence": true,
  "rdfs:label": "Post-Termination Brochure Use"
}
Extracted Events (2)
Occurrences that trigger ethical considerations and state changes

Description: A lack of work arose at Engineer B's firm, creating the business condition that prompted Engineer B to give Engineer A notice of termination.

Temporal Marker: Prior to November 15, 1982 interval

Fluent Transitions:
Initiates (1)
  • Lack of Work Condition
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • initiates: Lack of Work Condition
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • description content: A lack of work arose at Engineer B's firm, creating the business condition that prompted Engineer B to give Engineer A notice of termination.
  • temporalMarker content: Prior to November 15, 1982
  • textReferences content: Engineer B notified Engineer A that Engineer B was going to terminate Engineer A because of lack of work
  • eventType content: exogenous
  • temporalExtent content: interval
  • temporalSequence content: 1
  • confidence assessment: 0.85
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/171#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#",
    "time": "http://www.w3.org/2006/time#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/171#Event_Work_Shortage_Onset",
  "@type": "proeth:Event",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-12T16:34:49.878765+00:00",
  "proeth:confidence": "0.85",
  "proeth:description": "A lack of work arose at Engineer B\u0027s firm, creating the business condition that prompted Engineer B to give Engineer A notice of termination.",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "facts",
  "proeth:eventType": "exogenous",
  "proeth:initiates": [
    "Lack of Work Condition"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalExtent": "interval",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "Prior to November 15, 1982",
  "proeth:temporalSequence": 1,
  "proeth:textReferences": [
    "Engineer B notified Engineer A that Engineer B was going to terminate Engineer A because of lack of work"
  ],
  "rdfs:label": "Work Shortage Onset"
}

Description: Engineer A's employment with Engineer B actually ended several months after the November termination notice, formally dismissing Engineer A from the firm.

Temporal Marker: Several months after November 15, 1982 instant

Fluent Transitions:
Initiates (2)
  • Post-Termination Period
  • Engineer A No Longer a Firm Employee
Terminates (3)
  • Interim Employment Period
  • Pending Termination
  • Employment Relationship

Caused By Action: Action_Termination_Notification

Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • causedByAction: http://proethica.org/ontology/case/171#Action_Termination_Notification
  • initiates: Post-Termination Period; Engineer A No Longer a Firm Employee
  • terminates: Interim Employment Period; Pending Termination; Employment Relationship
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • description content: Engineer A's employment with Engineer B actually ended several months after the November termination notice, formally dismissing Engineer A from the firm.
  • temporalMarker content: Several months after November 15, 1982
  • textReferences content: continued to use the previously printed brochure with Engineer A's name in it well after Engineer B did in fact terminate Engineer A; once Engineer A had been formally dismissed, Engineer B had an ethical obligation to cease using the brochure with Engineer A's name in it entirely
  • eventType content: outcome
  • temporalExtent content: instant
  • temporalSequence content: 7
  • confidence assessment: 0.93
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/171#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#",
    "time": "http://www.w3.org/2006/time#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/171#Event_Employment_Termination",
  "@type": "proeth:Event",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-12T16:34:49.879441+00:00",
  "proeth:causedByAction": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/171#Action_Termination_Notification",
  "proeth:confidence": "0.93",
  "proeth:description": "Engineer A\u0027s employment with Engineer B actually ended several months after the November termination notice, formally dismissing Engineer A from the firm.",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "facts",
  "proeth:eventType": "outcome",
  "proeth:initiates": [
    "Post-Termination Period",
    "Engineer A No Longer a Firm Employee"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalExtent": "instant",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "Several months after November 15, 1982",
  "proeth:temporalSequence": 7,
  "proeth:terminates": [
    "Interim Employment Period",
    "Pending Termination",
    "Employment Relationship"
  ],
  "proeth:textReferences": [
    "continued to use the previously printed brochure with Engineer A\u0027s name in it well after Engineer B did in fact terminate Engineer A",
    "once Engineer A had been formally dismissed, Engineer B had an ethical obligation to cease using the brochure with Engineer A\u0027s name in it entirely"
  ],
  "rdfs:label": "Employment Termination"
}
Causal Chains (7)
NESS test analysis: Necessary Element of Sufficient Set

Causal Language: On November 15, 1982 Engineer B notified Engineer A that Engineer B was going to terminate Engineer A because of lack of work.

Necessary Factors (NESS):
  • Lack of work at Engineer B's firm
  • Engineer A's position being dependent on available workload
  • Engineer B's authority as employer to terminate employees
Sufficient Factors:
  • Business downturn (lack of work) combined with Engineer B's decision to reduce staff
Counterfactual Test: Without the lack of work, Engineer B would have had no stated business reason to notify Engineer A of termination; the notification would likely not have occurred
Responsibility Attribution:

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

Causal Sequence:
  1. Work Shortage Onset
    A lack of work arises at Engineer B's firm
  2. Staffing Decision
    Engineer B decides the workload no longer supports retaining Engineer A
  3. Termination Notification
    On November 15, 1982, Engineer B notifies Engineer A of the impending termination because of lack of work
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • cause: Work Shortage Onset
  • effect: Termination Notification
  • responsibleAgent: Engineer B
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • causalLanguage content: On November 15, 1982 Engineer B notified Engineer A that Engineer B was going to terminate Engineer A because of lack of work.
  • necessaryFactors content: Lack of work at Engineer B's firm; Engineer A's position being dependent on available workload; Engineer B's authority as employer to terminate employees
  • sufficientFactors content: Business downturn (lack of work) combined with Engineer B's decision to reduce staff
  • counterfactual content: Without the lack of work, Engineer B would have had no stated business reason to notify Engineer A of termination; the notification would likely not have occurred
  • agentKnowledge content: Engineer B knew of the firm's work shortage and chose termination as the response
  • interveningFactors content: External economic/business conditions producing the lack of work
  • causalSequence content: {'proeth:step': 1, 'proeth:element': 'Work Shortage Onset', 'proeth:description': "A lack of work arises at Engineer B's firm"}; {'proeth:step': 2, 'proeth:element': 'Staffing Decision', 'proeth:description': 'Engineer B decides the workload no longer supports retaining Engineer A'}; {'proeth:step': 3, 'proeth:element': 'Termination Notification', 'proeth:description': 'On November 15, 1982, Engineer B notifies Engineer A of the impending termination because of lack of work'}
  • responsibilityType assessment: direct
  • withinAgentControl assessment: True
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/171#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/171#CausalChain_1",
  "@type": "proeth:CausalChain",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-12T16:34:49.879668+00:00",
  "proeth:agentKnowledge": "Engineer B knew of the firm\u0027s work shortage and chose termination as the response",
  "proeth:causalLanguage": "On November 15, 1982 Engineer B notified Engineer A that Engineer B was going to terminate Engineer A because of lack of work.",
  "proeth:causalSequence": [
    {
      "proeth:description": "A lack of work arises at Engineer B\u0027s firm",
      "proeth:element": "Work Shortage Onset",
      "proeth:step": 1
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer B decides the workload no longer supports retaining Engineer A",
      "proeth:element": "Staffing Decision",
      "proeth:step": 2
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "On November 15, 1982, Engineer B notifies Engineer A of the impending termination because of lack of work",
      "proeth:element": "Termination Notification",
      "proeth:step": 3
    }
  ],
  "proeth:cause": "Work Shortage Onset",
  "proeth:counterfactual": "Without the lack of work, Engineer B would have had no stated business reason to notify Engineer A of termination; the notification would likely not have occurred",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "facts",
  "proeth:effect": "Termination Notification",
  "proeth:interveningFactors": [
    "External economic/business conditions producing the lack of work"
  ],
  "proeth:necessaryFactors": [
    "Lack of work at Engineer B\u0027s firm",
    "Engineer A\u0027s position being dependent on available workload",
    "Engineer B\u0027s authority as employer to terminate employees"
  ],
  "proeth:responsibilityType": "direct",
  "proeth:responsibleAgent": "Engineer B",
  "proeth:sufficientFactors": [
    "Business downturn (lack of work) combined with Engineer B\u0027s decision to reduce staff"
  ],
  "proeth:withinAgentControl": true
}

Causal Language: Engineer A thereupon notified clients of Engineer B that Engineer A was planning to start another engineering firm and would appreciate being considered for future work.

Necessary Factors (NESS):
  • Engineer A's awareness of pending termination
  • Engineer A's access to Engineer B's current client list through employment
  • Engineer A's decision to start a new firm
Sufficient Factors:
  • Notice of impending job loss combined with insider access to current clients and Engineer A's plan to open a competing firm
Counterfactual Test: Without the termination notice, Engineer A would have had no immediate motive to solicit Engineer B's current clients; the solicitation as timed would likely not have occurred
Responsibility Attribution:

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

Causal Sequence:
  1. Termination Notification
    Engineer B informs Engineer A of impending termination for lack of work
  2. New Firm Planning
    Engineer A plans to start another engineering firm
  3. Current Client Solicitation
    While still employed, Engineer A contacts Engineer B's current clients offering future professional services
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • cause: Termination Notification
  • effect: Current Client Solicitation
  • responsibleAgent: Engineer A
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • causalLanguage content: Engineer A thereupon notified clients of Engineer B that Engineer A was planning to start another engineering firm and would appreciate being considered for future work.
  • necessaryFactors content: Engineer A's awareness of pending termination; Engineer A's access to Engineer B's current client list through employment; Engineer A's decision to start a new firm
  • sufficientFactors content: Notice of impending job loss combined with insider access to current clients and Engineer A's plan to open a competing firm
  • counterfactual content: Without the termination notice, Engineer A would have had no immediate motive to solicit Engineer B's current clients; the solicitation as timed would likely not have occurred
  • agentKnowledge content: Engineer A knew of the pending termination and knew the contacted clients were current clients of the employer
  • interveningFactors content: Impending loss of livelihood created pressure to secure future work
  • causalSequence content: {'proeth:step': 1, 'proeth:element': 'Termination Notification', 'proeth:description': 'Engineer B informs Engineer A of impending termination for lack of work'}; {'proeth:step': 2, 'proeth:element': 'New Firm Planning', 'proeth:description': 'Engineer A plans to start another engineering firm'}; {'proeth:step': 3, 'proeth:element': 'Current Client Solicitation', 'proeth:description': "While still employed, Engineer A contacts Engineer B's current clients offering future professional services"}
  • responsibilityType assessment: direct
  • withinAgentControl assessment: True
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/171#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/171#CausalChain_2",
  "@type": "proeth:CausalChain",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-12T16:34:49.879711+00:00",
  "proeth:agentKnowledge": "Engineer A knew of the pending termination and knew the contacted clients were current clients of the employer",
  "proeth:causalLanguage": "Engineer A thereupon notified clients of Engineer B that Engineer A was planning to start another engineering firm and would appreciate being considered for future work.",
  "proeth:causalSequence": [
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer B informs Engineer A of impending termination for lack of work",
      "proeth:element": "Termination Notification",
      "proeth:step": 1
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer A plans to start another engineering firm",
      "proeth:element": "New Firm Planning",
      "proeth:step": 2
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "While still employed, Engineer A contacts Engineer B\u0027s current clients offering future professional services",
      "proeth:element": "Current Client Solicitation",
      "proeth:step": 3
    }
  ],
  "proeth:cause": "Termination Notification",
  "proeth:counterfactual": "Without the termination notice, Engineer A would have had no immediate motive to solicit Engineer B\u0027s current clients; the solicitation as timed would likely not have occurred",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "facts",
  "proeth:effect": "Current Client Solicitation",
  "proeth:interveningFactors": [
    "Impending loss of livelihood created pressure to secure future work"
  ],
  "proeth:necessaryFactors": [
    "Engineer A\u0027s awareness of pending termination",
    "Engineer A\u0027s access to Engineer B\u0027s current client list through employment",
    "Engineer A\u0027s decision to start a new firm"
  ],
  "proeth:responsibilityType": "direct",
  "proeth:responsibleAgent": "Engineer A",
  "proeth:sufficientFactors": [
    "Notice of impending job loss combined with insider access to current clients and Engineer A\u0027s plan to open a competing firm"
  ],
  "proeth:withinAgentControl": true
}

Causal Language: Certainly it is not possible for an engineer to meet those obligations to the employer if the engineer is engaging in such promotional activity to the employer's detriment.

Necessary Factors (NESS):
  • Engineer A was still employed by Engineer B at the time of contact
  • The clients contacted were current, not former, clients of Engineer B
  • The solicitation was to the employer's detriment
Sufficient Factors:
  • Promotional activity directed at the employer's current clients while still employed and without disclosure
Counterfactual Test: Had Engineer A severed all ties before contacting clients, no violation would have occurred, as the Board affirms: 'an employee who severs all ties with the employer and then seeks to contact clients of the employer... is [not] in violation of the Code'
Responsibility Attribution:

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

Causal Sequence:
  1. Current Client Solicitation
    Engineer A, while employed, offers services to Engineer B's current clients
  2. Breach of Duty of Loyalty and Good Faith
    The promotional activity works to the employer's detriment while the agency relationship persists
  3. Violation of Section I.4
    Board concludes Engineer A 'violated Section I.4. by failing to act as a faithful employee'
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • cause: Current Client Solicitation
  • effect: Violation of Section I.4 (breach of faithful agent duty)
  • responsibleAgent: Engineer A
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • causalLanguage content: Certainly it is not possible for an engineer to meet those obligations to the employer if the engineer is engaging in such promotional activity to the employer's detriment.
  • necessaryFactors content: Engineer A was still employed by Engineer B at the time of contact; The clients contacted were current, not former, clients of Engineer B; The solicitation was to the employer's detriment
  • sufficientFactors content: Promotional activity directed at the employer's current clients while still employed and without disclosure
  • counterfactual content: Had Engineer A severed all ties before contacting clients, no violation would have occurred, as the Board affirms: 'an employee who severs all ties with the employer and then seeks to contact clients of the employer... is [not] in violation of the Code'
  • agentKnowledge content: Engineer A knew or should have known the actions 'were problematic and dubious and raised the possibility of an ethical violation'
  • interveningFactors content: Pending termination initiated by Engineer B
  • causalSequence content: {'proeth:step': 1, 'proeth:element': 'Current Client Solicitation', 'proeth:description': "Engineer A, while employed, offers services to Engineer B's current clients"}; {'proeth:step': 2, 'proeth:element': 'Breach of Duty of Loyalty and Good Faith', 'proeth:description': "The promotional activity works to the employer's detriment while the agency relationship persists"}; {'proeth:step': 3, 'proeth:element': 'Violation of Section I.4', 'proeth:description': "Board concludes Engineer A 'violated Section I.4. by failing to act as a faithful employee'"}
  • responsibilityType assessment: direct
  • withinAgentControl assessment: True
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/171#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/171#CausalChain_3",
  "@type": "proeth:CausalChain",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-12T16:34:49.879736+00:00",
  "proeth:agentKnowledge": "Engineer A knew or should have known the actions \u0027were problematic and dubious and raised the possibility of an ethical violation\u0027",
  "proeth:causalLanguage": "Certainly it is not possible for an engineer to meet those obligations to the employer if the engineer is engaging in such promotional activity to the employer\u0027s detriment.",
  "proeth:causalSequence": [
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer A, while employed, offers services to Engineer B\u0027s current clients",
      "proeth:element": "Current Client Solicitation",
      "proeth:step": 1
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "The promotional activity works to the employer\u0027s detriment while the agency relationship persists",
      "proeth:element": "Breach of Duty of Loyalty and Good Faith",
      "proeth:step": 2
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Board concludes Engineer A \u0027violated Section I.4. by failing to act as a faithful employee\u0027",
      "proeth:element": "Violation of Section I.4",
      "proeth:step": 3
    }
  ],
  "proeth:cause": "Current Client Solicitation",
  "proeth:counterfactual": "Had Engineer A severed all ties before contacting clients, no violation would have occurred, as the Board affirms: \u0027an employee who severs all ties with the employer and then seeks to contact clients of the employer... is [not] in violation of the Code\u0027",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "discussion",
  "proeth:effect": "Violation of Section I.4 (breach of faithful agent duty)",
  "proeth:interveningFactors": [
    "Pending termination initiated by Engineer B"
  ],
  "proeth:necessaryFactors": [
    "Engineer A was still employed by Engineer B at the time of contact",
    "The clients contacted were current, not former, clients of Engineer B",
    "The solicitation was to the employer\u0027s detriment"
  ],
  "proeth:responsibilityType": "direct",
  "proeth:responsibleAgent": "Engineer A",
  "proeth:sufficientFactors": [
    "Promotional activity directed at the employer\u0027s current clients while still employed and without disclosure"
  ],
  "proeth:withinAgentControl": true
}

Causal Language: It seems obvious that by failing to act as a faithful employee and by failing to disclose the actions to Engineer B, Engineer A engaged in questionable methods of competition.

Necessary Factors (NESS):
  • Ongoing employment relationship imposing a duty to disclose
  • Concealment of the promotional activity from Engineer B
  • Competitive character of the solicitation of current clients
Sufficient Factors:
  • Secret competition with the employer using the employer's current client relationships while still on the payroll
Counterfactual Test: Had Engineer A fully disclosed the promotional activity to Engineer B, the competition would not have been conducted through 'questionable methods,' and the Section III.7 finding would likely not follow
Responsibility Attribution:

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

Causal Sequence:
  1. Current Client Solicitation
    Engineer A contacts Engineer B's current clients while still employed
  2. Nondisclosure to Employer
    Engineer A withholds the promotional activity from Engineer B
  3. Questionable Competition
    Concealed solicitation constitutes competing with the employer by questionable methods
  4. Violation of Section III.7
    Board finds Engineer A in violation of Section III.7
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • cause: Nondisclosure to Employer
  • effect: Violation of Section III.7 (questionable methods of competition)
  • responsibleAgent: Engineer A
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • causalLanguage content: It seems obvious that by failing to act as a faithful employee and by failing to disclose the actions to Engineer B, Engineer A engaged in questionable methods of competition.
  • necessaryFactors content: Ongoing employment relationship imposing a duty to disclose; Concealment of the promotional activity from Engineer B; Competitive character of the solicitation of current clients
  • sufficientFactors content: Secret competition with the employer using the employer's current client relationships while still on the payroll
  • counterfactual content: Had Engineer A fully disclosed the promotional activity to Engineer B, the competition would not have been conducted through 'questionable methods,' and the Section III.7 finding would likely not follow
  • agentKnowledge content: Even if Engineer A was not certain the actions were unethical, 'Engineer A knew or should have known that they were problematic and dubious'
  • causalSequence content: {'proeth:step': 1, 'proeth:element': 'Current Client Solicitation', 'proeth:description': "Engineer A contacts Engineer B's current clients while still employed"}; {'proeth:step': 2, 'proeth:element': 'Nondisclosure to Employer', 'proeth:description': 'Engineer A withholds the promotional activity from Engineer B'}; {'proeth:step': 3, 'proeth:element': 'Questionable Competition', 'proeth:description': 'Concealed solicitation constitutes competing with the employer by questionable methods'}; {'proeth:step': 4, 'proeth:element': 'Violation of Section III.7', 'proeth:description': 'Board finds Engineer A in violation of Section III.7'}
  • responsibilityType assessment: direct
  • withinAgentControl assessment: True
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/171#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/171#CausalChain_4",
  "@type": "proeth:CausalChain",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-12T16:34:49.879756+00:00",
  "proeth:agentKnowledge": "Even if Engineer A was not certain the actions were unethical, \u0027Engineer A knew or should have known that they were problematic and dubious\u0027",
  "proeth:causalLanguage": "It seems obvious that by failing to act as a faithful employee and by failing to disclose the actions to Engineer B, Engineer A engaged in questionable methods of competition.",
  "proeth:causalSequence": [
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer A contacts Engineer B\u0027s current clients while still employed",
      "proeth:element": "Current Client Solicitation",
      "proeth:step": 1
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer A withholds the promotional activity from Engineer B",
      "proeth:element": "Nondisclosure to Employer",
      "proeth:step": 2
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Concealed solicitation constitutes competing with the employer by questionable methods",
      "proeth:element": "Questionable Competition",
      "proeth:step": 3
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Board finds Engineer A in violation of Section III.7",
      "proeth:element": "Violation of Section III.7",
      "proeth:step": 4
    }
  ],
  "proeth:cause": "Nondisclosure to Employer",
  "proeth:counterfactual": "Had Engineer A fully disclosed the promotional activity to Engineer B, the competition would not have been conducted through \u0027questionable methods,\u0027 and the Section III.7 finding would likely not follow",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "discussion",
  "proeth:effect": "Violation of Section III.7 (questionable methods of competition)",
  "proeth:necessaryFactors": [
    "Ongoing employment relationship imposing a duty to disclose",
    "Concealment of the promotional activity from Engineer B",
    "Competitive character of the solicitation of current clients"
  ],
  "proeth:responsibilityType": "direct",
  "proeth:responsibleAgent": "Engineer A",
  "proeth:sufficientFactors": [
    "Secret competition with the employer using the employer\u0027s current client relationships while still on the payroll"
  ],
  "proeth:withinAgentControl": true
}

Causal Language: That could easily mislead potential clients into believing that Engineer A, noted as a key employee, would be available in the firm for consultation on future projects.

Necessary Factors (NESS):
  • Brochure listed Engineer A as a key employee
  • Engineer B knew of the impending termination when distributing the brochure
  • Clients rely on named personnel in selecting firms ('The names of the firm's members are often quite significant to the client selecting the firm')
Sufficient Factors:
  • Distribution of a brochure representing Engineer A's continued availability while Engineer B knew that availability would end
Counterfactual Test: Had Engineer B informed prospective clients during negotiations of Engineer A's pending termination, the misleading impression would have been dispelled
Responsibility Attribution:

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

Causal Sequence:
  1. Termination Notification
    Engineer B gives Engineer A notice of termination, knowing Engineer A will leave
  2. Interim Brochure Distribution
    Engineer B distributes the previously printed brochure listing Engineer A as a key employee during the interim period
  3. Client Misimpression
    Potential clients are led to believe Engineer A will be available for future projects
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • cause: Interim Brochure Distribution
  • effect: Misleading of potential clients regarding Engineer A's availability
  • responsibleAgent: Engineer B
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • causalLanguage content: That could easily mislead potential clients into believing that Engineer A, noted as a key employee, would be available in the firm for consultation on future projects.
  • necessaryFactors content: Brochure listed Engineer A as a key employee; Engineer B knew of the impending termination when distributing the brochure; Clients rely on named personnel in selecting firms ('The names of the firm's members are often quite significant to the client selecting the firm')
  • sufficientFactors content: Distribution of a brochure representing Engineer A's continued availability while Engineer B knew that availability would end
  • counterfactual content: Had Engineer B informed prospective clients during negotiations of Engineer A's pending termination, the misleading impression would have been dispelled
  • agentKnowledge content: Engineer B 'was well aware of the impending termination of Engineer A. Engineer B was the very person who terminated Engineer A.'
  • interveningFactors content: Cost and impracticability of reprinting or amending the brochure
  • causalSequence content: {'proeth:step': 1, 'proeth:element': 'Termination Notification', 'proeth:description': 'Engineer B gives Engineer A notice of termination, knowing Engineer A will leave'}; {'proeth:step': 2, 'proeth:element': 'Interim Brochure Distribution', 'proeth:description': 'Engineer B distributes the previously printed brochure listing Engineer A as a key employee during the interim period'}; {'proeth:step': 3, 'proeth:element': 'Client Misimpression', 'proeth:description': 'Potential clients are led to believe Engineer A will be available for future projects'}
  • responsibilityType assessment: direct
  • withinAgentControl assessment: True
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/171#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/171#CausalChain_5",
  "@type": "proeth:CausalChain",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-12T16:34:49.879779+00:00",
  "proeth:agentKnowledge": "Engineer B \u0027was well aware of the impending termination of Engineer A. Engineer B was the very person who terminated Engineer A.\u0027",
  "proeth:causalLanguage": "That could easily mislead potential clients into believing that Engineer A, noted as a key employee, would be available in the firm for consultation on future projects.",
  "proeth:causalSequence": [
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer B gives Engineer A notice of termination, knowing Engineer A will leave",
      "proeth:element": "Termination Notification",
      "proeth:step": 1
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer B distributes the previously printed brochure listing Engineer A as a key employee during the interim period",
      "proeth:element": "Interim Brochure Distribution",
      "proeth:step": 2
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Potential clients are led to believe Engineer A will be available for future projects",
      "proeth:element": "Client Misimpression",
      "proeth:step": 3
    }
  ],
  "proeth:cause": "Interim Brochure Distribution",
  "proeth:counterfactual": "Had Engineer B informed prospective clients during negotiations of Engineer A\u0027s pending termination, the misleading impression would have been dispelled",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "discussion",
  "proeth:effect": "Misleading of potential clients regarding Engineer A\u0027s availability",
  "proeth:interveningFactors": [
    "Cost and impracticability of reprinting or amending the brochure"
  ],
  "proeth:necessaryFactors": [
    "Brochure listed Engineer A as a key employee",
    "Engineer B knew of the impending termination when distributing the brochure",
    "Clients rely on named personnel in selecting firms (\u0027The names of the firm\u0027s members are often quite significant to the client selecting the firm\u0027)"
  ],
  "proeth:responsibilityType": "direct",
  "proeth:responsibleAgent": "Engineer B",
  "proeth:sufficientFactors": [
    "Distribution of a brochure representing Engineer A\u0027s continued availability while Engineer B knew that availability would end"
  ],
  "proeth:withinAgentControl": true
}

Causal Language: Moreover, Engineer B distributed the brochure after Engineer A had left the firm. That is a clear misrepresentation of a pertinent fact with the intent to enhance the firm's qualifications and as such constitutes a violation of the Code.

Necessary Factors (NESS):
  • Engineer A had actually left the firm (Employment Termination event)
  • Brochure still named Engineer A as a key employee
  • Intent and purpose to enhance the firm's qualifications ('Both prongs must be present for a violation of Section II.5.a. to exist')
Sufficient Factors:
  • Continued use of the brochure naming a departed key employee, combined with the promotional intent to enhance the firm's qualifications
Counterfactual Test: Had Engineer B ceased using the brochure once Engineer A was formally dismissed — the 'ethical obligation to cease using the brochure with Engineer A's name in it entirely' — no Section II.5.a violation would have arisen from post-termination use
Responsibility Attribution:

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

Causal Sequence:
  1. Employment Termination
    Engineer A's employment with Engineer B actually ends several months after the November notice
  2. Post-Termination Brochure Use
    Engineer B continues using the brochure with Engineer A's name well after the termination
  3. Misrepresentation of Pertinent Facts
    Clients receive a brochure naming a key employee who is no longer at the firm
  4. Violation of Section II.5.a
    Board finds the continued use constitutes misrepresentation with intent to enhance the firm's qualifications
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • cause: Post-Termination Brochure Use
  • effect: Violation of Section II.5.a (misrepresentation of pertinent facts)
  • responsibleAgent: Engineer B
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • causalLanguage content: Moreover, Engineer B distributed the brochure after Engineer A had left the firm. That is a clear misrepresentation of a pertinent fact with the intent to enhance the firm's qualifications and as such constitutes a violation of the Code.
  • necessaryFactors content: Engineer A had actually left the firm (Employment Termination event); Brochure still named Engineer A as a key employee; Intent and purpose to enhance the firm's qualifications ('Both prongs must be present for a violation of Section II.5.a. to exist')
  • sufficientFactors content: Continued use of the brochure naming a departed key employee, combined with the promotional intent to enhance the firm's qualifications
  • counterfactual content: Had Engineer B ceased using the brochure once Engineer A was formally dismissed — the 'ethical obligation to cease using the brochure with Engineer A's name in it entirely' — no Section II.5.a violation would have arisen from post-termination use
  • agentKnowledge content: Engineer B knew Engineer A had been terminated, being 'the very person who terminated Engineer A'
  • interveningFactors content: Sunk cost of previously printed brochures
  • causalSequence content: {'proeth:step': 1, 'proeth:element': 'Employment Termination', 'proeth:description': "Engineer A's employment with Engineer B actually ends several months after the November notice"}; {'proeth:step': 2, 'proeth:element': 'Post-Termination Brochure Use', 'proeth:description': "Engineer B continues using the brochure with Engineer A's name well after the termination"}; {'proeth:step': 3, 'proeth:element': 'Misrepresentation of Pertinent Facts', 'proeth:description': 'Clients receive a brochure naming a key employee who is no longer at the firm'}; {'proeth:step': 4, 'proeth:element': 'Violation of Section II.5.a', 'proeth:description': "Board finds the continued use constitutes misrepresentation with intent to enhance the firm's qualifications"}
  • responsibilityType assessment: direct
  • withinAgentControl assessment: True
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/171#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/171#CausalChain_6",
  "@type": "proeth:CausalChain",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-12T16:34:49.879798+00:00",
  "proeth:agentKnowledge": "Engineer B knew Engineer A had been terminated, being \u0027the very person who terminated Engineer A\u0027",
  "proeth:causalLanguage": "Moreover, Engineer B distributed the brochure after Engineer A had left the firm. That is a clear misrepresentation of a pertinent fact with the intent to enhance the firm\u0027s qualifications and as such constitutes a violation of the Code.",
  "proeth:causalSequence": [
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer A\u0027s employment with Engineer B actually ends several months after the November notice",
      "proeth:element": "Employment Termination",
      "proeth:step": 1
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer B continues using the brochure with Engineer A\u0027s name well after the termination",
      "proeth:element": "Post-Termination Brochure Use",
      "proeth:step": 2
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Clients receive a brochure naming a key employee who is no longer at the firm",
      "proeth:element": "Misrepresentation of Pertinent Facts",
      "proeth:step": 3
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Board finds the continued use constitutes misrepresentation with intent to enhance the firm\u0027s qualifications",
      "proeth:element": "Violation of Section II.5.a",
      "proeth:step": 4
    }
  ],
  "proeth:cause": "Post-Termination Brochure Use",
  "proeth:counterfactual": "Had Engineer B ceased using the brochure once Engineer A was formally dismissed \u2014 the \u0027ethical obligation to cease using the brochure with Engineer A\u0027s name in it entirely\u0027 \u2014 no Section II.5.a violation would have arisen from post-termination use",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "discussion",
  "proeth:effect": "Violation of Section II.5.a (misrepresentation of pertinent facts)",
  "proeth:interveningFactors": [
    "Sunk cost of previously printed brochures"
  ],
  "proeth:necessaryFactors": [
    "Engineer A had actually left the firm (Employment Termination event)",
    "Brochure still named Engineer A as a key employee",
    "Intent and purpose to enhance the firm\u0027s qualifications (\u0027Both prongs must be present for a violation of Section II.5.a. to exist\u0027)"
  ],
  "proeth:responsibilityType": "direct",
  "proeth:responsibleAgent": "Engineer B",
  "proeth:sufficientFactors": [
    "Continued use of the brochure naming a departed key employee, combined with the promotional intent to enhance the firm\u0027s qualifications"
  ],
  "proeth:withinAgentControl": true
}

Causal Language: Meanwhile, Engineer A continued to work for Engineer B for several additional months after the November termination notice. During that period, Engineer B distributed a previously printed brochure listing Engineer A as one of Engineer B's key employees, and continued to use the previously printed brochure with Engineer A's name in it well after Engineer B did in fact terminate Engineer A.

Necessary Factors (NESS):
  • Engineer B's decision to terminate for lack of work
  • Communication of the termination on November 15, 1982
  • Passage of the interim employment period
Sufficient Factors:
  • The termination notice, once given and carried through, was sufficient to end the employment relationship several months later
Counterfactual Test: Without the termination notice (e.g., if new work had materialized), the employment would not have ended when it did
Responsibility Attribution:

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

Causal Sequence:
  1. Work Shortage Onset
    Lack of work arises at the firm
  2. Termination Notification
    Engineer B notifies Engineer A of the planned termination on November 15, 1982
  3. Continued Interim Employment
    Engineer A continues working for several additional months
  4. Employment Termination
    Engineer B in fact terminates Engineer A
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • cause: Termination Notification
  • effect: Employment Termination
  • responsibleAgent: Engineer B
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • causalLanguage content: Meanwhile, Engineer A continued to work for Engineer B for several additional months after the November termination notice. During that period, Engineer B distributed a previously printed brochure listing Engineer A as one of Engineer B's key employees, and continued to use the previously printed brochure with Engineer A's name in it well after Engineer B did in fact terminate Engineer A.
  • necessaryFactors content: Engineer B's decision to terminate for lack of work; Communication of the termination on November 15, 1982; Passage of the interim employment period
  • sufficientFactors content: The termination notice, once given and carried through, was sufficient to end the employment relationship several months later
  • counterfactual content: Without the termination notice (e.g., if new work had materialized), the employment would not have ended when it did
  • agentKnowledge content: Engineer B knew the lack of work necessitated the staffing decision and controlled the timing of the actual termination
  • interveningFactors content: Continued lack of work during the interim period; Engineer A's choice to continue interim employment
  • causalSequence content: {'proeth:step': 1, 'proeth:element': 'Work Shortage Onset', 'proeth:description': 'Lack of work arises at the firm'}; {'proeth:step': 2, 'proeth:element': 'Termination Notification', 'proeth:description': 'Engineer B notifies Engineer A of the planned termination on November 15, 1982'}; {'proeth:step': 3, 'proeth:element': 'Continued Interim Employment', 'proeth:description': 'Engineer A continues working for several additional months'}; {'proeth:step': 4, 'proeth:element': 'Employment Termination', 'proeth:description': 'Engineer B in fact terminates Engineer A'}
  • responsibilityType assessment: direct
  • withinAgentControl assessment: True
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/171#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/171#CausalChain_7",
  "@type": "proeth:CausalChain",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-12T16:34:49.879835+00:00",
  "proeth:agentKnowledge": "Engineer B knew the lack of work necessitated the staffing decision and controlled the timing of the actual termination",
  "proeth:causalLanguage": "Meanwhile, Engineer A continued to work for Engineer B for several additional months after the November termination notice. During that period, Engineer B distributed a previously printed brochure listing Engineer A as one of Engineer B\u0027s key employees, and continued to use the previously printed brochure with Engineer A\u0027s name in it well after Engineer B did in fact terminate Engineer A.",
  "proeth:causalSequence": [
    {
      "proeth:description": "Lack of work arises at the firm",
      "proeth:element": "Work Shortage Onset",
      "proeth:step": 1
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer B notifies Engineer A of the planned termination on November 15, 1982",
      "proeth:element": "Termination Notification",
      "proeth:step": 2
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer A continues working for several additional months",
      "proeth:element": "Continued Interim Employment",
      "proeth:step": 3
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer B in fact terminates Engineer A",
      "proeth:element": "Employment Termination",
      "proeth:step": 4
    }
  ],
  "proeth:cause": "Termination Notification",
  "proeth:counterfactual": "Without the termination notice (e.g., if new work had materialized), the employment would not have ended when it did",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "facts",
  "proeth:effect": "Employment Termination",
  "proeth:interveningFactors": [
    "Continued lack of work during the interim period",
    "Engineer A\u0027s choice to continue interim employment"
  ],
  "proeth:necessaryFactors": [
    "Engineer B\u0027s decision to terminate for lack of work",
    "Communication of the termination on November 15, 1982",
    "Passage of the interim employment period"
  ],
  "proeth:responsibilityType": "direct",
  "proeth:responsibleAgent": "Engineer B",
  "proeth:sufficientFactors": [
    "The termination notice, once given and carried through, was sufficient to end the employment relationship several months later"
  ],
  "proeth:withinAgentControl": true
}
Allen Temporal Relations (10)
Interval algebra relationships with OWL-Time standard properties
From Entity Allen Relation To Entity OWL-Time Property Evidence
Engineer B's termination notice to Engineer A meets
Entity1 ends exactly when Entity2 begins 		Engineer A's solicitation of Engineer B's current clients time:intervalMeets
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#intervalMeets 		On November 15, 1982 Engineer B notified Engineer A... Engineer A thereupon notified clients of Engi... [more]
Engineer A's solicitation of clients during
Entity1 occurs entirely within the duration of Entity2 		Engineer A's employment with Engineer B time:intervalDuring
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#intervalDuring 		Engineer A was still employed by Engineer B when Engineer A notified the clients and others of the o... [more]
termination notice (November 15, 1982) before
Entity1 is before Entity2 		Engineer A's actual termination time:intervalBefore
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#intervalBefore 		Engineer A continued to work for Engineer B for several additional months after the November termina... [more]
brochure printing before
Entity1 is before Entity2 		brochure distribution during interim period time:intervalBefore
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#intervalBefore 		Engineer B distributed a previously printed brochure listing Engineer A as one of Engineer B's key e... [more]
Engineer B's distribution of brochure during
Entity1 occurs entirely within the duration of Entity2 		interim period between termination notice and actual termination time:intervalDuring
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#intervalDuring 		During that period, Engineer B distributed a previously printed brochure listing Engineer A as one o... [more]
Engineer A's actual termination before
Entity1 is before Entity2 		Engineer B's continued use of the brochure time:intervalBefore
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#intervalBefore 		continued to use the previously printed brochure with Engineer A's name in it well after Engineer B ... [more]
Engineer B's brochure distribution overlaps
Entity1 starts before Entity2 and ends during Entity2 		Engineer A's employment with Engineer B time:intervalOverlaps
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#intervalOverlaps 		Engineer B distributed the brochure while Engineer A was still employed... Moreover, Engineer B dist... [more]
Engineer B's obligation to inform prospective clients of pending termination during
Entity1 occurs entirely within the duration of Entity2 		interim period between notice and actual termination time:intervalDuring
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#intervalDuring 		during the interim period between Engineer A's being given notice of termination and his actual cess... [more]
Engineer A's formal dismissal before
Entity1 is before Entity2 		Engineer B's obligation to cease using the brochure time:intervalBefore
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#intervalBefore 		once Engineer A had been formally dismissed, Engineer B had an ethical obligation to cease using the... [more]
Engineer A's employment with Engineer B before
Entity1 is before Entity2 		Engineer A's planned new engineering firm time:intervalBefore
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#intervalBefore 		Engineer A notified clients of Engineer B that Engineer A was planning to start another engineering ... [more]
About Allen Relations & OWL-Time

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

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

Back to Extraction Continue to Step 4

© Licensed under the GNU GPL v3