The Board's conclusion that XYZ Engineers' practices were not unethical under the NSPE Code should be understood within the context of the Code's emphasis on intent and reasonable interpretation. Engineer B's inclusion of attribution notices at the beginning of qualification sections, while not repeated in every paragraph, demonstrates good faith compliance with the spirit of Code provision III.9 regarding giving credit for engineering work. The case illustrates that ethical compliance under the NSPE Code allows for reasonable professional judgment in disclosure practices, distinguishing between technical regulatory violations and fundamental ethical breaches.

The principle synthesis reveals that professional accountability operates differently across jurisdictional boundaries, creating a complex framework where Engineer A's reporting obligations vary based on the specific regulatory environment. The interaction between ProfessionalAccountability_BER02-11_Reporting and JurisdictionalSpecificity_StateComparison demonstrates that ethical obligations are not uniform across practice locations. This case establishes that while the NSPE Code provides consistent ethical guidance, the practical application of accountability principles must be calibrated to specific regulatory contexts, suggesting that professional responsibility includes understanding and navigating jurisdictional variance in ethical enforcement mechanisms.

Beyond the Board's finding that Engineer B's practices were not unethical, the case reveals a critical gap in how the NSPE Code addresses multi-jurisdictional practice. While Engineer B satisfied the general transparency requirements under Code provisions II.5 and II.5.a by identifying prior employers and clients, the case demonstrates that ethical compliance becomes contextually dependent on specific state regulations. This creates a professional dilemma where engineers must navigate between federal ethical standards and varying state-specific attribution requirements, suggesting the need for more explicit guidance in the Code regarding jurisdictional variance in professional conduct standards.

Addressing the implicit question about transparency standards in marketing materials (Q101), sufficient transparency requires clear identification of the source of claimed experience at the point where such experience is first introduced, but does not necessarily require repetitive attribution in every subsequent reference. The case demonstrates that transparency is achieved through reasonable notice that allows clients to understand the nature and source of claimed qualifications. However, when operating under State Z's more stringent attribution requirements, engineers must exceed general transparency standards and provide more detailed attribution to avoid regulatory violations, even if such practices would be ethically sufficient under the NSPE Code alone.

The case reveals a fundamental tension between regulatory compliance specificity and ethical principle flexibility that was resolved by recognizing the hierarchical relationship between professional ethics and regulatory requirements. The Board's analysis demonstrates that while the NSPE Code provides baseline ethical standards through principles of honesty and attribution, state-specific regulations may impose additional requirements that exceed ethical minimums. The synthesis shows that Transparency_XYZ_Proposals and Attribution_Requirement_StateZ operate at different levels - ethical sufficiency versus regulatory compliance - and that engineers must satisfy both standards simultaneously when practicing across jurisdictions.

The principle synthesis reveals that professional accountability operates differently across jurisdictional boundaries, creating a complex framework where Engineer A's reporting obligations vary based on the specific regulatory environment. The interaction between ProfessionalAccountability_BER02-11_Reporting and JurisdictionalSpecificity_StateComparison demonstrates that ethical obligations are not uniform across practice locations. This case establishes that while the NSPE Code provides consistent ethical guidance, the practical application of accountability principles must be calibrated to specific regulatory contexts, suggesting that professional responsibility includes understanding and navigating jurisdictional variance in ethical enforcement mechanisms.

The case reveals a fundamental tension between regulatory compliance specificity and ethical principle flexibility that was resolved by recognizing the hierarchical relationship between professional ethics and regulatory requirements. The Board's analysis demonstrates that while the NSPE Code provides baseline ethical standards through principles of honesty and attribution, state-specific regulations may impose additional requirements that exceed ethical minimums. The synthesis shows that Transparency_XYZ_Proposals and Attribution_Requirement_StateZ operate at different levels - ethical sufficiency versus regulatory compliance - and that engineers must satisfy both standards simultaneously when practicing across jurisdictions.

Responding to the theoretical question about deontological duties (Q301), Engineer B did fulfill their categorical duty to provide attribution under a reasonable interpretation of professional obligations. The deontological analysis reveals that the duty to attribute work is satisfied when attribution is clearly provided in a manner that reasonably informs clients of the source of claimed experience. The case demonstrates that deontological ethics in engineering practice must account for professional context and reasonable interpretation, rather than requiring rigid adherence to maximalist disclosure standards that could impair effective professional communication.