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

PASS 1: Contextual Framework Facts Section

Case 173: Modification of Signed and Sealed Plans by Other Than Responsible Engineer

R Roles
2
Classes
3
Individuals
S States
4
Classes
4
Individuals
Rs Resources
1
Classes
0
Individuals

Extracted Ontology Entities

14 RDF entities extracted organized by concept type

R Roles

Roles Classes
2
changed
DesignEngineerRole
rdfs:subClassOf Roles
Linked
Design Engineer Role
C173
Definition
Extracted from facts primary
A professional engineering role responsible for producing project design documents such as plans, grading plans, and public improvement plans for a client, including signing and sealing that work and, where retained to do so, reviewing and redesigning existing plans.
Inherited from DesignEngineerRole · note
An engineer responsible for producing a design (plans, calculations, specifications, drawings) for a project. Project and discipline are case context, not separate role kinds.
Properties
Text References:
"Engineer A prepared subdivision plans for a client."
"Engineer B was later retained by the client to review and redesign the project."
Confidence: 0.92
Role Category: provider_client
Role Kind: professional
Distinguishing Features:
  • Produces or revises the design documents (grading plans, public improvement plans) for a project rather than merely advising
  • Bears responsibility for the plans it signs and seals or takes responsibility for revising
Professional Scope: Preparation, revision, signing, and sealing of engineering design documents for a client's project
Typical Qualifications: Professional Engineer license authorizing signing and sealing of plans
Associated Virtues:
  • Competence
  • Integrity
  • Accountability for work product
[facts] "Engineer A prepared subdivision plans for a client. These plans included a 5-sheet set of grading plans and a 38-sheet set of public improvement plans."
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • textReferences content: Engineer A prepared subdivision plans for a client.; Engineer B was later retained by the client to review and redesign the project.
  • roleCategory content: provider_client
  • roleKind content: professional
  • distinguishingFeatures content: Produces or revises the design documents (grading plans, public improvement plans) for a project rather than merely advising; Bears responsibility for the plans it signs and seals or takes responsibility for revising
  • professionalScope content: Preparation, revision, signing, and sealing of engineering design documents for a client's project
  • typicalQualifications content: Professional Engineer license authorizing signing and sealing of plans
  • associatedVirtues content: Competence; Integrity; Accountability for work product
  • confidence assessment: 0.92
changed
ClientRole
rdfs:subClassOf Roles
Linked
Client Role
C173
Definition
Extracted from facts primary
A participant role of the party that commissions engineering design work, pays for its production, may discharge the engineer, and retains another engineer to review and redesign the project.
Inherited from ClientRole · note
The role borne by the party that commissions the project work. This is the occupational archetype; the duty relationship is carried separately by :ProviderClientRole.
Properties
Text References:
"The client was not satisfied with the plans, so he discharged Engineer A after paying the complete fee for production of the plans."
"Engineer B was later retained by the client to review and redesign the project."
Confidence: 0.9
Role Kind: participant
Distinguishing Features:
  • Commissions and pays for the design work
  • Holds the power to discharge one engineer and retain another
  • Directs use of the prior plans as a guide in the redesign
[facts] "The client was not satisfied with the plans, so he discharged Engineer A after paying the complete fee for production of the plans. The client asked Engineer A for his original drawings."
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • textReferences content: The client was not satisfied with the plans, so he discharged Engineer A after paying the complete fee for production of the plans.; Engineer B was later retained by the client to review and redesign the project.
  • roleKind content: participant
  • distinguishingFeatures content: Commissions and pays for the design work; Holds the power to discharge one engineer and retain another; Directs use of the prior plans as a guide in the redesign
  • confidence assessment: 0.9
Roles Individuals
3
Linked
Design Engineer Role
C173
Text References:
"Engineer A prepared subdivision plans for a client."
"Each set had a cover sheet and all sheets in each set were signed and sealed by Engineer A."
"The client asked Engineer A for his original drawings. Engineer A complied, retaining a set of reproducibles."
Confidence: 0.95
Actor: Engineer A
Role Class: Design Engineer
Role Category: provider_client
Role Kind: professional
License: Professional Engineer
Specialty: Subdivision design, grading and public improvement plans
Additional Relationships: {'type': 'dischargedBy', 'target': 'Client', 'quote': 'The client was not satisfied with the plans, so he discharged Engineer A after paying the complete fee for production of the plans.'}
Case Involvement: Prepared, signed, and sealed the original subdivision plans, was discharged by the client after full payment, and turned over his original drawings while retaining reproducibles. His seal and signature were left intact on plans that Engineer B later revised without notation.
Work product: 5-sheet set of grading plans and 38-sheet set of public improvement plans, all sheets signed and sealed
Retained records: retained a set of reproducibles after delivering original drawings
Hasclient: Client
"Engineer A prepared subdivision plans for a client."
Workreviewedby: Engineer B
"Engineer B reviewed the original drawings, made changes on the grading plans"
[facts] "Engineer A prepared subdivision plans for a client. These plans included a 5-sheet set of grading plans and a 38-sheet set of public improvement plans. Each set had a cover sheet and all sheets in eac..."
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • actor: Engineer A
  • attributes: {'work_product': '5-sheet set of grading plans and 38-sheet set of public improvement plans, all sheets signed and sealed', 'retained_records': 'retained a set of reproducibles after delivering original drawings'}
  • relationships: {'type': 'hasClient', 'target': 'Client', 'quote': 'Engineer A prepared subdivision plans for a client.'}; {'type': 'workReviewedBy', 'target': 'Engineer B', 'quote': 'Engineer B reviewed the original drawings, made changes on the grading plans'}
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • textReferences content: Engineer A prepared subdivision plans for a client.; Each set had a cover sheet and all sheets in each set were signed and sealed by Engineer A.; The client asked Engineer A for his original drawings. Engineer A complied, retaining a set of reproducibles.
  • roleClass content: Design Engineer
  • roleCategory content: provider_client
  • roleKind content: professional
  • license content: Professional Engineer
  • specialty content: Subdivision design, grading and public improvement plans
  • additionalRelationships content: {'type': 'dischargedBy', 'target': 'Client', 'quote': 'The client was not satisfied with the plans, so he discharged Engineer A after paying the complete fee for production of the plans.'}
  • caseInvolvement content: Prepared, signed, and sealed the original subdivision plans, was discharged by the client after full payment, and turned over his original drawings while retaining reproducibles. His seal and signature were left intact on plans that Engineer B later revised without notation.
  • confidence assessment: 0.95
Engineer B Redesign Engineer
Design Engineer Role
Linked
Design Engineer Role
C173
Text References:
"Engineer B was later retained by the client to review and redesign the project."
"Engineer B reviewed the original drawings, made changes on the grading plans, including deletion of one sheet, raising the elevation of the housing pads and changing routing of the street."
"Engineer B placed a note on the title sheet of the public improvement plans, leaving Engineer A's signature and seal intact, stating that he, Engineer B, is taking responsibility for the "revisions of..."
Confidence: 0.95
Actor: Engineer B
Role Class: Design Engineer
Role Category: provider_client
Role Kind: professional
Specialty: Review and redesign of subdivision grading and public improvement plans
Additional Relationships: {'type': 'hadNoCommunicationWith', 'target': 'Engineer A', 'quote': 'At no time after Engineer B was retained were there any communications between the two engineers.'}
Case Involvement: Retained by the client to review and redesign the project. Made changes to the grading plans and major design changes to the storm drains, pipe dimensions, sewers, and utilities without noting the changes or signing the sheets, left Engineer A's seal and signature intact, and placed a title-sheet note taking responsibility for the revisions without stating what they were.
Signing conduct: did not note what changes were made and did not sign any of the sheets, including the cover sheet
Responsibility note: placed a note on the title sheet taking responsibility for the revisions of the plans while leaving Engineer A's signature and seal intact
Hasclient: Client
"Engineer B was later retained by the client to review and redesign the project."
Reviewsworkof: Engineer A
"Engineer B reviewed the original drawings, made changes on the grading plans, including deletion of one sheet, raising the elevation of the housing pads and cha..."
[facts] "Engineer B was later retained by the client to review and redesign the project. The client gave Engineer B the set of plans produced by Engineer A to use as a guide in the redesign."
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • actor: Engineer B
  • attributes: {'signing_conduct': 'did not note what changes were made and did not sign any of the sheets, including the cover sheet', 'responsibility_note': "placed a note on the title sheet taking responsibility for the revisions of the plans while leaving Engineer A's signature and seal intact"}
  • relationships: {'type': 'hasClient', 'target': 'Client', 'quote': 'Engineer B was later retained by the client to review and redesign the project.'}; {'type': 'reviewsWorkOf', 'target': 'Engineer A', 'quote': 'Engineer B reviewed the original drawings, made changes on the grading plans, including deletion of one sheet, raising the elevation of the housing pads and changing routing of the street.'}
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • textReferences content: Engineer B was later retained by the client to review and redesign the project.; Engineer B reviewed the original drawings, made changes on the grading plans, including deletion of one sheet, raising the elevation of the housing pads and changing routing of the street.; Engineer B placed a note on the title sheet of the public improvement plans, leaving Engineer A's signature and seal intact, stating that he, Engineer B, is taking responsibility for the "revisions of the plans," making no notation what those changes were.
  • roleClass content: Design Engineer
  • roleCategory content: provider_client
  • roleKind content: professional
  • specialty content: Review and redesign of subdivision grading and public improvement plans
  • additionalRelationships content: {'type': 'hadNoCommunicationWith', 'target': 'Engineer A', 'quote': 'At no time after Engineer B was retained were there any communications between the two engineers.'}
  • caseInvolvement content: Retained by the client to review and redesign the project. Made changes to the grading plans and major design changes to the storm drains, pipe dimensions, sewers, and utilities without noting the changes or signing the sheets, left Engineer A's seal and signature intact, and placed a title-sheet note taking responsibility for the revisions without stating what they were.
  • confidence assessment: 0.95
Linked
Client Role
C173
Text References:
"The client was not satisfied with the plans, so he discharged Engineer A after paying the complete fee for production of the plans."
"The client asked Engineer A for his original drawings."
"The client gave Engineer B the set of plans produced by Engineer A to use as a guide in the redesign."
Confidence: 0.9
Actor: Client
Role Class: Client
Role Kind: participant
Additional Relationships:
  • {'type': 'clientOf', 'target': 'Engineer A', 'quote': 'Engineer A prepared subdivision plans for a client.'}
  • {'type': 'clientOf', 'target': 'Engineer B', 'quote': 'Engineer B was later retained by the client to review and redesign the project.'}
  • {'type': 'discharged', 'target': 'Engineer A', 'quote': 'The client was not satisfied with the plans, so he discharged Engineer A after paying the complete fee for production of the plans.'}
  • {'type': 'providedPlansTo', 'target': 'Engineer B', 'quote': 'The client gave Engineer B the set of plans produced by Engineer A to use as a guide in the redesign.'}
Case Involvement: Commissioned the subdivision plans, was not satisfied with them, discharged Engineer A after paying the complete fee, obtained Engineer A's original drawings, and retained Engineer B to review and redesign the project, giving him Engineer A's plans as a guide.
Payment status: paid the complete fee for production of the plans before discharging Engineer A
[facts] "The client was not satisfied with the plans, so he discharged Engineer A after paying the complete fee for production of the plans. The client asked Engineer A for his original drawings. Engineer A co..."
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • actor: Client
  • attributes: {'payment_status': 'paid the complete fee for production of the plans before discharging Engineer A'}
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • textReferences content: The client was not satisfied with the plans, so he discharged Engineer A after paying the complete fee for production of the plans.; The client asked Engineer A for his original drawings.; The client gave Engineer B the set of plans produced by Engineer A to use as a guide in the redesign.
  • roleClass content: Client
  • roleKind content: participant
  • additionalRelationships content: {'type': 'clientOf', 'target': 'Engineer A', 'quote': 'Engineer A prepared subdivision plans for a client.'}; {'type': 'clientOf', 'target': 'Engineer B', 'quote': 'Engineer B was later retained by the client to review and redesign the project.'}; {'type': 'discharged', 'target': 'Engineer A', 'quote': 'The client was not satisfied with the plans, so he discharged Engineer A after paying the complete fee for production of the plans.'}; {'type': 'providedPlansTo', 'target': 'Engineer B', 'quote': 'The client gave Engineer B the set of plans produced by Engineer A to use as a guide in the redesign.'}
  • caseInvolvement content: Commissioned the subdivision plans, was not satisfied with them, discharged Engineer A after paying the complete fee, obtained Engineer A's original drawings, and retained Engineer B to review and redesign the project, giving him Engineer A's plans as a guide.
  • confidence assessment: 0.9

S States

States Classes
4
changed
Engagement Termination State
rdfs:subClassOf States
Linked
Engagement Termination State
C173
Definition
Extracted from facts primary
A temporal condition in which a professional's engagement has been terminated by the client, with the fee for services fully paid, so the professional is in a post-engagement phase, here Engineer A discharged by the client after payment of the complete fee for production of the subdivision plans, with the original drawings turned over to the client and a set of reproducibles retained.
Inherited from EngagementTerminationState · note
A temporal condition in which a professional's contract for services has been terminated by the client, with services performed fully paid, so the professional is in a post-engagement phase while knowledge acquired during the engagement remains held.
Properties
Text References:
"The client was not satisfied with the plans, so he discharged Engineer A after paying the complete fee for production of the plans."
"The client asked Engineer A for his original drawings. Engineer A complied, retaining a set of reproducibles."
Confidence: 0.92
State Category: temporal
Persistence Type: inertial
Activation Conditions: The client discharges the engineer after paying the complete fee for the plans
Principle Transformation: The termination of the engagement fixes the boundary of Engineer A's responsibility for the plans as delivered, so later alterations by others occur outside his engagement.
[facts] "The client was not satisfied with the plans, so he discharged Engineer A after paying the complete fee for production of the plans."
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • textReferences content: The client was not satisfied with the plans, so he discharged Engineer A after paying the complete fee for production of the plans.; The client asked Engineer A for his original drawings. Engineer A complied, retaining a set of reproducibles.
  • stateCategory content: temporal
  • persistenceType content: inertial
  • principleTransformation content: The termination of the engagement fixes the boundary of Engineer A's responsibility for the plans as delivered, so later alterations by others occur outside his engagement.
  • confidence assessment: 0.92
Derived (reconstructable from the graph)
  • activationConditions: The client discharges the engineer after paying the complete fee for the plans
changed
SealAuthorityState
rdfs:subClassOf States
Review
Seal Authority State
C173
Definition
Extracted from facts primary
A regulatory condition concerning the application of a professional engineer's seal and signature to a work product, here the condition in which plans signed and sealed by Engineer A have been substantially revised by Engineer B while Engineer A's seal and signature are left intact and the revising engineer does not sign any of the sheets, so the sealed record no longer corresponds to the engineer who performed the current design work.
Inherited from SealAuthorityState · note
A regulatory condition concerning the application of a professional engineer's seal to a work product, here a draft report submitted to the client with language clearly identifying it as a draft and with the seal applied consistent with state law.
Properties
Text References:
"Each set had a cover sheet and all sheets in each set were signed and sealed by Engineer A."
"He made no notation of the changes, did not sign the plans, and left Engineer A's seal and signature intact."
Confidence: 0.9
State Category: regulatory
Persistence Type: inertial
Activation Conditions: Another engineer revises sealed plans while leaving the original engineer's seal and signature intact and without signing the sheets
Termination Conditions: The revising engineer signs and takes documented responsibility for the revised sheets or the original seal is removed from the altered work
Principle Transformation: The seal's function of identifying the engineer responsible for the work is undermined when the sealed plans are altered without the revising engineer signing them, so the seal on the plans no longer reflects actual design responsibility.
[facts] "He made no notation of the changes, did not sign the plans, and left Engineer A's seal and signature intact."
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • textReferences content: Each set had a cover sheet and all sheets in each set were signed and sealed by Engineer A.; He made no notation of the changes, did not sign the plans, and left Engineer A's seal and signature intact.
  • stateCategory content: regulatory
  • persistenceType content: inertial
  • principleTransformation content: The seal's function of identifying the engineer responsible for the work is undermined when the sealed plans are altered without the revising engineer signing them, so the seal on the plans no longer reflects actual design responsibility.
  • confidence assessment: 0.9
Derived (reconstructable from the graph)
  • activationConditions: Another engineer revises sealed plans while leaving the original engineer's seal and signature intact and without signing the sheets
  • terminationConditions: The revising engineer signs and takes documented responsibility for the revised sheets or the original seal is removed from the altered work
changed
SelectiveReportingState
rdfs:subClassOf States
Review
Selective Reporting State
C173
Definition
Extracted from facts primary
A disclosure condition of what information has been disclosed on a work product, here the condition in which Engineer B has made changes to the grading plans and major design changes to the public improvement plans without any notation of what changes were made, and has placed a note taking responsibility for the revisions of the plans while making no notation of what those changes were, so the plans withhold the identity and extent of the revisions.
Inherited from SelectiveReportingState · note
A condition of what information has been disclosed among the parties, here the state in which all available information about both design approaches, including risks and benefits, has been presented to the client's leadership.
Properties
Text References:
"Engineer B did not note what changes were made nor did he sign any of the sheets, including the cover sheet."
"He made no notation of the changes, did not sign the plans, and left Engineer A's seal and signature intact."
"stating that he, Engineer B, is taking responsibility for the "revisions of the plans," making no notation what those changes were"
Confidence: 0.88
State Category: disclosure
Persistence Type: inertial
Activation Conditions: Revisions are made to the plans without notation of what changes were made
Termination Conditions: The changes made to the plans are noted and attributed on the sheets
Principle Transformation: The general expectation that plans disclose who changed what becomes concrete here: the unnoted revisions leave the record silent on which work is Engineer A's and which is Engineer B's.
[facts] "Engineer B did not note what changes were made nor did he sign any of the sheets, including the cover sheet."
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • textReferences content: Engineer B did not note what changes were made nor did he sign any of the sheets, including the cover sheet.; He made no notation of the changes, did not sign the plans, and left Engineer A's seal and signature intact.; stating that he, Engineer B, is taking responsibility for the "revisions of the plans," making no notation what those changes were
  • stateCategory content: disclosure
  • persistenceType content: inertial
  • principleTransformation content: The general expectation that plans disclose who changed what becomes concrete here: the unnoted revisions leave the record silent on which work is Engineer A's and which is Engineer B's.
  • confidence assessment: 0.88
Derived (reconstructable from the graph)
  • activationConditions: Revisions are made to the plans without notation of what changes were made
  • terminationConditions: The changes made to the plans are noted and attributed on the sheets
changed
PeerReviewConsentState
rdfs:subClassOf States
New C173
Definition
Extracted from facts primary
A disclosure condition in which no communications occur between the engineer whose work is being reviewed and redesigned and the engineer performing the review, so the original engineer receives no information about the review, the revisions, or the continued use of his sealed plans, here the fact that at no time after Engineer B was retained were there any communications between the two engineers.
Properties
Text References:
"At no time after Engineer B was retained were there any communications between the two engineers."
Confidence: 0.8
State Category: disclosure
Persistence Type: inertial
Activation Conditions: Engineer B is retained to review and redesign the project without any communication with Engineer A
Termination Conditions: Either engineer communicates with the other about the review or the revisions
Principle Transformation: The information flow that would let the original engineer know his sealed plans are being revised is absent, so Engineer A remains uninformed of the changes made under his seal.
[facts] "At no time after Engineer B was retained were there any communications between the two engineers."
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • textReferences content: At no time after Engineer B was retained were there any communications between the two engineers.
  • stateCategory content: disclosure
  • persistenceType content: inertial
  • principleTransformation content: The information flow that would let the original engineer know his sealed plans are being revised is absent, so Engineer A remains uninformed of the changes made under his seal.
  • confidence assessment: 0.8
Derived (reconstructable from the graph)
  • activationConditions: Engineer B is retained to review and redesign the project without any communication with Engineer A
  • terminationConditions: Either engineer communicates with the other about the review or the revisions
States Individuals
4
changed
Engineer A Post-Discharge Phase
Engagement Termination State
Linked
Engagement Termination State
C173
Text References:
"The client was not satisfied with the plans, so he discharged Engineer A after paying the complete fee for production of the plans."
Confidence: 0.92
State Class: Engagement Termination State
Subject: Engineer A's engagement with the client for the subdivision plans
Active Period: From the client's discharge of Engineer A onward through Engineer B's retention and revisions
Triggering Event: The client, not satisfied with the plans, discharged Engineer A after paying the complete fee for production of the plans
Terminated By: Not stated in the case
Affected Parties:
  • Engineer A
  • Client
Urgency Level: low
[facts] "The client was not satisfied with the plans, so he discharged Engineer A after paying the complete fee for production of the plans."
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • textReferences content: The client was not satisfied with the plans, so he discharged Engineer A after paying the complete fee for production of the plans.
  • stateClass content: Engagement Termination State
  • subject content: Engineer A's engagement with the client for the subdivision plans
  • activePeriod content: From the client's discharge of Engineer A onward through Engineer B's retention and revisions
  • triggeringEvent content: The client, not satisfied with the plans, discharged Engineer A after paying the complete fee for production of the plans
  • terminatedBy content: Not stated in the case
  • affectedParties content: Engineer A; Client
  • confidence assessment: 0.92
  • urgencyLevel assessment: low
changed
Intact Seal On Revised Plans
Seal Authority State
Review
Seal Authority State
C173
Text References:
"He made no notation of the changes, did not sign the plans, and left Engineer A's seal and signature intact."
"Engineer B placed a note on the title sheet of the public improvement plans, leaving Engineer A's signature and seal intact"
Confidence: 0.9
State Class: Seal Authority State
Subject: The grading plans and public improvement plans signed and sealed by Engineer A and revised by Engineer B
Active Period: From Engineer B's revisions to the plans onward
Triggering Event: Engineer B made changes to the grading plans and major design changes to the public improvement plans while leaving Engineer A's seal and signature intact and signing none of the sheets
Terminated By: Not stated in the case
Affected Parties:
  • Engineer A
  • Engineer B
  • Client
Urgency Level: high
[facts] "He made no notation of the changes, did not sign the plans, and left Engineer A's seal and signature intact."
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • textReferences content: He made no notation of the changes, did not sign the plans, and left Engineer A's seal and signature intact.; Engineer B placed a note on the title sheet of the public improvement plans, leaving Engineer A's signature and seal intact
  • stateClass content: Seal Authority State
  • subject content: The grading plans and public improvement plans signed and sealed by Engineer A and revised by Engineer B
  • activePeriod content: From Engineer B's revisions to the plans onward
  • triggeringEvent content: Engineer B made changes to the grading plans and major design changes to the public improvement plans while leaving Engineer A's seal and signature intact and signing none of the sheets
  • terminatedBy content: Not stated in the case
  • affectedParties content: Engineer A; Engineer B; Client
  • confidence assessment: 0.9
  • urgencyLevel assessment: high
changed
Undocumented Plan Revisions
Selective Reporting State
Review
Selective Reporting State
C173
Text References:
"Engineer B did not note what changes were made nor did he sign any of the sheets, including the cover sheet."
"stating that he, Engineer B, is taking responsibility for the "revisions of the plans," making no notation what those changes were"
Confidence: 0.88
State Class: Selective Reporting State
Subject: The revised grading plans and public improvement plans
Active Period: From Engineer B's revisions onward, while the plans carry unnoted changes
Triggering Event: Engineer B made changes to the grading plans and major design changes to the storm drains, pipe dimensions, sewers, and utilities without noting what changes were made
Terminated By: Not stated in the case
Affected Parties:
  • Engineer A
  • Engineer B
  • Client
Urgency Level: high
[facts] "Engineer B did not note what changes were made nor did he sign any of the sheets, including the cover sheet."
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • textReferences content: Engineer B did not note what changes were made nor did he sign any of the sheets, including the cover sheet.; stating that he, Engineer B, is taking responsibility for the "revisions of the plans," making no notation what those changes were
  • stateClass content: Selective Reporting State
  • subject content: The revised grading plans and public improvement plans
  • activePeriod content: From Engineer B's revisions onward, while the plans carry unnoted changes
  • triggeringEvent content: Engineer B made changes to the grading plans and major design changes to the storm drains, pipe dimensions, sewers, and utilities without noting what changes were made
  • terminatedBy content: Not stated in the case
  • affectedParties content: Engineer A; Engineer B; Client
  • confidence assessment: 0.88
  • urgencyLevel assessment: high
changed
No Communications Between Engineers
PeerReviewConsentState
New C173
Text References:
"At no time after Engineer B was retained were there any communications between the two engineers."
Confidence: 0.85
State Class: Peer Communication Absence State
Subject: Engineer A and Engineer B
Active Period: At no time after Engineer B was retained
Triggering Event: Engineer B was retained by the client to review and redesign the project without communicating with Engineer A
Terminated By: Not stated in the case
Affected Parties:
  • Engineer A
  • Engineer B
Urgency Level: medium
[facts] "At no time after Engineer B was retained were there any communications between the two engineers."
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • textReferences content: At no time after Engineer B was retained were there any communications between the two engineers.
  • stateClass content: Peer Communication Absence State
  • subject content: Engineer A and Engineer B
  • activePeriod content: At no time after Engineer B was retained
  • triggeringEvent content: Engineer B was retained by the client to review and redesign the project without communicating with Engineer A
  • terminatedBy content: Not stated in the case
  • affectedParties content: Engineer A; Engineer B
  • confidence assessment: 0.85
  • urgencyLevel assessment: medium

Rs Resources

Resources Classes
1
changed
Reference Material
rdfs:subClassOf Resources
Review
Reference Material
C173
Definition
Extracted from facts primary
Engineering documents such as plan sets and drawings that support professional practice and are relied on by a subsequent engineer as a guide for review and redesign work.
Inherited from ReferenceMaterial · note
Handbooks, manuals, guides, and other documentation supporting professional practice with technical and procedural knowledge.
Properties
Text References:
"The client gave Engineer B the set of plans produced by Engineer A to use as a guide in the redesign."
Confidence: 0.8
Resource Category: reference_material
[facts] "Engineer A prepared subdivision plans for a client. These plans included a 5-sheet set of grading plans and a 38-sheet set of public improvement plans."
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • textReferences content: The client gave Engineer B the set of plans produced by Engineer A to use as a guide in the redesign.
  • resourceCategory content: reference_material
  • confidence assessment: 0.8
Resources Individuals
0
No new resources individuals were identified in this section.
Pass 1: Contextual Framework - Facts
Review extracted entities, then continue to the next step
Continue to Discussion Review
Case texts: National Society of Professional Engineers, Board of Ethical Review.

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

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

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

© Licensed under the GNU GPL v3