{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/19#",
    "proeth-scenario": "http://proethica.org/ontology/scenario#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#",
    "time": "http://www.w3.org/2006/time#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/cases/19#Action_Marketing_Previous_Work_Experience",
  "@type": "proeth:Action",
  "proeth-scenario:alternativeActions": [
    "Clearly attribute previous work to former employer",
    "Create entirely new designs for proposals",
    "Seek permission from former employer before using designs"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:characterMotivation": "Wanted to quickly establish credibility and win contracts at new firm by leveraging proven design experience",
  "proeth-scenario:consequencesIfAlternative": [
    "Reduced competitive advantage but maintained transparency",
    "Longer proposal preparation time but original work",
    "Possible approval or denial but ethical clarity"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:decisionSignificance": "Teaching moment about proper attribution of previous work and ownership of engineering designs",
  "proeth-scenario:ethicalTension": "Professional advancement vs intellectual property rights and transparency obligations",
  "proeth-scenario:isDecisionPoint": true,
  "proeth-scenario:narrativeRole": "inciting_incident",
  "proeth-scenario:stakes": "Professional reputation, potential copyright infringement, client trust, firm liability",
  "proeth:description": "Engineer B included bridge/culvert designs from previous employment in XYZ Engineers\u0027 proposals with limited transparency about the work\u0027s origin.",
  "proeth:foreseenUnintendedEffects": [
    "Potential misrepresentation of firm capabilities"
  ],
  "proeth:guidedByPrinciple": [
    "Business development",
    "Competitive advantage"
  ],
  "proeth:hasAgent": "Engineer B (Marketing Engineer)",
  "proeth:hasCompetingPriorities": {
    "@type": "proeth:CompetingPriorities",
    "proeth:priorityConflict": "Transparency vs Competitive Advantage",
    "proeth:resolutionReasoning": "Competitive advantage prioritized over full transparency"
  },
  "proeth:hasMentalState": "deliberate",
  "proeth:intendedOutcome": "Strengthen proposal competitiveness",
  "proeth:requiresCapability": [
    "Marketing knowledge",
    "Technical expertise"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "After joining XYZ Engineers",
  "proeth:violatesObligation": [
    "Truthfulness in professional statements",
    "Proper attribution of work"
  ],
  "proeth:withinCompetence": true,
  "rdfs:label": "Marketing Previous Work Experience"
}

{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/19#",
    "proeth-scenario": "http://proethica.org/ontology/scenario#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#",
    "time": "http://www.w3.org/2006/time#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/cases/19#Action_Questioning_Marketing_Ethics",
  "@type": "proeth:Action",
  "proeth-scenario:alternativeActions": [
    "Ignore the behavior and avoid confrontation",
    "Directly confront Engineer B privately first",
    "Immediately report to management without investigation"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:characterMotivation": "Recognized potential ethical violations and felt professional obligation to address concerning behavior",
  "proeth-scenario:consequencesIfAlternative": [
    "Enabled continued unethical behavior",
    "Possible resolution without escalation or defensive response",
    "Premature action without full understanding of obligations"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:decisionSignificance": "Teaching moment about speaking up when observing questionable professional conduct",
  "proeth-scenario:ethicalTension": "Colleague loyalty vs professional ethics and public interest protection",
  "proeth-scenario:isDecisionPoint": true,
  "proeth-scenario:narrativeRole": "rising_action",
  "proeth-scenario:stakes": "Workplace relationships, professional integrity, potential harm to clients and public",
  "proeth:description": "Engineer A decided to question the ethics of Engineer B\u0027s marketing practice after observing the proposals.",
  "proeth:foreseenUnintendedEffects": [
    "Potential conflict with colleague"
  ],
  "proeth:fulfillsObligation": [
    "Professional vigilance",
    "Ethical awareness"
  ],
  "proeth:guidedByPrinciple": [
    "Professional integrity",
    "Ethical compliance"
  ],
  "proeth:hasAgent": "Engineer A (Observing Engineer)",
  "proeth:hasCompetingPriorities": {
    "@type": "proeth:CompetingPriorities",
    "proeth:priorityConflict": "Professional relationships vs Ethical concerns",
    "proeth:resolutionReasoning": "Ethical concerns took precedence over comfort"
  },
  "proeth:hasMentalState": "concerned",
  "proeth:intendedOutcome": "Clarify ethical boundaries",
  "proeth:requiresCapability": [
    "Ethical reasoning",
    "Professional judgment"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "After observing proposals",
  "proeth:withinCompetence": true,
  "rdfs:label": "Questioning Marketing Ethics"
}

{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/19#",
    "proeth-scenario": "http://proethica.org/ontology/scenario#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#",
    "time": "http://www.w3.org/2006/time#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/cases/19#Action_Researching_Ethics_Codes",
  "@type": "proeth:Action",
  "proeth-scenario:alternativeActions": [
    "Consult with senior colleagues or mentors",
    "Contact NSPE ethics hotline for guidance",
    "Proceed based on general ethical intuition without research"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:characterMotivation": "Needed to understand professional obligations and proper procedures before taking action",
  "proeth-scenario:consequencesIfAlternative": [
    "Gained experienced perspective but potential bias",
    "Received authoritative guidance but possible delay",
    "Risked inappropriate action due to incomplete knowledge"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:decisionSignificance": "Teaching moment about importance of understanding applicable codes and jurisdictional requirements",
  "proeth-scenario:ethicalTension": "Urgency to act vs need for thorough understanding of complex multi-state regulations",
  "proeth-scenario:isDecisionPoint": false,
  "proeth-scenario:narrativeRole": "rising_action",
  "proeth-scenario:stakes": "Making informed vs uninformed decisions about reporting, understanding professional obligations",
  "proeth:description": "Engineer A decided to research NSPE Code of Ethics and licensing rules in both State Q and State Z to understand reporting obligations.",
  "proeth:foreseenUnintendedEffects": [
    "Possible obligation to report"
  ],
  "proeth:fulfillsObligation": [
    "Due diligence",
    "Professional education"
  ],
  "proeth:guidedByPrinciple": [
    "Informed decision-making",
    "Professional responsibility"
  ],
  "proeth:hasAgent": "Engineer A (Investigating Engineer)",
  "proeth:hasMentalState": "diligent",
  "proeth:intendedOutcome": "Understand professional obligations",
  "proeth:requiresCapability": [
    "Legal research",
    "Code interpretation"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "After questioning ethics",
  "proeth:withinCompetence": true,
  "rdfs:label": "Researching Ethics Codes"
}

{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/19#",
    "proeth-scenario": "http://proethica.org/ontology/scenario#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#",
    "time": "http://www.w3.org/2006/time#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/cases/19#Action_Considering_Reporting_Obligations",
  "@type": "proeth:Action",
  "proeth-scenario:alternativeActions": [
    "Report to both states to ensure compliance",
    "Attempt mediation or direct resolution before reporting",
    "Report only to the state with clearer obligations"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:characterMotivation": "Wanted to fulfill professional reporting obligations while navigating complex multi-jurisdictional requirements",
  "proeth-scenario:consequencesIfAlternative": [
    "Maximum compliance but potential over-reporting",
    "Preserved relationships but risked continued violations",
    "Partial compliance but incomplete resolution"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:decisionSignificance": "Teaching moment about navigating complex reporting obligations across multiple jurisdictions",
  "proeth-scenario:ethicalTension": "Professional duty to report vs potential career and relationship consequences",
  "proeth-scenario:isDecisionPoint": true,
  "proeth-scenario:narrativeRole": "climax",
  "proeth-scenario:stakes": "Professional standing, regulatory compliance, precedent for future ethical decisions, Engineer B\u0027s career",
  "proeth:description": "Engineer A considered whether to report Engineer B\u0027s conduct to licensing boards in either or both states based on research findings.",
  "proeth:foreseenUnintendedEffects": [
    "Professional consequences for Engineer B",
    "Potential retaliation"
  ],
  "proeth:fulfillsObligation": [
    "Professional deliberation"
  ],
  "proeth:guidedByPrinciple": [
    "Professional accountability",
    "Due process"
  ],
  "proeth:hasAgent": "Engineer A (Deciding Engineer)",
  "proeth:hasCompetingPriorities": {
    "@type": "proeth:CompetingPriorities",
    "proeth:priorityConflict": "Reporting duty vs Potential harm",
    "proeth:resolutionReasoning": "Different standards require different approaches by state"
  },
  "proeth:hasMentalState": "conflicted",
  "proeth:intendedOutcome": "Fulfill professional obligations appropriately",
  "proeth:requiresCapability": [
    "Regulatory knowledge",
    "Ethical judgment"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "After completing research",
  "proeth:withinCompetence": true,
  "rdfs:label": "Considering Reporting Obligations"
}

{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/19#",
    "proeth-scenario": "http://proethica.org/ontology/scenario#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#",
    "time": "http://www.w3.org/2006/time#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/cases/19#Event_Ethics_Concerns_Identified",
  "@type": "proeth:Event",
  "proeth-scenario:crisisIdentification": false,
  "proeth-scenario:discussionPrompts": [
    "What factors should influence Engineer A\u0027s decision to investigate further?",
    "How should professional relationships be balanced against ethical obligations?",
    "At what point does observation of potential violations create duty to act?"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:dramaticTension": "medium",
  "proeth-scenario:emotionalImpact": "Concern and uncertainty for Engineer A; potential defensiveness from Engineer B if aware; anxiety about professional relationships and obligations",
  "proeth-scenario:ethicalImplications": "Reveals tension between colleague loyalty and professional integrity; shows how individual actions affect broader professional standards; demonstrates duty to profession versus duty to workplace harmony",
  "proeth-scenario:learningMoment": "Demonstrates how professional obligations create responsibility to address observed ethical concerns, even when involving colleagues",
  "proeth-scenario:narrativePacing": "escalation",
  "proeth-scenario:stakeholderConsequences": {
    "engineer_a": "Burden of professional responsibility, potential conflict with colleague",
    "engineer_b": "Potential exposure of unethical practices, professional reputation at risk",
    "profession": "Standards enforcement and professional integrity at stake",
    "xyz_engineers": "Company practices under scrutiny, potential compliance issues"
  },
  "proeth:activatesConstraint": [
    "Professional_Integrity_Constraint",
    "Colleague_Responsibility_Constraint"
  ],
  "proeth:causedByAction": "http://proethica.org/cases/19#Action_Marketing_Previous_Work_Experience",
  "proeth:causesStateChange": "Potential ethics violation identified; investigation phase initiated; professional relationship tension created",
  "proeth:createsObligation": [
    "Investigate_Further",
    "Consider_Professional_Response",
    "Research_Applicable_Standards"
  ],
  "proeth:description": "Engineer A\u0027s observation of Engineer B\u0027s marketing proposals triggers recognition of potential ethical violations regarding use of previous employment experience.",
  "proeth:emergencyStatus": "medium",
  "proeth:eventType": "outcome",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "After Engineer B begins marketing",
  "proeth:urgencyLevel": "medium",
  "rdfs:label": "Ethics Concerns Identified"
}

{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/19#",
    "proeth-scenario": "http://proethica.org/ontology/scenario#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#",
    "time": "http://www.w3.org/2006/time#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/cases/19#Event_Research_Results_Obtained",
  "@type": "proeth:Event",
  "proeth-scenario:crisisIdentification": false,
  "proeth-scenario:discussionPrompts": [
    "How should engineers handle situations where different states have different ethical requirements?",
    "What constitutes adequate research when facing ethical dilemmas?",
    "How do jurisdiction-specific rules affect professional responsibility?"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:dramaticTension": "medium",
  "proeth-scenario:emotionalImpact": "Relief at having clear guidance for Engineer A; increased pressure to make informed decision; potential apprehension about different state requirements",
  "proeth-scenario:ethicalImplications": "Highlights complexity of professional practice across jurisdictions; demonstrates importance of informed ethical decision-making; reveals how legal and ethical standards interact in professional practice",
  "proeth-scenario:learningMoment": "Shows importance of understanding jurisdiction-specific requirements and how professional obligations vary by location; demonstrates due diligence in ethical decision-making",
  "proeth-scenario:narrativePacing": "slow_burn",
  "proeth-scenario:stakeholderConsequences": {
    "engineer_a": "Clarity about obligations but increased responsibility to act appropriately",
    "engineer_b": "Exposure to jurisdiction-specific reporting requirements and potential consequences",
    "profession": "Proper application of standards across jurisdictions",
    "state_q_jurisdiction": "Different reporting standards may apply",
    "state_z_jurisdiction": "Different reporting standards may apply"
  },
  "proeth:activatesConstraint": [
    "State_Specific_Reporting_Requirements",
    "NSPE_Code_Compliance"
  ],
  "proeth:causedByAction": "http://proethica.org/cases/19#Action_Researching_Ethics_Codes",
  "proeth:causesStateChange": "Clear knowledge of reporting requirements obtained; decision point reached; different obligations for different jurisdictions clarified",
  "proeth:createsObligation": [
    "State_Q_Reporting_Protocol",
    "State_Z_Reporting_Protocol",
    "Apply_Appropriate_Standards"
  ],
  "proeth:description": "Engineer A\u0027s investigation yields specific knowledge of NSPE Code requirements and different licensing rules in State Q versus State Z, creating clarity about reporting obligations.",
  "proeth:emergencyStatus": "low",
  "proeth:eventType": "outcome",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "After research completion",
  "proeth:urgencyLevel": "medium",
  "rdfs:label": "Research Results Obtained"
}

{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/19#",
    "proeth-scenario": "http://proethica.org/ontology/scenario#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#",
    "time": "http://www.w3.org/2006/time#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/cases/19#Event_Different_State_Obligations_Confirmed",
  "@type": "proeth:Event",
  "proeth-scenario:crisisIdentification": false,
  "proeth-scenario:discussionPrompts": [
    "How should the engineering profession handle inconsistent state requirements?",
    "What challenges do jurisdiction-specific obligations create for practicing engineers?",
    "Should there be greater standardization of professional ethics requirements across states?"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:dramaticTension": "low",
  "proeth-scenario:emotionalImpact": "Increased complexity and potential confusion for Engineer A; recognition that professional practice involves navigating multiple regulatory frameworks",
  "proeth-scenario:ethicalImplications": "Reveals how federalism creates complexity in professional practice; demonstrates need for engineers to understand multiple regulatory frameworks; highlights potential for regulatory arbitrage in professional ethics",
  "proeth-scenario:learningMoment": "Illustrates complexity of professional engineering practice across multiple jurisdictions and importance of understanding local regulatory requirements",
  "proeth-scenario:narrativePacing": "aftermath",
  "proeth-scenario:stakeholderConsequences": {
    "engineer_a": "Must navigate complex, jurisdiction-specific requirements",
    "engineering_profession": "Highlighted complexity of multi-jurisdictional practice",
    "legal_profession": "Precedential framework for future similar cases",
    "state_q_regulatory_authority": "Specific state standards must be applied",
    "state_z_regulatory_authority": "Different state standards must be applied"
  },
  "proeth:activatesConstraint": [
    "Jurisdiction_Specific_Compliance",
    "Comparative_Standards_Analysis"
  ],
  "proeth:causedByAction": "http://proethica.org/cases/19#Action_Researching_Ethics_Codes",
  "proeth:causesStateChange": "Jurisdictional complexity confirmed; multiple standards framework established; differentiated compliance pathways identified",
  "proeth:createsObligation": [
    "Apply_State_Q_Standards",
    "Apply_State_Z_Standards",
    "Recognize_Jurisdictional_Differences"
  ],
  "proeth:description": "Analysis confirms that State Q and State Z have different reporting requirements, creating jurisdiction-specific professional obligations for the same ethical concern.",
  "proeth:emergencyStatus": "routine",
  "proeth:eventType": "outcome",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "During discussion analysis",
  "proeth:urgencyLevel": "low",
  "rdfs:label": "Different State Obligations Confirmed"
}

{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/19#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/cases/19#CausalChain_92ed84d6",
  "@type": "proeth:CausalChain",
  "proeth:causalLanguage": "Engineer A\u0027s observation of Engineer B\u0027s marketing proposals triggers recognition of potential ethics violations",
  "proeth:causalSequence": [
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer B includes bridge/culvert designs from previous employment in XYZ Engineers\u0027 proposals",
      "proeth:element": "Marketing Previous Work Experience",
      "proeth:step": 1
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer A observes the marketing proposals and recognizes potential ethical violations",
      "proeth:element": "Ethics Concerns Identified",
      "proeth:step": 2
    }
  ],
  "proeth:cause": "Marketing Previous Work Experience",
  "proeth:counterfactual": "Without Engineer B\u0027s inappropriate marketing of previous work, no ethics concerns would have been identified",
  "proeth:effect": "Ethics Concerns Identified",
  "proeth:necessaryFactors": [
    "Engineer B\u0027s inclusion of previous employer\u0027s designs in proposals",
    "Engineer A\u0027s access to and review of these marketing materials",
    "Engineer A\u0027s knowledge of professional ethics standards"
  ],
  "proeth:responsibilityType": "direct",
  "proeth:responsibleAgent": "Engineer B",
  "proeth:sufficientFactors": [
    "Combination of questionable marketing practice + knowledgeable observer + professional ethics awareness"
  ],
  "proeth:withinAgentControl": true
}

{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/19#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/cases/19#CausalChain_429b5f4b",
  "@type": "proeth:CausalChain",
  "proeth:causalLanguage": "Engineer A decided to research NSPE Code of Ethics and licensing rules in both State Q and State Z to understand the ethical implications",
  "proeth:causalSequence": [
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer A decides to question the ethics of Engineer B\u0027s marketing practice",
      "proeth:element": "Questioning Marketing Ethics",
      "proeth:step": 1
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer A researches NSPE Code of Ethics and licensing rules in both states",
      "proeth:element": "Researching Ethics Codes",
      "proeth:step": 2
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Investigation yields specific knowledge of NSPE Code requirements and different licensing obligations",
      "proeth:element": "Research Results Obtained",
      "proeth:step": 3
    }
  ],
  "proeth:cause": "Questioning Marketing Ethics",
  "proeth:counterfactual": "Without Engineer A\u0027s decision to research, specific knowledge of code violations and state requirements would not have been obtained",
  "proeth:effect": "Research Results Obtained",
  "proeth:necessaryFactors": [
    "Engineer A\u0027s decision to investigate rather than ignore the issue",
    "Access to NSPE Code of Ethics and state licensing regulations",
    "Engineer A\u0027s commitment to professional ethics"
  ],
  "proeth:responsibilityType": "direct",
  "proeth:responsibleAgent": "Engineer A",
  "proeth:sufficientFactors": [
    "Combination of ethical concern + proactive investigation + available resources"
  ],
  "proeth:withinAgentControl": true
}

{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/19#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/cases/19#CausalChain_b19f4023",
  "@type": "proeth:CausalChain",
  "proeth:causalLanguage": "Analysis confirms that State Q and State Z have different reporting requirements, creating jurisdictional complexity",
  "proeth:causalSequence": [
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer A\u0027s investigation yields specific knowledge of NSPE Code requirements and different licensing obligations",
      "proeth:element": "Research Results Obtained",
      "proeth:step": 1
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Analysis confirms that State Q and State Z have different reporting requirements, creating jurisdictional complexity",
      "proeth:element": "Different State Obligations Confirmed",
      "proeth:step": 2
    }
  ],
  "proeth:cause": "Research Results Obtained",
  "proeth:counterfactual": "Without the research results, the jurisdictional complexity would not have been identified or confirmed",
  "proeth:effect": "Different State Obligations Confirmed",
  "proeth:necessaryFactors": [
    "Completion of research into both state\u0027s requirements",
    "Existence of different reporting obligations between states",
    "Engineer A\u0027s analytical review of the findings"
  ],
  "proeth:responsibilityType": "direct",
  "proeth:responsibleAgent": "Engineer A",
  "proeth:sufficientFactors": [
    "Combination of thorough research + different state laws + analytical comparison"
  ],
  "proeth:withinAgentControl": true
}

{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/19#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/cases/19#CausalChain_9c19640d",
  "@type": "proeth:CausalChain",
  "proeth:causalLanguage": "Knowledge of different state requirements leads Engineer A to consider whether to report Engineer B\u0027s conduct to licensing boards in either or both states",
  "proeth:causalSequence": [
    {
      "proeth:description": "Analysis confirms different reporting requirements between State Q and State Z",
      "proeth:element": "Different State Obligations Confirmed",
      "proeth:step": 1
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer A considers whether to report Engineer B\u0027s conduct to licensing boards in either or both states",
      "proeth:element": "Considering Reporting Obligations",
      "proeth:step": 2
    }
  ],
  "proeth:cause": "Different State Obligations Confirmed",
  "proeth:counterfactual": "Without understanding the different state obligations, Engineer A would not face the complex decision about where and whether to report",
  "proeth:effect": "Considering Reporting Obligations",
  "proeth:necessaryFactors": [
    "Confirmation of different reporting requirements between states",
    "Engineer A\u0027s recognition of professional duty to report misconduct",
    "Understanding that Engineer B\u0027s conduct may violate professional standards"
  ],
  "proeth:responsibilityType": "direct",
  "proeth:responsibleAgent": "Engineer A",
  "proeth:sufficientFactors": [
    "Combination of jurisdictional complexity + professional duty + confirmed ethical violation"
  ],
  "proeth:withinAgentControl": true
}