{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/20#",
    "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/20#Action_Contacting_Competing_Engineer",
  "@type": "proeth:Action",
  "proeth-scenario:alternativeActions": [
    "Wait until contract ends to seek outside opinions",
    "Include Engineer B in technical discussions",
    "Use formal performance evaluation processes"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:characterMotivation": "Seeking information to evaluate current contractor performance and inform future contract decisions",
  "proeth-scenario:consequencesIfAlternative": [
    "More ethical but less information for decision-making",
    "Transparent process but potential confrontation",
    "Slower process but proper documentation and fairness"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:decisionSignificance": "Teaching moment about proper procurement processes and fair treatment of active contractors",
  "proeth-scenario:ethicalTension": "Due diligence in contractor evaluation vs. undermining active contractual relationships",
  "proeth-scenario:isDecisionPoint": true,
  "proeth-scenario:narrativeRole": "inciting_incident",
  "proeth-scenario:stakes": "Fair competition, contractor trust, procurement integrity, potential legal liability",
  "proeth:description": "City Administrator contacted Engineer C to question specific issues that Engineer B had worked on during the final year of Engineer B\u0027s active contract.",
  "proeth:foreseenUnintendedEffects": [
    "Creating competitive advantage for Engineer C"
  ],
  "proeth:fulfillsObligation": [
    "Due diligence for public interest"
  ],
  "proeth:guidedByPrinciple": [
    "Transparency",
    "Fair competition"
  ],
  "proeth:hasAgent": "City Administrator",
  "proeth:hasCompetingPriorities": {
    "@type": "proeth:CompetingPriorities",
    "proeth:priorityConflict": "Technical evaluation vs Fair competition",
    "proeth:resolutionReasoning": "Prioritized obtaining technical input over fair competitive process"
  },
  "proeth:hasMentalState": "deliberate",
  "proeth:intendedOutcome": "Obtain technical evaluation of current engineer\u0027s work",
  "proeth:requiresCapability": [
    "Administrative authority",
    "Contract management"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "Final year of Engineer B\u0027s contract",
  "proeth:violatesObligation": [
    "Fair dealing with current contractor"
  ],
  "proeth:withinCompetence": true,
  "rdfs:label": "Contacting Competing Engineer"
}

{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/20#",
    "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/20#Action_Criticizing_Competitor_s_Work",
  "@type": "proeth:Action",
  "proeth-scenario:alternativeActions": [
    "Decline to comment on competitor\u0027s work",
    "Provide only factual technical information without criticism",
    "Suggest the administrator speak directly with Engineer B"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:characterMotivation": "Saw opportunity to gain competitive advantage for upcoming contract by undermining current contractor",
  "proeth-scenario:consequencesIfAlternative": [
    "Maintains integrity but loses competitive advantage",
    "Provides help without undermining competitor",
    "Promotes transparency and fairness in evaluation"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:decisionSignificance": "Core teaching moment about professional ethics - how competitive pressures can compromise integrity",
  "proeth-scenario:ethicalTension": "Business opportunity vs. professional integrity and collegiality",
  "proeth-scenario:isDecisionPoint": true,
  "proeth-scenario:narrativeRole": "climax",
  "proeth-scenario:stakes": "Professional reputation, industry relationships, fairness in competition, potential damage to Engineer B\u0027s career and business",
  "proeth:description": "Engineer C responded to the City Administrator\u0027s questions by criticizing Engineer B\u0027s decisions, despite realizing this would provide competitive advantage for the upcoming contract.",
  "proeth:foreseenUnintendedEffects": [
    "Undermining Engineer B\u0027s reputation",
    "Unfair competitive advantage"
  ],
  "proeth:fulfillsObligation": [
    "Responding to client inquiry"
  ],
  "proeth:guidedByPrinciple": [
    "Professional solidarity",
    "Fair competition",
    "Integrity"
  ],
  "proeth:hasAgent": "Engineer C",
  "proeth:hasCompetingPriorities": {
    "@type": "proeth:CompetingPriorities",
    "proeth:priorityConflict": "Competitive advantage vs Professional ethics",
    "proeth:resolutionReasoning": "Prioritized competitive advantage over ethical obligations to fellow engineer"
  },
  "proeth:hasMentalState": "deliberate",
  "proeth:intendedOutcome": "Gain competitive advantage for next contract",
  "proeth:requiresCapability": [
    "Technical expertise to evaluate work",
    "Professional judgment"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "During questioning by City Administrator",
  "proeth:violatesObligation": [
    "Professional courtesy to other engineers",
    "Fair dealing with competitors",
    "Avoiding improper criticism"
  ],
  "proeth:withinCompetence": true,
  "rdfs:label": "Criticizing Competitor\u0027s Work"
}

{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/20#",
    "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/20#Action_Choosing_Specific_Commentary",
  "@type": "proeth:Action",
  "proeth-scenario:alternativeActions": [
    "Limit response to general industry standards",
    "Refuse to comment on specific projects",
    "Offer to provide input in a transparent forum with all parties present"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:characterMotivation": "Decided to provide detailed criticism to maximize competitive advantage and demonstrate superior knowledge",
  "proeth-scenario:consequencesIfAlternative": [
    "Less competitive advantage but maintains professional standards",
    "Preserves integrity and avoids potential conflicts",
    "Ensures fair and transparent evaluation process"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:decisionSignificance": "Teaching moment about the difference between legitimate competition and unethical business practices",
  "proeth-scenario:ethicalTension": "Demonstrating technical expertise vs. unfair competitive practices and professional courtesy",
  "proeth-scenario:isDecisionPoint": true,
  "proeth-scenario:narrativeRole": "rising_action",
  "proeth-scenario:stakes": "Specific project outcomes, detailed undermining of competitor\u0027s reputation, precedent for industry behavior",
  "proeth:description": "Engineer C chose to comment on specific technical issues rather than declining to comment or responding only in general terms.",
  "proeth:foreseenUnintendedEffects": [
    "Enhanced unfair advantage",
    "Greater harm to Engineer B"
  ],
  "proeth:fulfillsObligation": [
    "Thorough client service"
  ],
  "proeth:guidedByPrinciple": [
    "Professional restraint",
    "Collegial respect",
    "Fair competition"
  ],
  "proeth:hasAgent": "Engineer C",
  "proeth:hasCompetingPriorities": {
    "@type": "proeth:CompetingPriorities",
    "proeth:priorityConflict": "Maximizing competitive advantage vs Professional restraint",
    "proeth:resolutionReasoning": "Chose detailed critique to maximize competitive benefit despite ethical concerns"
  },
  "proeth:hasMentalState": "deliberate",
  "proeth:intendedOutcome": "Provide detailed critique to maximize competitive positioning",
  "proeth:requiresCapability": [
    "Technical analysis",
    "Professional communication",
    "Ethical judgment"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "During response to City Administrator",
  "proeth:violatesObligation": [
    "Professional discretion",
    "Avoiding detailed criticism without colleague\u0027s knowledge"
  ],
  "proeth:withinCompetence": true,
  "rdfs:label": "Choosing Specific Commentary"
}

{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/20#",
    "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/20#Event_Contract_Nearing_Expiration",
  "@type": "proeth:Event",
  "proeth-scenario:crisisIdentification": false,
  "proeth-scenario:discussionPrompts": [
    "How should professionals maintain ethical standards during competitive transitions?",
    "What safeguards should exist during contract renewal periods?"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:dramaticTension": "low",
  "proeth-scenario:emotionalImpact": "Anticipation and uncertainty for Engineer B about future; strategic interest from competitors; administrative planning pressure for City A",
  "proeth-scenario:ethicalImplications": "Sets stage for potential conflicts between competitive advantage and professional courtesy",
  "proeth-scenario:learningMoment": "Contract transitions create competitive environments that can compromise professional ethics",
  "proeth-scenario:narrativePacing": "slow_burn",
  "proeth-scenario:stakeholderConsequences": {
    "city_a": "Must evaluate contractor performance and consider alternatives",
    "engineer_b": "Job security uncertainty, need to maintain performance standards",
    "engineer_c": "Opportunity to compete for lucrative contract",
    "public": "Continuity of engineering services potentially affected"
  },
  "proeth:activatesConstraint": [
    "Ongoing_Professional_Duties",
    "Contractual_Obligations"
  ],
  "proeth:causesStateChange": "Contract enters renewal consideration phase; competitive environment activated",
  "proeth:createsObligation": [
    "Continued_Professional_Service",
    "Maintain_Contract_Terms"
  ],
  "proeth:description": "Engineer B\u0027s 3-year contract with City A enters its final year, creating natural transition period where contract renewal becomes a consideration.",
  "proeth:emergencyStatus": "routine",
  "proeth:eventType": "automatic_trigger",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "Final year of contract",
  "proeth:urgencyLevel": "low",
  "rdfs:label": "Contract Nearing Expiration"
}

{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/20#",
    "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/20#Event_Competitive_Intelligence_Opportunity",
  "@type": "proeth:Event",
  "proeth-scenario:crisisIdentification": false,
  "proeth-scenario:discussionPrompts": [
    "When does competitive intelligence become unethical in professional practice?",
    "What obligations exist when gaining privileged information about competitors?",
    "How should professionals balance competitive success with ethical standards?"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:dramaticTension": "medium",
  "proeth-scenario:emotionalImpact": "Temptation and moral conflict for Engineer C; vulnerability for unknowing Engineer B; potential manipulation felt by City Administrator",
  "proeth-scenario:ethicalImplications": "Reveals tension between competitive success and professional fairness; demonstrates how information asymmetry can compromise ethical competition",
  "proeth-scenario:learningMoment": "Information advantages in professional competition create ethical obligations about fair use",
  "proeth-scenario:narrativePacing": "escalation",
  "proeth-scenario:stakeholderConsequences": {
    "city_a": "May receive biased information affecting decision-making",
    "engineer_b": "Unknowingly disadvantaged in competitive situation",
    "engineer_c": "Faces ethical dilemma between competitive advantage and professional integrity",
    "engineering_profession": "Professional standards and trust potentially compromised"
  },
  "proeth:activatesConstraint": [
    "Professional_Courtesy",
    "Fair_Competition",
    "Confidentiality_Respect"
  ],
  "proeth:causedByAction": "http://proethica.org/cases/20#Action_Contacting_Competing_Engineer",
  "proeth:causesStateChange": "Information asymmetry created; competitive advantage opportunity established; ethical decision point activated",
  "proeth:createsObligation": [
    "Fair_Use_of_Information",
    "Professional_Discretion",
    "Ethical_Response_Required"
  ],
  "proeth:description": "Engineer C gains access to detailed information about competitor\u0027s work decisions while the competitor remains unaware, creating asymmetric information advantage.",
  "proeth:emergencyStatus": "medium",
  "proeth:eventType": "outcome",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "During City Administrator\u0027s questioning",
  "proeth:urgencyLevel": "medium",
  "rdfs:label": "Competitive Intelligence Opportunity"
}

{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/20#",
    "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/20#Event_Professional_Trust_Breach",
  "@type": "proeth:Event",
  "proeth-scenario:crisisIdentification": true,
  "proeth-scenario:discussionPrompts": [
    "What procedural safeguards should exist when professionals evaluate each other\u0027s work?",
    "How does unfair competition ultimately harm the entire profession?",
    "What are the long-term consequences of short-term competitive advantages gained unethically?"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:dramaticTension": "high",
  "proeth-scenario:emotionalImpact": "Betrayal and professional violation for Engineer B (when discovered); guilt or justification for Engineer C; decision-making burden for City Administrator",
  "proeth-scenario:ethicalImplications": "Demonstrates how competitive pressures can lead to violations of professional courtesy and fairness; shows the interconnection between individual ethics and professional community standards",
  "proeth-scenario:learningMoment": "Professional criticism without opportunity for response violates fundamental fairness and can damage both individual careers and professional standards",
  "proeth-scenario:narrativePacing": "crisis",
  "proeth-scenario:stakeholderConsequences": {
    "city_a": "Receiving potentially biased evaluation affecting critical infrastructure decisions",
    "engineer_b": "Professional reputation damaged, contract renewal jeopardized, trust in professional community shaken",
    "engineer_c": "Short-term competitive advantage gained at cost of professional integrity",
    "professional_community": "Standards of fair competition and collegial respect undermined"
  },
  "proeth:activatesConstraint": [
    "Professional_Fairness",
    "Due_Process",
    "Reputation_Protection"
  ],
  "proeth:causedByAction": "http://proethica.org/cases/20#Action_Criticizing_Competitor_s_Work",
  "proeth:causesStateChange": "Professional reputation under attack; competitive balance disrupted; unfair advantage established",
  "proeth:createsObligation": [
    "Notification_of_Criticism",
    "Opportunity_to_Respond",
    "Fair_Evaluation_Process"
  ],
  "proeth:description": "Engineer B\u0027s professional reputation becomes vulnerable to criticism while unable to respond or defend decisions, creating unfair competitive disadvantage.",
  "proeth:emergencyStatus": "high",
  "proeth:eventType": "outcome",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "Following Engineer C\u0027s critical response",
  "proeth:urgencyLevel": "high",
  "rdfs:label": "Professional Trust Breach"
}

{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/20#",
    "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/20#CausalChain_bee79cdd",
  "@type": "proeth:CausalChain",
  "proeth:causalLanguage": "Engineer B\u0027s 3-year contract with City A enters its final year, creating natural transition period which prompted the City Administrator to contact Engineer C",
  "proeth:causalSequence": [
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer B\u0027s 3-year contract enters final year",
      "proeth:element": "Contract Nearing Expiration",
      "proeth:step": 1
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "City Administrator reaches out to Engineer C for consultation",
      "proeth:element": "Contacting Competing Engineer",
      "proeth:step": 2
    }
  ],
  "proeth:cause": "Contract Nearing Expiration",
  "proeth:counterfactual": "Without contract nearing expiration, City Administrator would likely not have initiated contact with competitor",
  "proeth:effect": "Contacting Competing Engineer",
  "proeth:necessaryFactors": [
    "Contract expiration creating transition period",
    "City\u0027s need to evaluate alternatives",
    "Availability of competing engineer"
  ],
  "proeth:responsibilityType": "direct",
  "proeth:responsibleAgent": "City Administrator",
  "proeth:sufficientFactors": [
    "Combination of contract expiration + need for continuity planning"
  ],
  "proeth:withinAgentControl": true
}

{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/20#",
    "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/20#CausalChain_e94df2d7",
  "@type": "proeth:CausalChain",
  "proeth:causalLanguage": "City Administrator contacted Engineer C to question specific issues that Engineer B had worked on, which created the opportunity for Engineer C to gain detailed information about competitor\u0027s work",
  "proeth:causalSequence": [
    {
      "proeth:description": "City Administrator reaches out to Engineer C",
      "proeth:element": "Contacting Competing Engineer",
      "proeth:step": 1
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer C gains access to detailed information about Engineer B\u0027s work decisions",
      "proeth:element": "Competitive Intelligence Opportunity",
      "proeth:step": 2
    }
  ],
  "proeth:cause": "Contacting Competing Engineer",
  "proeth:counterfactual": "Without the contact and specific questioning, Engineer C would not have gained access to detailed competitor information",
  "proeth:effect": "Competitive Intelligence Opportunity",
  "proeth:necessaryFactors": [
    "Direct contact from City Administrator",
    "Discussion of specific technical issues",
    "Engineer B\u0027s work being subject of inquiry"
  ],
  "proeth:responsibilityType": "direct",
  "proeth:responsibleAgent": "City Administrator",
  "proeth:sufficientFactors": [
    "City Administrator sharing specific details about Engineer B\u0027s work with competitor"
  ],
  "proeth:withinAgentControl": true
}

{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/20#",
    "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/20#CausalChain_2cefda9e",
  "@type": "proeth:CausalChain",
  "proeth:causalLanguage": "Engineer C gains access to detailed information about competitor\u0027s work decisions while the competitor is unable to defend their position, which enabled Engineer C to respond by criticizing Engineer B\u0027s decisions",
  "proeth:causalSequence": [
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer C gains detailed information about Engineer B\u0027s work",
      "proeth:element": "Competitive Intelligence Opportunity",
      "proeth:step": 1
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer C decides to comment on specific technical issues",
      "proeth:element": "Choosing Specific Commentary",
      "proeth:step": 2
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer C provides criticism of Engineer B\u0027s decisions",
      "proeth:element": "Criticizing Competitor\u0027s Work",
      "proeth:step": 3
    }
  ],
  "proeth:cause": "Competitive Intelligence Opportunity",
  "proeth:counterfactual": "Without detailed knowledge of Engineer B\u0027s specific work, Engineer C could not have provided targeted criticism",
  "proeth:effect": "Criticizing Competitor\u0027s Work",
  "proeth:necessaryFactors": [
    "Access to competitor\u0027s work details",
    "Opportunity to comment without competitor present",
    "City Administrator\u0027s receptiveness to criticism"
  ],
  "proeth:responsibilityType": "direct",
  "proeth:responsibleAgent": "Engineer C",
  "proeth:sufficientFactors": [
    "Combination of competitive intelligence access + opportunity to influence without rebuttal"
  ],
  "proeth:withinAgentControl": true
}

{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/20#",
    "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/20#CausalChain_6d9eb90f",
  "@type": "proeth:CausalChain",
  "proeth:causalLanguage": "Engineer C responded by criticizing Engineer B\u0027s decisions, which made Engineer B\u0027s professional reputation vulnerable to criticism while unable to respond or defend their work",
  "proeth:causalSequence": [
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer C provides specific criticism of Engineer B\u0027s technical decisions",
      "proeth:element": "Criticizing Competitor\u0027s Work",
      "proeth:step": 1
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer B\u0027s professional reputation becomes vulnerable while unable to defend their work",
      "proeth:element": "Professional Trust Breach",
      "proeth:step": 2
    }
  ],
  "proeth:cause": "Criticizing Competitor\u0027s Work",
  "proeth:counterfactual": "Without the specific criticism, Engineer B\u0027s reputation would not have been compromised in this manner",
  "proeth:effect": "Professional Trust Breach",
  "proeth:necessaryFactors": [
    "Specific criticism of Engineer B\u0027s work",
    "Engineer B\u0027s absence from the discussion",
    "City Administrator\u0027s consideration of the criticism"
  ],
  "proeth:responsibilityType": "direct",
  "proeth:responsibleAgent": "Engineer C",
  "proeth:sufficientFactors": [
    "Targeted criticism delivered to client without opportunity for Engineer B to respond"
  ],
  "proeth:withinAgentControl": true
}