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 181: Peer Review - Confidentiality Agreements

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

Extracted Ontology Entities

10 RDF entities extracted organized by concept type

R Roles

Roles Classes
0
No new roles classes were identified in this section.
Roles Individuals
2
No new roles classes were discovered - the 2 individual(s) below reference existing classes from the ontology.
Linked
Engineer Role
C181
Text References:
"Engineer A serves as a peer reviewer as part of an organized peer review program developed to assist engineers in improving their professional practice."
"When originally selected as a peer reviewer, Engineer A is asked to sign a “confidentiality agreement” whereby Engineer A agrees not to disclose confidential information involving peer-reviewed firms."
"As part of a peer review visit, Engineer A visits Engineer B’s firm."
Confidence: 0.92
Actor: Engineer A
Role Class: Engineer Role
Role Category: professional_peer
Role Kind: professional
Additional Relationships: {'type': 'boundByConfidentialityAgreementWith', 'target': 'Peer Review Program', 'quote': 'When originally selected as a peer reviewer, Engineer A is asked to sign a “confidentiality agreement” whereby Engineer A agrees not to disclose confidential information involving peer-reviewed firms.'}
Case Involvement: Serves as a peer reviewer under an organized peer review program, signed a confidentiality agreement not to disclose confidential information involving peer-reviewed firms, and during a peer review visit to Engineer B's firm discovers that Engineer B's work may violate state and local safety code requirements and could endanger public health, safety, and welfare.
Confidentiality agreement: agreed not to disclose confidential information involving peer-reviewed firms
Program participation: peer reviewer in an organized peer review program developed to assist engineers in improving their professional practice
Reviewsworkof: Engineer B
"Following a review of the technical documentation in connection with a series of recent design projects involving Engineer B’s firm, Engineer A discovers that E..."
Professionalpeerof: Engineer B
"As part of a peer review visit, Engineer A visits Engineer B’s firm."
[facts] "Engineer A serves as a peer reviewer as part of an organized peer review program developed to assist engineers in improving their professional practice."
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • actor: Engineer A
  • attributes: {'confidentiality_agreement': 'agreed not to disclose confidential information involving peer-reviewed firms', 'program_participation': 'peer reviewer in an organized peer review program developed to assist engineers in improving their professional practice'}
  • relationships: {'type': 'reviewsWorkOf', 'target': 'Engineer B', 'quote': 'Following a review of the technical documentation in connection with a series of recent design projects involving Engineer B’s firm, Engineer A discovers that Engineer B’s work may be in violation of state and local safety code requirements'}; {'type': 'professionalPeerOf', 'target': 'Engineer B', 'quote': 'As part of a peer review visit, Engineer A visits Engineer B’s firm.'}
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • textReferences content: Engineer A serves as a peer reviewer as part of an organized peer review program developed to assist engineers in improving their professional practice.; When originally selected as a peer reviewer, Engineer A is asked to sign a “confidentiality agreement” whereby Engineer A agrees not to disclose confidential information involving peer-reviewed firms.; As part of a peer review visit, Engineer A visits Engineer B’s firm.
  • roleClass content: Engineer Role
  • roleCategory content: professional_peer
  • roleKind content: professional
  • additionalRelationships content: {'type': 'boundByConfidentialityAgreementWith', 'target': 'Peer Review Program', 'quote': 'When originally selected as a peer reviewer, Engineer A is asked to sign a “confidentiality agreement” whereby Engineer A agrees not to disclose confidential information involving peer-reviewed firms.'}
  • caseInvolvement content: Serves as a peer reviewer under an organized peer review program, signed a confidentiality agreement not to disclose confidential information involving peer-reviewed firms, and during a peer review visit to Engineer B's firm discovers that Engineer B's work may violate state and local safety code requirements and could endanger public health, safety, and welfare.
  • confidence assessment: 0.92
Engineer B Design Engineer
Design Engineer Role
Linked
Design Engineer Role
C181
Text References:
"As part of a peer review visit, Engineer A visits Engineer B’s firm."
"Following a review of the technical documentation in connection with a series of recent design projects involving Engineer B’s firm, Engineer A discovers that Engineer B’s work may be in violation of ..."
Confidence: 0.88
Actor: Engineer B
Role Class: Design Engineer Role
Role Category: professional_peer
Role Kind: professional
Employer: Engineer B's firm
Case Involvement: Principal of the peer-reviewed firm whose technical documentation for recent design projects is reviewed by Engineer A, and whose work may be in violation of state and local safety code requirements and could endanger public health, safety, and welfare.
Work at issue: technical documentation for a series of recent design projects that may violate state and local safety code requirements
Workreviewedby: Engineer A
"Following a review of the technical documentation in connection with a series of recent design projects involving Engineer B’s firm"
Professionalpeerof: Engineer A
"As part of a peer review visit, Engineer A visits Engineer B’s firm."
[facts] "Following a review of the technical documentation in connection with a series of recent design projects involving Engineer B’s firm, Engineer A discovers that Engineer B’s work may be in violation of ..."
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • actor: Engineer B
  • attributes: {'work_at_issue': 'technical documentation for a series of recent design projects that may violate state and local safety code requirements'}
  • relationships: {'type': 'workReviewedBy', 'target': 'Engineer A', 'quote': 'Following a review of the technical documentation in connection with a series of recent design projects involving Engineer B’s firm'}; {'type': 'professionalPeerOf', 'target': 'Engineer A', 'quote': 'As part of a peer review visit, Engineer A visits Engineer B’s firm.'}
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • textReferences content: As part of a peer review visit, Engineer A visits Engineer B’s firm.; Following a review of the technical documentation in connection with a series of recent design projects involving Engineer B’s firm, Engineer A discovers that Engineer B’s work may be in violation of state and local safety code requirements and could endanger public health, safety, and welfare.
  • roleClass content: Design Engineer Role
  • roleCategory content: professional_peer
  • roleKind content: professional
  • employer content: Engineer B's firm
  • caseInvolvement content: Principal of the peer-reviewed firm whose technical documentation for recent design projects is reviewed by Engineer A, and whose work may be in violation of state and local safety code requirements and could endanger public health, safety, and welfare.
  • confidence assessment: 0.88

S States

States Classes
3
changed
Review
Confidential Information Exposure State
C181
Definition
Extracted from facts primary
A disclosure condition in which a professional is bound by a confidentiality agreement not to disclose confidential information involving the firms whose work the professional reviews, so information acquired in the review is held under a standing nondisclosure condition.
Inherited from ConfidentialInformationExposureState · note
A disclosure condition in which a client's private or confidential information has been placed where it is accessible beyond the parties, here the condition created when a client's information is uploaded into an open-source AI interface, tantamount to placing the private information in the public domain, without the client's prior consent.
Properties
Text References:
"Engineer A is asked to sign a “confidentiality agreement” whereby Engineer A agrees not to disclose confidential information involving peer-reviewed firms."
Confidence: 0.85
State Category: disclosure
Persistence Type: inertial
Activation Conditions: A peer reviewer signs a confidentiality agreement upon selection to the peer review program
Termination Conditions: The confidentiality agreement is released, expires, or disclosure is otherwise authorized
Obligation Activation: Confidentiality Obligation not to disclose confidential information involving peer-reviewed firms
Action Constraints: Nondisclosure constraint on information acquired during the peer review
Principle Transformation: The general duty of faithfulness to parties served becomes a concrete contractual nondisclosure condition binding the reviewer with respect to peer-reviewed firms.
[facts] "When originally selected as a peer reviewer, Engineer A is asked to sign a “confidentiality agreement” whereby Engineer A agrees not to disclose confidential information involving peer-reviewed firms."
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • textReferences content: Engineer A is asked to sign a “confidentiality agreement” whereby Engineer A agrees not to disclose confidential information involving peer-reviewed firms.
  • stateCategory content: disclosure
  • persistenceType content: inertial
  • principleTransformation content: The general duty of faithfulness to parties served becomes a concrete contractual nondisclosure condition binding the reviewer with respect to peer-reviewed firms.
  • confidence assessment: 0.85
Derived (reconstructable from the graph)
  • activationConditions: A peer reviewer signs a confidentiality agreement upon selection to the peer review program
  • terminationConditions: The confidentiality agreement is released, expires, or disclosure is otherwise authorized
  • obligationActivation: Confidentiality Obligation not to disclose confidential information involving peer-reviewed firms
  • actionConstraints: Nondisclosure constraint on information acquired during the peer review
changed
Unquantified Risk State
rdfs:subClassOf States
Linked
Unquantified Risk State
C181
Definition
Extracted from facts primary
An epistemic condition in which a professional is aware of a potential violation or hazard but has not yet confirmed or fully characterized it, so the professional's knowledge of the problem is preliminary rather than established. Here Engineer A discovers through review of technical documentation that Engineer B's work may be in violation of safety code requirements.
Inherited from UnquantifiedRiskState · note
An epistemic condition in which a professional is aware of a potential risk but has not yet quantified or fully characterized it, so the professional's knowledge of the hazard is speculative or preliminary rather than measured.
Properties
Text References:
"Engineer A discovers that Engineer B’s work may be in violation of state and local safety code requirements and could endanger public health, safety, and welfare."
Confidence: 0.9
State Category: epistemic
Persistence Type: inertial
Activation Conditions: A reviewer's examination of technical documentation reveals a possible but unconfirmed violation or hazard
Termination Conditions: The potential violation is confirmed or ruled out through further investigation
Principle Transformation: The reviewer's preliminary knowledge of a possible violation makes the question of what further action is required ethically material before the risk is confirmed.
[facts] "Following a review of the technical documentation in connection with a series of recent design projects involving Engineer B’s firm, Engineer A discovers that Engineer B’s work may be in violation of ..."
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • textReferences content: Engineer A discovers that Engineer B’s work may be in violation of state and local safety code requirements and could endanger public health, safety, and welfare.
  • stateCategory content: epistemic
  • persistenceType content: inertial
  • principleTransformation content: The reviewer's preliminary knowledge of a possible violation makes the question of what further action is required ethically material before the risk is confirmed.
  • confidence assessment: 0.9
Derived (reconstructable from the graph)
  • activationConditions: A reviewer's examination of technical documentation reveals a possible but unconfirmed violation or hazard
  • terminationConditions: The potential violation is confirmed or ruled out through further investigation
changed
Public Safety Risk State
rdfs:subClassOf States
Linked
Public Safety Risk State
C181
Definition
Extracted from facts primary
A condition of hazard exposure in which the public faces potential harm to health, safety, and welfare, here the exposure arising from design work that may violate state and local safety code requirements.
Inherited from PublicSafetyRiskState · note
A condition of hazard exposure in which the public or a specific community faces potential harm to safety or welfare, such as flooding harm to residents.
Properties
Text References:
"could endanger public health, safety, and welfare"
Confidence: 0.85
State Category: risk
Persistence Type: inertial
Activation Conditions: Design work is completed that may violate applicable safety code requirements
Termination Conditions: The design deficiencies are corrected or the work is shown to comply with safety code requirements
Principle Transformation: Potential endangerment of the public bears on the protective duties the engineering role exists to discharge while the hazard exposure remains uncorrected.
[facts] "Engineer A discovers that Engineer B’s work may be in violation of state and local safety code requirements and could endanger public health, safety, and welfare."
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • textReferences content: could endanger public health, safety, and welfare
  • stateCategory content: risk
  • persistenceType content: inertial
  • principleTransformation content: Potential endangerment of the public bears on the protective duties the engineering role exists to discharge while the hazard exposure remains uncorrected.
  • confidence assessment: 0.85
Derived (reconstructable from the graph)
  • activationConditions: Design work is completed that may violate applicable safety code requirements
  • terminationConditions: The design deficiencies are corrected or the work is shown to comply with safety code requirements
States Individuals
3
changed
Peer Review Confidentiality Bound
Confidential Information Exposure State
Review
Confidential Information Exposure State
C181
Text References:
"Engineer A is asked to sign a “confidentiality agreement” whereby Engineer A agrees not to disclose confidential information involving peer-reviewed firms."
Confidence: 0.88
State Class: Confidential Information Exposure State
Subject: Engineer A, bound by the peer review confidentiality agreement covering peer-reviewed firms
Active Period: From Engineer A's signing of the confidentiality agreement upon selection as a peer reviewer, continuing through and after the peer review visit
Triggering Event: Engineer A signs the confidentiality agreement when originally selected as a peer reviewer
Terminated By: Not stated in the case facts
Affected Parties:
  • Engineer A
  • Engineer B's firm
  • Peer-reviewed firms
Urgency Level: medium
[facts] "When originally selected as a peer reviewer, Engineer A is asked to sign a “confidentiality agreement” whereby Engineer A agrees not to disclose confidential information involving peer-reviewed firms."
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • textReferences content: Engineer A is asked to sign a “confidentiality agreement” whereby Engineer A agrees not to disclose confidential information involving peer-reviewed firms.
  • stateClass content: Confidential Information Exposure State
  • subject content: Engineer A, bound by the peer review confidentiality agreement covering peer-reviewed firms
  • activePeriod content: From Engineer A's signing of the confidentiality agreement upon selection as a peer reviewer, continuing through and after the peer review visit
  • triggeringEvent content: Engineer A signs the confidentiality agreement when originally selected as a peer reviewer
  • terminatedBy content: Not stated in the case facts
  • affectedParties content: Engineer A; Engineer B's firm; Peer-reviewed firms
  • confidence assessment: 0.88
  • urgencyLevel assessment: medium
changed
Discovered Possible Code Violation
Unquantified Risk State
Linked
Unquantified Risk State
C181
Text References:
"Engineer A discovers that Engineer B’s work may be in violation of state and local safety code requirements and could endanger public health, safety, and welfare."
Confidence: 0.9
State Class: Unquantified Risk State
Subject: Engineer A, aware that Engineer B's work may violate state and local safety code requirements
Active Period: From Engineer A's review of the technical documentation during the peer review visit onward
Triggering Event: Engineer A's review of the technical documentation for a series of recent design projects involving Engineer B's firm
Terminated By: Not stated in the case facts
Affected Parties:
  • Engineer A
  • Engineer B
  • Engineer B's firm
  • The public
Urgency Level: high
[facts] "Following a review of the technical documentation in connection with a series of recent design projects involving Engineer B’s firm, Engineer A discovers that Engineer B’s work may be in violation of ..."
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • textReferences content: Engineer A discovers that Engineer B’s work may be in violation of state and local safety code requirements and could endanger public health, safety, and welfare.
  • stateClass content: Unquantified Risk State
  • subject content: Engineer A, aware that Engineer B's work may violate state and local safety code requirements
  • activePeriod content: From Engineer A's review of the technical documentation during the peer review visit onward
  • triggeringEvent content: Engineer A's review of the technical documentation for a series of recent design projects involving Engineer B's firm
  • terminatedBy content: Not stated in the case facts
  • affectedParties content: Engineer A; Engineer B; Engineer B's firm; The public
  • confidence assessment: 0.9
  • urgencyLevel assessment: high
changed
Linked
Public Safety Risk State
C181
Text References:
"could endanger public health, safety, and welfare"
Confidence: 0.85
State Class: Public Safety Risk State
Subject: The public exposed to Engineer B's design work that may violate state and local safety code requirements
Active Period: From the completion of the recent design projects, holding while the possible code violations remain uncorrected
Triggering Event: Engineer B's firm produces design work that may be in violation of state and local safety code requirements
Terminated By: Not stated in the case facts
Affected Parties:
  • The public
  • Engineer B's firm
Urgency Level: high
[facts] "Engineer A discovers that Engineer B’s work may be in violation of state and local safety code requirements and could endanger public health, safety, and welfare."
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • textReferences content: could endanger public health, safety, and welfare
  • stateClass content: Public Safety Risk State
  • subject content: The public exposed to Engineer B's design work that may violate state and local safety code requirements
  • activePeriod content: From the completion of the recent design projects, holding while the possible code violations remain uncorrected
  • triggeringEvent content: Engineer B's firm produces design work that may be in violation of state and local safety code requirements
  • terminatedBy content: Not stated in the case facts
  • affectedParties content: The public; Engineer B's firm
  • confidence assessment: 0.85
  • urgencyLevel assessment: high

Rs Resources

Resources Classes
2
changed
Legal Resource
rdfs:subClassOf Resources
Linked
Legal Resource
C181
Definition
Extracted from facts primary
Laws, regulations, and statutes governing professional practice that establish legal boundaries and compliance requirements for professional activities, including state and local safety codes and binding agreements governing professional conduct.
Inherited from LegalResource · note
Laws, regulations, and statutes governing professional practice that establish legal boundaries and compliance requirements for professional activities.
Properties
Text References:
"Engineer A discovers that Engineer B’s work may be in violation of state and local safety code requirements"
Confidence: 0.9
Resource Category: legal_resource
[facts] "Engineer A discovers that Engineer B’s work may be in violation of state and local safety code requirements and could endanger public health, safety, and welfare."
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • textReferences content: Engineer A discovers that Engineer B’s work may be in violation of state and local safety code requirements
  • resourceCategory content: legal_resource
  • confidence assessment: 0.9
changed
Reference Material
rdfs:subClassOf Resources
Linked
Reference Material
C181
Definition
Extracted from facts primary
Handbooks, manuals, records, and other project documentation supporting professional practice with technical and procedural knowledge, including the technical documentation of design projects reviewed in a peer review.
Inherited from ReferenceMaterial · note
Handbooks, manuals, guides, and other documentation supporting professional practice with technical and procedural knowledge.
Properties
Text References:
"Following a review of the technical documentation in connection with a series of recent design projects involving Engineer B’s firm"
Confidence: 0.85
Resource Category: reference_material
[facts] "Following a review of the technical documentation in connection with a series of recent design projects involving Engineer B’s firm, Engineer A discovers that Engineer B’s work may be in violation of ..."
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • textReferences content: Following a review of the technical documentation in connection with a series of recent design projects involving Engineer B’s firm
  • resourceCategory content: reference_material
  • confidence assessment: 0.85
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