This page shows the pre-commit working store (the raw extraction under review). This case was committed to OntServe on 2026-10-24 07:56; 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 19: Duty to Report Misconduct

R Roles
6
Classes
9
Individuals
S States
5
Classes
6
Individuals
Rs Resources
3
Classes
4
Individuals

Extracted Ontology Entities

33 RDF entities extracted organized by concept type

R Roles

Roles Classes
6
changed
DesignEngineerRole
rdfs:subClassOf Roles
Linked
Design Engineer Role
C19
Definition
Extracted from facts primary
A professional engineering role responsible for producing designs such as bridges and culverts for projects, governed by the NSPE Code of Ethics and state licensing board rules of professional conduct, including the duty to report knowledge or belief of rule violations to the Board of Licensure.
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 works in a metropolitan area bordering on two states, and designs bridges and culverts as an employee of ABC Consultants, working in both State Q and State Z."
"The Rules in both states require a licensee who has knowledge or reason to believe that a person or firm has violated those Rules to report such knowledge or belief to the Board of Licensure in writin..."
Confidence: 0.95
Role Kind: professional
Distinguishing Features:
  • Produces engineering designs (bridges and culverts) rather than managing or marketing projects
  • Bound as a licensee by state licensing board rules including the duty to report rule violations in writing
Professional Scope: Design of bridges and culverts within licensed engineering practice across the jurisdictions in which the engineer works
Typical Qualifications:
  • Professional engineering licensure in the states of practice
  • Design experience in the relevant discipline
Associated Virtues:
  • Competence
  • Integrity
  • Vigilance regarding professional standards
[facts] "Engineer A works in a metropolitan area bordering on two states, and designs bridges and culverts as an employee of ABC Consultants, working in both State Q and State Z."
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • textReferences content: Engineer A works in a metropolitan area bordering on two states, and designs bridges and culverts as an employee of ABC Consultants, working in both State Q and State Z.; The Rules in both states require a licensee who has knowledge or reason to believe that a person or firm has violated those Rules to report such knowledge or belief to the Board of Licensure in writing.
  • roleKind content: professional
  • distinguishingFeatures content: Produces engineering designs (bridges and culverts) rather than managing or marketing projects; Bound as a licensee by state licensing board rules including the duty to report rule violations in writing
  • professionalScope content: Design of bridges and culverts within licensed engineering practice across the jurisdictions in which the engineer works
  • typicalQualifications content: Professional engineering licensure in the states of practice; Design experience in the relevant discipline
  • associatedVirtues content: Competence; Integrity; Vigilance regarding professional standards
  • confidence assessment: 0.95
changed
ProjectManagerRole
rdfs:subClassOf Roles
Linked
Project Manager Role
C19
Definition
Extracted from facts primary
A professional role that plans and coordinates the delivery of engineering projects, here filled by an engineer with extensive experience in responsible charge of projects, whose prior-employer project experience is presented in a firm's qualifications statements.
Inherited from ProjectManagerRole · note
A professional role that plans and coordinates the delivery of a project, accountable for its competent execution.
Properties
Text References:
"ABC’s competitors, XYZ Engineers, hired a new project manager, Engineer B, with extensive experience in responsible charge of projects in another region, and began to market bridge and culvert designs..."
"Engineer B’s projects for a different firm are identified as a part of Engineer B’s experience, identifying the prior employer and the associated client for each project."
Confidence: 0.9
Role Kind: professional
Distinguishing Features:
  • Plans and coordinates project delivery for the employing firm
  • Prior project experience under a previous employer is claimed in the firm's qualifications statements, subject to state rules against unconditional credit for a previous employer's projects
Professional Scope: Management and responsible charge of engineering projects for the employing firm
Typical Qualifications:
  • Professional engineering licensure
  • Extensive experience in responsible charge of projects
Associated Virtues:
  • Honesty in representing experience
  • Competence
  • Transparency
[facts] "ABC’s competitors, XYZ Engineers, hired a new project manager, Engineer B, with extensive experience in responsible charge of projects in another region, and began to market bridge and culvert designs..."
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • textReferences content: ABC’s competitors, XYZ Engineers, hired a new project manager, Engineer B, with extensive experience in responsible charge of projects in another region, and began to market bridge and culvert designs in both states.; Engineer B’s projects for a different firm are identified as a part of Engineer B’s experience, identifying the prior employer and the associated client for each project.
  • roleKind content: professional
  • distinguishingFeatures content: Plans and coordinates project delivery for the employing firm; Prior project experience under a previous employer is claimed in the firm's qualifications statements, subject to state rules against unconditional credit for a previous employer's projects
  • professionalScope content: Management and responsible charge of engineering projects for the employing firm
  • typicalQualifications content: Professional engineering licensure; Extensive experience in responsible charge of projects
  • associatedVirtues content: Honesty in representing experience; Competence; Transparency
  • confidence assessment: 0.9
changed
ProviderRole
rdfs:subClassOf Roles
Linked
Provider Role
C19
Definition
Extracted from facts primary
A professional role borne by an engineering firm that provides and markets engineering services and represents its staff's projects and qualifications to prospective clients through proposals and qualifications statements, bearing the obligation not to misrepresent facts concerning employers, employees, associates, or past accomplishments.
Inherited from ProviderRole · note
A professional role borne by an engineering firm that provides engineering services and represents its staff and their qualifications to the public through marketing materials such as brochures, bearing the obligation to avoid conveying a misrepresentation about the engineering credentials of its personnel.
Properties
Text References:
"XYZ Engineers’ qualifications statements accompanying their project proposals clearly indicate their projects in the body of the proposal."
"presentations incidental to the solicitation of employment shall not misrepresent facts concerning employers, employees, associates, joint ventures or past accomplishments"
Confidence: 0.88
Role Category: provider_client
Role Kind: professional
Distinguishing Features:
  • Solicits engagements from clients via proposals and qualifications statements
  • Bears the duty that presentations incidental to the solicitation of employment shall not misrepresent facts concerning employers, employees, associates, joint ventures or past accomplishments
Professional Scope: Provision and marketing of engineering design services, including the accurate representation of staff experience in qualifications statements
Typical Qualifications: Licensed engineering firm offering professional design services
Associated Virtues:
  • Honesty
  • Transparency in marketing
[facts] "XYZ Engineers’ qualifications statements accompanying their project proposals clearly indicate their projects in the body of the proposal."
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • textReferences content: XYZ Engineers’ qualifications statements accompanying their project proposals clearly indicate their projects in the body of the proposal.; presentations incidental to the solicitation of employment shall not misrepresent facts concerning employers, employees, associates, joint ventures or past accomplishments
  • roleCategory content: provider_client
  • roleKind content: professional
  • distinguishingFeatures content: Solicits engagements from clients via proposals and qualifications statements; Bears the duty that presentations incidental to the solicitation of employment shall not misrepresent facts concerning employers, employees, associates, joint ventures or past accomplishments
  • professionalScope content: Provision and marketing of engineering design services, including the accurate representation of staff experience in qualifications statements
  • typicalQualifications content: Licensed engineering firm offering professional design services
  • associatedVirtues content: Honesty; Transparency in marketing
  • confidence assessment: 0.88
changed
EmployerRole
rdfs:subClassOf Roles
Linked
Employer Role
C19
Definition
Extracted from facts primary
A participant role borne by an engineering consulting firm as the employing organization of engineers in the case.
Inherited from EmployerRole · note
The role borne by the employing organization as a participant in the case. The duty relationship is carried separately by :EmployerRelationshipRole. No IFC equivalent.
Properties
Text References:
"designs bridges and culverts as an employee of ABC Consultants"
"XYZ Engineers, hired a new project manager, Engineer B"
Confidence: 0.9
Role Kind: participant
Distinguishing Features: Employs engineers who perform design and project management work
[facts] "Engineer A works in a metropolitan area bordering on two states, and designs bridges and culverts as an employee of ABC Consultants, working in both State Q and State Z."
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • textReferences content: designs bridges and culverts as an employee of ABC Consultants; XYZ Engineers, hired a new project manager, Engineer B
  • roleKind content: participant
  • distinguishingFeatures content: Employs engineers who perform design and project management work
  • confidence assessment: 0.9
changed
RegulatoryAuthorityRole
rdfs:subClassOf Roles
Linked
Regulatory Authority Role
C19
Definition
Extracted from facts primary
A participant role of a state engineering licensure body that issues rules of professional conduct governing licensees, including rules on presentations soliciting employment and on crediting projects of a previous employer, and that receives written reports of rule violations from licensees.
Inherited from RegulatoryAuthorityRole · note
The role borne by a body or official exercising statutory oversight of engineering practice (a licensure board, a code-enforcement agency, an inspector, or an ethics review board) as a participant in the case. Oversight duties are statutory or institutional case facts, not profession-generated obligations; the engineer-side duty toward such bodies is carried by the reporting and disclosure obligations of the professional roles. No IFC equivalent (IFC has no regulator role).
Properties
Text References:
"The State Q Licensing Board Rules, patterned after the NCEES Model Rules, indicate in relevant part that “presentations incidental to the solicitation of employment shall not misrepresent facts concer..."
"The Rules in both states require a licensee who has knowledge or reason to believe that a person or firm has violated those Rules to report such knowledge or belief to the Board of Licensure in writin..."
Confidence: 0.9
Role Kind: participant
Distinguishing Features:
  • Issues binding rules of professional conduct for licensees
  • Receives written reports from licensees of known or suspected rule violations
[facts] "The Rules in both states require a licensee who has knowledge or reason to believe that a person or firm has violated those Rules to report such knowledge or belief to the Board of Licensure in writin..."
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • textReferences content: The State Q Licensing Board Rules, patterned after the NCEES Model Rules, indicate in relevant part that “presentations incidental to the solicitation of employment shall not misrepresent facts concerning employers, employees, associates, joint ventures or past accomplishments”.; The Rules in both states require a licensee who has knowledge or reason to believe that a person or firm has violated those Rules to report such knowledge or belief to the Board of Licensure in writing.
  • roleKind content: participant
  • distinguishingFeatures content: Issues binding rules of professional conduct for licensees; Receives written reports from licensees of known or suspected rule violations
  • confidence assessment: 0.9
changed
ClientRole
rdfs:subClassOf Roles
Review
Client Role
C19
Definition
Extracted from facts primary
A participant role of the clients to whom project proposals and qualifications statements are directed, who may be misled by a firm's proposal and marketing practice.
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:
"Engineer A questions whether this proposal/marketing practice is misleading to clients and unethical."
Confidence: 0.8
Role Kind: participant
Distinguishing Features: Recipients of project proposals and qualifications statements who rely on their accuracy
[facts] "Engineer A questions whether this proposal/marketing practice is misleading to clients and unethical."
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • textReferences content: Engineer A questions whether this proposal/marketing practice is misleading to clients and unethical.
  • roleKind content: participant
  • distinguishingFeatures content: Recipients of project proposals and qualifications statements who rely on their accuracy
  • confidence assessment: 0.8
Roles Individuals
9
Engineer B Project Manager
Project Manager Role
Linked
Project Manager Role
C19
Text References:
"ABC’s competitors, XYZ Engineers, hired a new project manager, Engineer B, with extensive experience in responsible charge of projects in another region, and began to market bridge and culvert designs..."
"Engineer B’s projects completed while in previous employment did not involve proprietary design concepts, and the capabilities of project team members on those projects were within Engineer B’s areas ..."
Confidence: 0.92
Actor: Engineer B
Role Class: Project Manager Role
Role Category: employer_relationship
Role Kind: professional
Specialty: Bridge and culvert projects
Experience Level: Extensive experience in responsible charge of projects in another region
Employer: XYZ Engineers
Technical Background: Project team capabilities on prior projects were within Engineer B's areas of expertise
Additional Relationships: {'type': 'formerly employed by', 'target': 'Previous Design Firm', 'quote': 'Engineer B’s projects for a different firm are identified as a part of Engineer B’s experience, identifying the prior employer and the associated client for each project'}
Case Involvement: New project manager at XYZ Engineers whose prior-firm project experience is presented in XYZ's qualifications statements, with a transparency notice that was not included in all paragraphs of the lengthy project descriptions.
Prior projects note: projects completed in previous employment did not involve proprietary design concepts
Qualifications statement credit: projects for a different firm are identified as part of Engineer B's experience, identifying the prior employer and the associated client for each project
Employedby: XYZ Engineers
"XYZ Engineers, hired a new project manager, Engineer B, with extensive experience in responsible charge of projects in another region"
[facts] "ABC’s competitors, XYZ Engineers, hired a new project manager, Engineer B, with extensive experience in responsible charge of projects in another region, and began to market bridge and culvert designs..."
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • actor: Engineer B
  • attributes: {'prior_projects_note': 'projects completed in previous employment did not involve proprietary design concepts', 'qualifications_statement_credit': "projects for a different firm are identified as part of Engineer B's experience, identifying the prior employer and the associated client for each project"}
  • relationships: {'type': 'employedBy', 'target': 'XYZ Engineers', 'quote': 'XYZ Engineers, hired a new project manager, Engineer B, with extensive experience in responsible charge of projects in another region'}
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • textReferences content: ABC’s competitors, XYZ Engineers, hired a new project manager, Engineer B, with extensive experience in responsible charge of projects in another region, and began to market bridge and culvert designs in both states.; Engineer B’s projects completed while in previous employment did not involve proprietary design concepts, and the capabilities of project team members on those projects were within Engineer B’s areas of expertise.
  • roleClass content: Project Manager Role
  • roleCategory content: employer_relationship
  • roleKind content: professional
  • specialty content: Bridge and culvert projects
  • experienceLevel content: Extensive experience in responsible charge of projects in another region
  • employer content: XYZ Engineers
  • technicalBackground content: Project team capabilities on prior projects were within Engineer B's areas of expertise
  • additionalRelationships content: {'type': 'formerly employed by', 'target': 'Previous Design Firm', 'quote': 'Engineer B’s projects for a different firm are identified as a part of Engineer B’s experience, identifying the prior employer and the associated client for each project'}
  • caseInvolvement content: New project manager at XYZ Engineers whose prior-firm project experience is presented in XYZ's qualifications statements, with a transparency notice that was not included in all paragraphs of the lengthy project descriptions.
  • confidence assessment: 0.92
Engineer A Design Engineer
Design Engineer Role
Linked
Design Engineer Role
C19
Text References:
"Engineer A works in a metropolitan area bordering on two states, and designs bridges and culverts as an employee of ABC Consultants, working in both State Q and State Z."
"Engineer A questions whether this proposal/marketing practice is misleading to clients and unethical."
"Engineer A decides to review the NSPE Code of Ethics and the engineering licensing board law and rules of professional conduct in both states."
Confidence: 0.95
Actor: Engineer A
Role Class: Design Engineer Role
Role Category: employer_relationship
Role Kind: professional
License: Licensee subject to licensing board rules in State Q and State Z
Specialty: Bridge and culvert design
Employer: ABC Consultants
Technical Background: Bridge and culvert design in State Q and State Z
Case Involvement: Questions whether XYZ Engineers' proposal and marketing practice is misleading to clients and unethical, reviews the NSPE Code of Ethics and the licensing board law and rules of professional conduct in both states, and considers whether he has an obligation to report to the two licensing jurisdictions.
Jurisdictions of practice: State Q and State Z
Text naming note: referred to as Engineer Q in later passages of the case text
Employedby: ABC Consultants
"designs bridges and culverts as an employee of ABC Consultants"
[facts] "Engineer A works in a metropolitan area bordering on two states, and designs bridges and culverts as an employee of ABC Consultants, working in both State Q and State Z."
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • actor: Engineer A
  • attributes: {'jurisdictions_of_practice': 'State Q and State Z', 'text_naming_note': 'referred to as Engineer Q in later passages of the case text'}
  • relationships: {'type': 'employedBy', 'target': 'ABC Consultants', 'quote': 'designs bridges and culverts as an employee of ABC Consultants'}
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • textReferences content: Engineer A works in a metropolitan area bordering on two states, and designs bridges and culverts as an employee of ABC Consultants, working in both State Q and State Z.; Engineer A questions whether this proposal/marketing practice is misleading to clients and unethical.; Engineer A decides to review the NSPE Code of Ethics and the engineering licensing board law and rules of professional conduct in both states.
  • roleClass content: Design Engineer Role
  • roleCategory content: employer_relationship
  • roleKind content: professional
  • license content: Licensee subject to licensing board rules in State Q and State Z
  • specialty content: Bridge and culvert design
  • employer content: ABC Consultants
  • technicalBackground content: Bridge and culvert design in State Q and State Z
  • caseInvolvement content: Questions whether XYZ Engineers' proposal and marketing practice is misleading to clients and unethical, reviews the NSPE Code of Ethics and the licensing board law and rules of professional conduct in both states, and considers whether he has an obligation to report to the two licensing jurisdictions.
  • confidence assessment: 0.95
Linked
Provider Role
C19
Text References:
"XYZ Engineers’ qualifications statements accompanying their project proposals clearly indicate their projects in the body of the proposal."
"ABC’s competitors, XYZ Engineers, hired a new project manager, Engineer B, with extensive experience in responsible charge of projects in another region, and began to market bridge and culvert designs..."
"this notice was not included in all paragraphs of the lengthy individual descriptions of those projects."
Confidence: 0.9
Actor: XYZ Engineers
Role Class: Provider Firm
Role Category: provider_client
Role Kind: professional
Specialty: Bridge and culvert designs
Additional Relationships: {'type': 'competes with', 'target': 'ABC Consultants', 'quote': 'ABC’s competitors, XYZ Engineers, hired a new project manager, Engineer B'}
Case Involvement: Markets bridge and culvert designs in both states and issues qualifications statements crediting Engineer B's prior-firm projects, a proposal and marketing practice that Engineer A questions as possibly misleading to clients and unethical.
Marketing practice: qualifications statements identify Engineer B's projects for a different firm as part of Engineer B's experience, but the notice was not included in all paragraphs of the lengthy project descriptions
[facts] "XYZ Engineers’ qualifications statements accompanying their project proposals clearly indicate their projects in the body of the proposal."
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • actor: XYZ Engineers
  • attributes: {'marketing_practice': "qualifications statements identify Engineer B's projects for a different firm as part of Engineer B's experience, but the notice was not included in all paragraphs of the lengthy project descriptions"}
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • textReferences content: XYZ Engineers’ qualifications statements accompanying their project proposals clearly indicate their projects in the body of the proposal.; ABC’s competitors, XYZ Engineers, hired a new project manager, Engineer B, with extensive experience in responsible charge of projects in another region, and began to market bridge and culvert designs in both states.; this notice was not included in all paragraphs of the lengthy individual descriptions of those projects.
  • roleClass content: Provider Firm
  • roleCategory content: provider_client
  • roleKind content: professional
  • specialty content: Bridge and culvert designs
  • additionalRelationships content: {'type': 'competes with', 'target': 'ABC Consultants', 'quote': 'ABC’s competitors, XYZ Engineers, hired a new project manager, Engineer B'}
  • caseInvolvement content: Markets bridge and culvert designs in both states and issues qualifications statements crediting Engineer B's prior-firm projects, a proposal and marketing practice that Engineer A questions as possibly misleading to clients and unethical.
  • confidence assessment: 0.9
Linked
Employer Role
C19
Text References:
"ABC’s competitors, XYZ Engineers, hired a new project manager, Engineer B, with extensive experience in responsible charge of projects in another region, and began to market bridge and culvert designs..."
Confidence: 0.88
Actor: XYZ Engineers
Role Class: Employer Role
Role Kind: participant
Additional Relationships: {'type': 'employs', 'target': 'Engineer B', 'quote': 'XYZ Engineers, hired a new project manager, Engineer B'}
Case Involvement: Employing organization of Engineer B, the newly hired project manager.
[facts] "ABC’s competitors, XYZ Engineers, hired a new project manager, Engineer B, with extensive experience in responsible charge of projects in another region, and began to market bridge and culvert designs..."
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • actor: XYZ Engineers
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • textReferences content: ABC’s competitors, XYZ Engineers, hired a new project manager, Engineer B, with extensive experience in responsible charge of projects in another region, and began to market bridge and culvert designs in both states.
  • roleClass content: Employer Role
  • roleKind content: participant
  • additionalRelationships content: {'type': 'employs', 'target': 'Engineer B', 'quote': 'XYZ Engineers, hired a new project manager, Engineer B'}
  • caseInvolvement content: Employing organization of Engineer B, the newly hired project manager.
  • confidence assessment: 0.88
Linked
Employer Role
C19
Text References:
"Engineer A works in a metropolitan area bordering on two states, and designs bridges and culverts as an employee of ABC Consultants, working in both State Q and State Z."
Confidence: 0.88
Actor: ABC Consultants
Role Class: Employer Role
Role Kind: participant
Additional Relationships: {'type': 'employs', 'target': 'Engineer A', 'quote': 'designs bridges and culverts as an employee of ABC Consultants'}
Case Involvement: Employing organization of Engineer A and a competitor of XYZ Engineers in the bridge and culvert design market in both states.
[facts] "Engineer A works in a metropolitan area bordering on two states, and designs bridges and culverts as an employee of ABC Consultants, working in both State Q and State Z."
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • actor: ABC Consultants
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • textReferences content: Engineer A works in a metropolitan area bordering on two states, and designs bridges and culverts as an employee of ABC Consultants, working in both State Q and State Z.
  • roleClass content: Employer Role
  • roleKind content: participant
  • additionalRelationships content: {'type': 'employs', 'target': 'Engineer A', 'quote': 'designs bridges and culverts as an employee of ABC Consultants'}
  • caseInvolvement content: Employing organization of Engineer A and a competitor of XYZ Engineers in the bridge and culvert design market in both states.
  • confidence assessment: 0.88
State Q Licensing Board
Regulatory Authority Role
Linked
Regulatory Authority Role
C19
Text References:
"The State Q Licensing Board Rules, patterned after the NCEES Model Rules, indicate in relevant part that “presentations incidental to the solicitation of employment shall not misrepresent facts concer..."
"The Rules in both states require a licensee who has knowledge or reason to believe that a person or firm has violated those Rules to report such knowledge or belief to the Board of Licensure in writin..."
Confidence: 0.9
Actor: State Q Licensing Board
Role Class: Regulatory Authority Role
Role Kind: participant
Case Involvement: State licensure body whose rules prohibit misrepresentation in presentations incidental to the solicitation of employment and require licensees to report knowledge or belief of rule violations in writing.
Rules basis: Rules patterned after the NCEES Model Rules
[facts] "The State Q Licensing Board Rules, patterned after the NCEES Model Rules, indicate in relevant part that “presentations incidental to the solicitation of employment shall not misrepresent facts concer..."
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • actor: State Q Licensing Board
  • attributes: {'rules_basis': 'Rules patterned after the NCEES Model Rules'}
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • textReferences content: The State Q Licensing Board Rules, patterned after the NCEES Model Rules, indicate in relevant part that “presentations incidental to the solicitation of employment shall not misrepresent facts concerning employers, employees, associates, joint ventures or past accomplishments”.; The Rules in both states require a licensee who has knowledge or reason to believe that a person or firm has violated those Rules to report such knowledge or belief to the Board of Licensure in writing.
  • roleClass content: Regulatory Authority Role
  • roleKind content: participant
  • caseInvolvement content: State licensure body whose rules prohibit misrepresentation in presentations incidental to the solicitation of employment and require licensees to report knowledge or belief of rule violations in writing.
  • confidence assessment: 0.9
State Z Licensing Board
Regulatory Authority Role
Linked
Regulatory Authority Role
C19
Text References:
"Engineer Q finds that the Rules in State Z, which have a long and unique legislative history, are much more specific, indicating in part that “a licensee who has been an employee of another design fir..."
"The Rules in both states require a licensee who has knowledge or reason to believe that a person or firm has violated those Rules to report such knowledge or belief to the Board of Licensure in writin..."
Confidence: 0.9
Actor: State Z Licensing Board
Role Class: Regulatory Authority Role
Role Kind: participant
Case Involvement: State licensure body whose specific rules bar a licensee from claiming unconditional credit for a previous employer's design projects and require detailed attribution next to each project listing, and which receives written reports of rule violations from licensees.
Rules character: Rules with a long and unique legislative history, much more specific than State Q's
Project credit rule: any list of such projects must include, next to the specific project listing, detailed information naming the previous firm and the licensee's specific involvement in the project
[facts] "Engineer Q finds that the Rules in State Z, which have a long and unique legislative history, are much more specific, indicating in part that “a licensee who has been an employee of another design fir..."
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • actor: State Z Licensing Board
  • attributes: {'rules_character': "Rules with a long and unique legislative history, much more specific than State Q's", 'project_credit_rule': "any list of such projects must include, next to the specific project listing, detailed information naming the previous firm and the licensee's specific involvement in the project"}
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • textReferences content: Engineer Q finds that the Rules in State Z, which have a long and unique legislative history, are much more specific, indicating in part that “a licensee who has been an employee of another design firm may not claim unconditional credit for design projects contracted for in the name of a previous employer”; The Rules in both states require a licensee who has knowledge or reason to believe that a person or firm has violated those Rules to report such knowledge or belief to the Board of Licensure in writing.
  • roleClass content: Regulatory Authority Role
  • roleKind content: participant
  • caseInvolvement content: State licensure body whose specific rules bar a licensee from claiming unconditional credit for a previous employer's design projects and require detailed attribution next to each project listing, and which receives written reports of rule violations from licensees.
  • confidence assessment: 0.9
Linked
Client Role
C19
Text References:
"Engineer A questions whether this proposal/marketing practice is misleading to clients and unethical."
"identifying the prior employer and the associated client for each project"
Confidence: 0.8
Actor: Prospective Clients
Role Class: Client Role
Role Kind: participant
Case Involvement: The clients to whom XYZ Engineers' project proposals and qualifications statements are directed, and who may be misled by the marketing practice Engineer A questions.
[facts] "Engineer A questions whether this proposal/marketing practice is misleading to clients and unethical."
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • actor: Prospective Clients
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • textReferences content: Engineer A questions whether this proposal/marketing practice is misleading to clients and unethical.; identifying the prior employer and the associated client for each project
  • roleClass content: Client Role
  • roleKind content: participant
  • caseInvolvement content: The clients to whom XYZ Engineers' project proposals and qualifications statements are directed, and who may be misled by the marketing practice Engineer A questions.
  • confidence assessment: 0.8
Linked
Employer Role
C19
Text References:
"Engineer B’s projects for a different firm are identified as a part of Engineer B’s experience, identifying the prior employer and the associated client for each project."
Confidence: 0.75
Actor: Previous Design Firm
Role Class: Employer Role
Role Kind: participant
Additional Relationships: {'type': 'formerly employed', 'target': 'Engineer B', 'quote': 'a licensee who has been an employee of another design firm may not claim unconditional credit for design projects contracted for in the name of a previous employer'}
Case Involvement: The prior employer in whose name Engineer B's earlier design projects were contracted, identified along with the associated client in XYZ Engineers' qualifications statements.
[facts] "Engineer B’s projects for a different firm are identified as a part of Engineer B’s experience, identifying the prior employer and the associated client for each project."
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • actor: Previous Design Firm
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • textReferences content: Engineer B’s projects for a different firm are identified as a part of Engineer B’s experience, identifying the prior employer and the associated client for each project.
  • roleClass content: Employer Role
  • roleKind content: participant
  • additionalRelationships content: {'type': 'formerly employed', 'target': 'Engineer B', 'quote': 'a licensee who has been an employee of another design firm may not claim unconditional credit for design projects contracted for in the name of a previous employer'}
  • caseInvolvement content: The prior employer in whose name Engineer B's earlier design projects were contracted, identified along with the associated client in XYZ Engineers' qualifications statements.
  • confidence assessment: 0.75

S States

States Classes
5
changed
Ethical Uncertainty State
rdfs:subClassOf States
New C19
Definition
Extracted from facts primary
An epistemic condition in which a professional is uncertain whether an observed practice is misleading or unethical and whether a reporting obligation applies, so the professional undertakes review of the applicable code and licensing rules before deciding, here Engineer A questioning whether the proposal and marketing practice is misleading to clients and unethical and considering whether an obligation to report to the two licensing jurisdictions exists.
Properties
Text References:
"Engineer A questions whether this proposal/marketing practice is misleading to clients and unethical."
"Engineer Q considers whether this proposal/marketing practice is unethical in accordance with the NSPE Code of Ethics and whether Engineer A has an obligation to report to the two licensing jurisdicti..."
Confidence: 0.85
State Category: epistemic
Persistence Type: inertial
Activation Conditions: A professional observes a practice and questions whether it is misleading or unethical
Termination Conditions: The professional forms a knowledge or belief judgment about whether the rules were violated
Obligation Activation: Conditional reporting obligation, applicable only if the professional comes to have knowledge or reason to believe a violation occurred
Principle Transformation: The paramount duty of honesty in professional presentations becomes a concrete inquiry into whether this specific practice misrepresents past accomplishments and whether reporting is required.
[facts] "Engineer A questions whether this proposal/marketing practice is misleading to clients and unethical."
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • textReferences content: Engineer A questions whether this proposal/marketing practice is misleading to clients and unethical.; Engineer Q considers whether this proposal/marketing practice is unethical in accordance with the NSPE Code of Ethics and whether Engineer A has an obligation to report to the two licensing jurisdictions.
  • stateCategory content: epistemic
  • persistenceType content: inertial
  • principleTransformation content: The paramount duty of honesty in professional presentations becomes a concrete inquiry into whether this specific practice misrepresents past accomplishments and whether reporting is required.
  • confidence assessment: 0.85
Derived (reconstructable from the graph)
  • activationConditions: A professional observes a practice and questions whether it is misleading or unethical
  • terminationConditions: The professional forms a knowledge or belief judgment about whether the rules were violated
  • obligationActivation: Conditional reporting obligation, applicable only if the professional comes to have knowledge or reason to believe a violation occurred
changed
SelectiveReportingState
rdfs:subClassOf States
Linked
Selective Reporting State
C19
Definition
Extracted from facts primary
A disclosure condition in which material information has been disclosed only partially or inconsistently among the parties, here the condition in which XYZ Engineers' qualification statements identify Engineer B's prior-firm projects with the prior employer and client at the beginning of the individual qualification section, but that attribution notice is not carried through all paragraphs of the lengthy individual project descriptions, raising the question whether the presentation is misleading to clients.
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:
"However, while this notice appears to indicate an intent to provide transparency, this notice was not included in all paragraphs of the lengthy individual descriptions of those projects."
"Engineer A questions whether this proposal/marketing practice is misleading to clients and unethical."
Confidence: 0.92
State Category: disclosure
Persistence Type: inertial
Activation Conditions: Qualification statements identify prior-employer projects with attribution notice in some but not all paragraphs of the project descriptions
Termination Conditions: The attribution notice is included consistently throughout the project descriptions or the materials are corrected
Obligation Activation: Obligation to present qualifications truthfully and without misrepresentation of past accomplishments
Action Constraints: Prohibition on misrepresenting facts concerning employers, employees, associates, joint ventures or past accomplishments
Principle Transformation: The truthfulness principle in marketing becomes a concrete question of whether attribution must be carried consistently through the proposal so clients are not misled.
[facts] "However, while this notice appears to indicate an intent to provide transparency, this notice was not included in all paragraphs of the lengthy individual descriptions of those projects."
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • textReferences content: However, while this notice appears to indicate an intent to provide transparency, this notice was not included in all paragraphs of the lengthy individual descriptions of those projects.; Engineer A questions whether this proposal/marketing practice is misleading to clients and unethical.
  • stateCategory content: disclosure
  • persistenceType content: inertial
  • principleTransformation content: The truthfulness principle in marketing becomes a concrete question of whether attribution must be carried consistently through the proposal so clients are not misled.
  • confidence assessment: 0.92
Derived (reconstructable from the graph)
  • activationConditions: Qualification statements identify prior-employer projects with attribution notice in some but not all paragraphs of the project descriptions
  • terminationConditions: The attribution notice is included consistently throughout the project descriptions or the materials are corrected
  • obligationActivation: Obligation to present qualifications truthfully and without misrepresentation of past accomplishments
  • actionConstraints: Prohibition on misrepresenting facts concerning employers, employees, associates, joint ventures or past accomplishments
changed
RegulatoryRequirementState
rdfs:subClassOf States
Linked
Regulatory Requirement State
C19
Definition
Extracted from facts primary
A regulatory condition in which licensing board rules place requirements in force for a class of licensees, here the State Q rule that presentations incidental to the solicitation of employment shall not misrepresent facts, the State Z rule barring unconditional credit for projects contracted in a previous employer's name and requiring detailed attribution next to each project listing, and the rules of both states requiring a licensee with knowledge or reason to believe a violation occurred to report it to the Board of Licensure in writing.
Inherited from RegulatoryRequirementState · note
A regulatory condition in which a statute or ordinance places a requirement in force for a class of parties, here a local ordinance governing land development requiring private developers to submit plans to the city for review and approval, to pay the city's expenses for the firm's review of the drawings, and to pay for inspection services provided on the city's behalf, with those inspection services solely for ensuring infrastructure conforms to the city's design standards.
Properties
Text References:
"presentations incidental to the solicitation of employment shall not misrepresent facts concerning employers, employees, associates, joint ventures or past accomplishments"
"a licensee who has been an employee of another design firm may not claim unconditional credit for design projects contracted for in the name of a previous employer"
"The Rules in both states require a licensee who has knowledge or reason to believe that a person or firm has violated those Rules to report such knowledge or belief to the Board of Licensure in writin..."
Confidence: 0.93
State Category: regulatory
Persistence Type: inertial
Activation Conditions: Licensing board rules governing marketing presentations and violation reporting are in force in State Q and State Z
Termination Conditions: The rules are repealed or amended
Obligation Activation:
  • Compliance obligation not to misrepresent past accomplishments in solicitations
  • Conditional obligation to report knowledge or belief of a rules violation to the Board of Licensure in writing
Action Constraints: Prohibition on claiming unconditional credit for design projects contracted for in the name of a previous employer
Principle Transformation: The honesty principle is transformed by the rules into specific attribution and reporting requirements binding on licensees in each state.
[facts] "The Rules in both states require a licensee who has knowledge or reason to believe that a person or firm has violated those Rules to report such knowledge or belief to the Board of Licensure in writin..."
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • textReferences content: presentations incidental to the solicitation of employment shall not misrepresent facts concerning employers, employees, associates, joint ventures or past accomplishments; a licensee who has been an employee of another design firm may not claim unconditional credit for design projects contracted for in the name of a previous employer; The Rules in both states require a licensee who has knowledge or reason to believe that a person or firm has violated those Rules to report such knowledge or belief to the Board of Licensure in writing.
  • stateCategory content: regulatory
  • persistenceType content: inertial
  • principleTransformation content: The honesty principle is transformed by the rules into specific attribution and reporting requirements binding on licensees in each state.
  • confidence assessment: 0.93
Derived (reconstructable from the graph)
  • activationConditions: Licensing board rules governing marketing presentations and violation reporting are in force in State Q and State Z
  • terminationConditions: The rules are repealed or amended
  • obligationActivation: Compliance obligation not to misrepresent past accomplishments in solicitations; Conditional obligation to report knowledge or belief of a rules violation to the Board of Licensure in writing
  • actionConstraints: Prohibition on claiming unconditional credit for design projects contracted for in the name of a previous employer
changed
JurisdictionalVariabilityState
rdfs:subClassOf States
Review
Jurisdictional Law Variability State
C19
Definition
Extracted from facts primary
A regulatory condition in which the licensing rules of different states vary on the same professional practice question, so no uniform standard governs the conduct, here the State Q rules patterned on the NCEES Model Rules stating a general misrepresentation prohibition while the State Z rules, with a long and unique legislative history, are much more specific about attribution of prior-employer projects.
Inherited from JurisdictionalLawVariabilityState · note
A regulatory condition in which the laws of different states vary on whether a given professional situation constitutes a conflict of interest, so no uniform legal answer governs the question and the ethical conclusion may not settle the legal one. Here the Board notes that state laws may vary regarding whether Engineer A's situation constitutes a conflict of interest.
Properties
Text References:
"Engineer Q finds that the Rules in State Z, which have a long and unique legislative history, are much more specific"
Confidence: 0.85
State Category: regulatory
Persistence Type: inertial
Activation Conditions: Two states with differing licensing rules govern the same marketing practice
Termination Conditions: The states adopt uniform rules on the practice
Obligation Activation: Obligation to evaluate the practice under the rules of each jurisdiction where services are marketed
Principle Transformation: The duty to obey applicable law becomes a duty to satisfy the more specific standard of each jurisdiction rather than a single uniform test.
[facts] "Engineer Q finds that the Rules in State Z, which have a long and unique legislative history, are much more specific"
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • textReferences content: Engineer Q finds that the Rules in State Z, which have a long and unique legislative history, are much more specific
  • stateCategory content: regulatory
  • persistenceType content: inertial
  • principleTransformation content: The duty to obey applicable law becomes a duty to satisfy the more specific standard of each jurisdiction rather than a single uniform test.
  • confidence assessment: 0.85
Derived (reconstructable from the graph)
  • activationConditions: Two states with differing licensing rules govern the same marketing practice
  • terminationConditions: The states adopt uniform rules on the practice
  • obligationActivation: Obligation to evaluate the practice under the rules of each jurisdiction where services are marketed
changed
CompetenceState
rdfs:subClassOf States
Review
Sufficient Competence State
C19
Definition
Extracted from facts primary
A competence condition in which prior project work claimed as experience lies within the professional's areas of expertise, here Engineer B's projects completed in previous employment not involving proprietary design concepts and the capabilities of project team members on those projects being within Engineer B's areas of expertise.
Inherited from SufficientCompetenceState · note
A competence condition in which the work to be performed lies entirely within a professional's field of expertise and does not require services from any other firm, so the professional is fully capable of performing the engagement alone.
Properties
Text References:
"Engineer B’s projects completed while in previous employment did not involve proprietary design concepts, and the capabilities of project team members on those projects were within Engineer B’s areas ..."
Confidence: 0.8
State Category: competence
Persistence Type: inertial
Activation Conditions: Prior projects were completed within the professional's areas of expertise and involved no proprietary design concepts
Termination Conditions: Claimed experience extends beyond the professional's areas of expertise
Principle Transformation: The competence standing of the prior work bears on whether presenting that experience is legitimate rather than a misrepresentation of qualifications.
[facts] "Engineer B’s projects completed while in previous employment did not involve proprietary design concepts, and the capabilities of project team members on those projects were within Engineer B’s areas ..."
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • textReferences content: Engineer B’s projects completed while in previous employment did not involve proprietary design concepts, and the capabilities of project team members on those projects were within Engineer B’s areas of expertise.
  • stateCategory content: competence
  • persistenceType content: inertial
  • principleTransformation content: The competence standing of the prior work bears on whether presenting that experience is legitimate rather than a misrepresentation of qualifications.
  • confidence assessment: 0.8
Derived (reconstructable from the graph)
  • activationConditions: Prior projects were completed within the professional's areas of expertise and involved no proprietary design concepts
  • terminationConditions: Claimed experience extends beyond the professional's areas of expertise
States Individuals
6
changed
Engineer A Ethical Uncertainty
EthicalUncertaintyState
New C19
Text References:
"Engineer A questions whether this proposal/marketing practice is misleading to clients and unethical."
"Engineer Q considers whether this proposal/marketing practice is unethical in accordance with the NSPE Code of Ethics and whether Engineer A has an obligation to report to the two licensing jurisdicti..."
Confidence: 0.88
State Class: Ethical Uncertainty State
Subject: Engineer A
Active Period: From Engineer A's observation of XYZ Engineers' proposal practice until Engineer A resolves whether the practice is unethical and whether reporting is required
Triggering Event: Engineer A observes XYZ Engineers' qualification statements identifying Engineer B's prior-firm projects with inconsistent attribution notices
Terminated By: Engineer A reaching a conclusion, after reviewing the NSPE Code of Ethics and the licensing board rules of both states, about whether the practice is unethical and whether an obligation to report applies
Affected Parties:
  • Engineer A
  • Engineer B
  • XYZ Engineers
  • Prospective clients
Urgency Level: medium
[facts] "Engineer A questions whether this proposal/marketing practice is misleading to clients and unethical."
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • textReferences content: Engineer A questions whether this proposal/marketing practice is misleading to clients and unethical.; Engineer Q considers whether this proposal/marketing practice is unethical in accordance with the NSPE Code of Ethics and whether Engineer A has an obligation to report to the two licensing jurisdictions.
  • stateClass content: Ethical Uncertainty State
  • subject content: Engineer A
  • activePeriod content: From Engineer A's observation of XYZ Engineers' proposal practice until Engineer A resolves whether the practice is unethical and whether reporting is required
  • triggeringEvent content: Engineer A observes XYZ Engineers' qualification statements identifying Engineer B's prior-firm projects with inconsistent attribution notices
  • terminatedBy content: Engineer A reaching a conclusion, after reviewing the NSPE Code of Ethics and the licensing board rules of both states, about whether the practice is unethical and whether an obligation to report applies
  • affectedParties content: Engineer A; Engineer B; XYZ Engineers; Prospective clients
  • confidence assessment: 0.88
  • urgencyLevel assessment: medium
changed
Two State Attribution Rules In Force
Regulatory Requirement State
Linked
Regulatory Requirement State
C19
Text References:
"presentations incidental to the solicitation of employment shall not misrepresent facts concerning employers, employees, associates, joint ventures or past accomplishments"
"any list of such projects must include, next to the specific project listing, detailed information naming the previous firm and the licensee’s specific involvement in the project"
Confidence: 0.93
State Class: Regulatory Requirement State
Subject: Licensees marketing engineering services in State Q and State Z
Active Period: While the State Q and State Z licensing board rules remain in force
Triggering Event: Enactment of the State Q and State Z licensing board rules governing presentations and attribution of prior-employer projects
Terminated By: Repeal or amendment of the rules
Affected Parties:
  • Engineer B
  • XYZ Engineers
  • Engineer A
  • Licensees in State Q and State Z
Urgency Level: medium
[facts] "The State Q Licensing Board Rules, patterned after the NCEES Model Rules, indicate in relevant part that “presentations incidental to the solicitation of employment shall not misrepresent facts concer..."
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • textReferences content: presentations incidental to the solicitation of employment shall not misrepresent facts concerning employers, employees, associates, joint ventures or past accomplishments; any list of such projects must include, next to the specific project listing, detailed information naming the previous firm and the licensee’s specific involvement in the project
  • stateClass content: Regulatory Requirement State
  • subject content: Licensees marketing engineering services in State Q and State Z
  • activePeriod content: While the State Q and State Z licensing board rules remain in force
  • triggeringEvent content: Enactment of the State Q and State Z licensing board rules governing presentations and attribution of prior-employer projects
  • terminatedBy content: Repeal or amendment of the rules
  • affectedParties content: Engineer B; XYZ Engineers; Engineer A; Licensees in State Q and State Z
  • confidence assessment: 0.93
  • urgencyLevel assessment: medium
changed
Mandatory Violation Reporting Requirement
Regulatory Requirement State
Linked
Regulatory Requirement State
C19
Text References:
"The Rules in both states require a licensee who has knowledge or reason to believe that a person or firm has violated those Rules to report such knowledge or belief to the Board of Licensure in writin..."
Confidence: 0.92
State Class: Regulatory Requirement State
Subject: Licensees in State Q and State Z who have knowledge or reason to believe a rules violation has occurred
Active Period: While the reporting rules of both states remain in force
Triggering Event: Enactment of the rules in both states requiring written reporting of knowledge or belief of a violation to the Board of Licensure
Terminated By: Repeal or amendment of the reporting rules
Affected Parties:
  • Engineer A
  • Licensees in State Q and State Z
  • Boards of Licensure in State Q and State Z
Urgency Level: medium
[facts] "The Rules in both states require a licensee who has knowledge or reason to believe that a person or firm has violated those Rules to report such knowledge or belief to the Board of Licensure in writin..."
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • textReferences content: The Rules in both states require a licensee who has knowledge or reason to believe that a person or firm has violated those Rules to report such knowledge or belief to the Board of Licensure in writing.
  • stateClass content: Regulatory Requirement State
  • subject content: Licensees in State Q and State Z who have knowledge or reason to believe a rules violation has occurred
  • activePeriod content: While the reporting rules of both states remain in force
  • triggeringEvent content: Enactment of the rules in both states requiring written reporting of knowledge or belief of a violation to the Board of Licensure
  • terminatedBy content: Repeal or amendment of the reporting rules
  • affectedParties content: Engineer A; Licensees in State Q and State Z; Boards of Licensure in State Q and State Z
  • confidence assessment: 0.92
  • urgencyLevel assessment: medium
changed
State Rule Specificity Variation
Jurisdictional Law Variability State
Review
Jurisdictional Law Variability State
C19
Text References:
"Engineer Q finds that the Rules in State Z, which have a long and unique legislative history, are much more specific"
Confidence: 0.85
State Class: Jurisdictional Law Variability State
Subject: The licensing rules of State Q and State Z governing attribution of prior-employer projects
Active Period: While the differing rules of the two states remain in force
Triggering Event: The two states adopted differing rules, State Q patterned after the NCEES Model Rules and State Z with a long and unique legislative history
Terminated By: Adoption of uniform rules on attribution of prior-employer projects
Affected Parties:
  • Engineer A
  • Engineer B
  • XYZ Engineers
Urgency Level: low
[facts] "Engineer Q finds that the Rules in State Z, which have a long and unique legislative history, are much more specific"
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • textReferences content: Engineer Q finds that the Rules in State Z, which have a long and unique legislative history, are much more specific
  • stateClass content: Jurisdictional Law Variability State
  • subject content: The licensing rules of State Q and State Z governing attribution of prior-employer projects
  • activePeriod content: While the differing rules of the two states remain in force
  • triggeringEvent content: The two states adopted differing rules, State Q patterned after the NCEES Model Rules and State Z with a long and unique legislative history
  • terminatedBy content: Adoption of uniform rules on attribution of prior-employer projects
  • affectedParties content: Engineer A; Engineer B; XYZ Engineers
  • confidence assessment: 0.85
  • urgencyLevel assessment: low
changed
Engineer B Prior Project Competence
Sufficient Competence State
Review
Sufficient Competence State
C19
Text References:
"Engineer B’s projects completed while in previous employment did not involve proprietary design concepts, and the capabilities of project team members on those projects were within Engineer B’s areas ..."
Confidence: 0.8
State Class: Sufficient Competence State
Subject: Engineer B with respect to the projects completed while in previous employment
Active Period: Standing condition established by Engineer B's prior employment history
Triggering Event: Engineer B's completion of prior projects in previous employment within Engineer B's areas of expertise
Affected Parties:
  • Engineer B
  • XYZ Engineers
  • Prospective clients
Urgency Level: low
[facts] "Engineer B’s projects completed while in previous employment did not involve proprietary design concepts, and the capabilities of project team members on those projects were within Engineer B’s areas ..."
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • textReferences content: Engineer B’s projects completed while in previous employment did not involve proprietary design concepts, and the capabilities of project team members on those projects were within Engineer B’s areas of expertise.
  • stateClass content: Sufficient Competence State
  • subject content: Engineer B with respect to the projects completed while in previous employment
  • activePeriod content: Standing condition established by Engineer B's prior employment history
  • triggeringEvent content: Engineer B's completion of prior projects in previous employment within Engineer B's areas of expertise
  • affectedParties content: Engineer B; XYZ Engineers; Prospective clients
  • confidence assessment: 0.8
  • urgencyLevel assessment: low
changed
XYZ Partial Attribution Disclosure
Selective Reporting State
Linked
Selective Reporting State
C19
Text References:
"However, while this notice appears to indicate an intent to provide transparency, this notice was not included in all paragraphs of the lengthy individual descriptions of those projects."
Confidence: 0.92
State Class: Selective Reporting State
Subject: XYZ Engineers' qualification statements identifying Engineer B's prior-employer projects
Active Period: While XYZ Engineers' qualification statements with the partial attribution notice accompany project proposals
Triggering Event: XYZ Engineers prepare qualification statements identifying Engineer B's prior-firm projects with an attribution notice at the beginning of the individual qualification section but not in all paragraphs
Terminated By: Revision of the qualification statements to carry the attribution notice through all paragraphs of the project descriptions
Affected Parties:
  • Prospective clients of XYZ Engineers
  • Engineer B
  • Engineer B's previous employer
Urgency Level: medium
[facts] "However, while this notice appears to indicate an intent to provide transparency, this notice was not included in all paragraphs of the lengthy individual descriptions of those projects."
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • textReferences content: However, while this notice appears to indicate an intent to provide transparency, this notice was not included in all paragraphs of the lengthy individual descriptions of those projects.
  • stateClass content: Selective Reporting State
  • subject content: XYZ Engineers' qualification statements identifying Engineer B's prior-employer projects
  • activePeriod content: While XYZ Engineers' qualification statements with the partial attribution notice accompany project proposals
  • triggeringEvent content: XYZ Engineers prepare qualification statements identifying Engineer B's prior-firm projects with an attribution notice at the beginning of the individual qualification section but not in all paragraphs
  • terminatedBy content: Revision of the qualification statements to carry the attribution notice through all paragraphs of the project descriptions
  • affectedParties content: Prospective clients of XYZ Engineers; Engineer B; Engineer B's previous employer
  • confidence assessment: 0.92
  • urgencyLevel assessment: medium

Rs Resources

Resources Classes
3
changed
ReferenceMaterial
rdfs:subClassOf Resources
Review
Reference Material
C19
Definition
Extracted from facts primary
Guides and model documents supporting professional practice, here the NCEES Model Rules that serve as a pattern for state licensing board rules.
Inherited from ReferenceMaterial · note
Handbooks, manuals, guides, and other documentation supporting professional practice with technical and procedural knowledge.
Properties
Text References:
"The State Q Licensing Board Rules, patterned after the NCEES Model Rules"
Confidence: 0.8
Resource Category: reference_material
[facts] "The State Q Licensing Board Rules, patterned after the NCEES Model Rules, indicate in relevant part that "presentations incidental to the solicitation of employment shall not misrepresent facts concer..."
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • textReferences content: The State Q Licensing Board Rules, patterned after the NCEES Model Rules
  • resourceCategory content: reference_material
  • confidence assessment: 0.8
changed
EthicalCode
rdfs:subClassOf Resources
Linked
Ethical Code
C19
Definition
Extracted from facts primary
A formal document that codifies ethical principles and professional conduct requirements for a profession, consulted by an engineer to evaluate whether a practice is ethical.
Inherited from EthicalCode · note
A formal document that codifies ethical principles and professional conduct requirements for a profession (e.g. the NSPE, IEEE, or ACM code of ethics). As a document (IAO:0000310 via Guideline) it contains principles, obligations, and constraints, and is itself a professional-knowledge Resource; it is not itself a principle.
Properties
Text References:
"Engineer A decides to review the NSPE Code of Ethics and the engineering licensing board law and rules of professional conduct in both states."
Confidence: 0.95
Resource Category: ethical_code
[facts] "Engineer A decides to review the NSPE Code of Ethics and the engineering licensing board law and rules of professional conduct in both states."
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • textReferences content: Engineer A decides to review the NSPE Code of Ethics and the engineering licensing board law and rules of professional conduct in both states.
  • resourceCategory content: ethical_code
  • confidence assessment: 0.95
changed
LegalResource
rdfs:subClassOf Resources
Linked
Legal Resource
C19
Definition
Extracted from facts primary
Laws, regulations, and statutes governing professional practice, here the state licensing board rules of professional conduct that establish requirements for representations in employment solicitations and for reporting violations.
Inherited from LegalResource · note
Laws, regulations, and statutes governing professional practice that establish legal boundaries and compliance requirements for professional activities.
Properties
Text References:
"The State Q Licensing Board Rules, patterned after the NCEES Model Rules, indicate in relevant part that "presentations incidental to the solicitation of employment shall not misrepresent facts concer..."
"the Rules in State Z, which have a long and unique legislative history, are much more specific"
Confidence: 0.95
Resource Category: legal_resource
[facts] "Engineer A decides to review the NSPE Code of Ethics and the engineering licensing board law and rules of professional conduct in both states."
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • textReferences content: The State Q Licensing Board Rules, patterned after the NCEES Model Rules, indicate in relevant part that "presentations incidental to the solicitation of employment shall not misrepresent facts concerning employers, employees, associates, joint ventures or past accomplishments"; the Rules in State Z, which have a long and unique legislative history, are much more specific
  • resourceCategory content: legal_resource
  • confidence assessment: 0.95
Resources Individuals
4
Linked
Legal Resource
C19
Text References:
"The State Q Licensing Board Rules, patterned after the NCEES Model Rules, indicate in relevant part that "presentations incidental to the solicitation of employment shall not misrepresent facts concer..."
"The Rules in both states require a licensee who has knowledge or reason to believe that a person or firm has violated those Rules to report such knowledge or belief to the Board of Licensure in writin..."
Confidence: 0.93
Resource Class: Legal Resource
Document Title: State Q Licensing Board Rules
Topic: misrepresentation of facts in presentations incidental to solicitation of employment, and reporting of rule violations
Used By: Engineer A
[facts] "The State Q Licensing Board Rules, patterned after the NCEES Model Rules, indicate in relevant part that "presentations incidental to the solicitation of employment shall not misrepresent facts concer..."
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • usedBy: Engineer A
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • textReferences content: The State Q Licensing Board Rules, patterned after the NCEES Model Rules, indicate in relevant part that "presentations incidental to the solicitation of employment shall not misrepresent facts concerning employers, employees, associates, joint ventures or past accomplishments".; The Rules in both states require a licensee who has knowledge or reason to believe that a person or firm has violated those Rules to report such knowledge or belief to the Board of Licensure in writing.
  • resourceClass content: Legal Resource
  • documentTitle content: State Q Licensing Board Rules
  • topic content: misrepresentation of facts in presentations incidental to solicitation of employment, and reporting of rule violations
  • confidence assessment: 0.93
NSPE Code of Ethics
Ethical Code
Linked
Ethical Code
C19
Text References:
"Engineer A decides to review the NSPE Code of Ethics and the engineering licensing board law and rules of professional conduct in both states."
"Engineer Q considers whether this proposal/marketing practice is unethical in accordance with the NSPE Code of Ethics"
Confidence: 0.95
Resource Class: Ethical Code
Document Title: NSPE Code of Ethics
Topic: ethical standards for engineering proposal and marketing practices
Used By: Engineer A
[facts] "Engineer A decides to review the NSPE Code of Ethics and the engineering licensing board law and rules of professional conduct in both states."
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • usedBy: Engineer A
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • textReferences content: Engineer A decides to review the NSPE Code of Ethics and the engineering licensing board law and rules of professional conduct in both states.; Engineer Q considers whether this proposal/marketing practice is unethical in accordance with the NSPE Code of Ethics
  • resourceClass content: Ethical Code
  • documentTitle content: NSPE Code of Ethics
  • topic content: ethical standards for engineering proposal and marketing practices
  • confidence assessment: 0.95
Linked
Legal Resource
C19
Text References:
"the Rules in State Z, which have a long and unique legislative history, are much more specific, indicating in part that "a licensee who has been an employee of another design firm may not claim uncond..."
"The Rules in both states require a licensee who has knowledge or reason to believe that a person or firm has violated those Rules to report such knowledge or belief to the Board of Licensure in writin..."
"“any list of such projects must include, next to the specific project listing, detailed information naming the previous firm and the licensee’s specific involvement in the project”"
Confidence: 0.93
Resource Class: Legal Resource
Document Title: State Z Licensing Board Rules
Topic: credit claims for design projects performed for a previous employer, and reporting of rule violations
Used By: Engineer A
[facts] "the Rules in State Z, which have a long and unique legislative history, are much more specific, indicating in part that "a licensee who has been an employee of another design firm may not claim uncond..."
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • usedBy: Engineer A
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • textReferences content: the Rules in State Z, which have a long and unique legislative history, are much more specific, indicating in part that "a licensee who has been an employee of another design firm may not claim unconditional credit for design projects contracted for in the name of a previous employer"; The Rules in both states require a licensee who has knowledge or reason to believe that a person or firm has violated those Rules to report such knowledge or belief to the Board of Licensure in writing.; “any list of such projects must include, next to the specific project listing, detailed information naming the previous firm and the licensee’s specific involvement in the project”
  • resourceClass content: Legal Resource
  • documentTitle content: State Z Licensing Board Rules
  • topic content: credit claims for design projects performed for a previous employer, and reporting of rule violations
  • confidence assessment: 0.93
NCEES Model Rules
Reference Material
Review
Reference Material
C19
Text References:
"The State Q Licensing Board Rules, patterned after the NCEES Model Rules"
Confidence: 0.75
Resource Class: Reference Material
Document Title: NCEES Model Rules
Topic: model rules for state engineering licensure boards
[facts] "The State Q Licensing Board Rules, patterned after the NCEES Model Rules, indicate in relevant part that "presentations incidental to the solicitation of employment shall not misrepresent facts concer..."
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • textReferences content: The State Q Licensing Board Rules, patterned after the NCEES Model Rules
  • resourceClass content: Reference Material
  • documentTitle content: NCEES Model Rules
  • topic content: model rules for state engineering licensure boards
  • confidence assessment: 0.75
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