Beyond the Board's finding that Engineer K has an ethical obligation to act as a faithful agent or trustee, this obligation extends to ongoing stewardship responsibilities throughout the project lifecycle. The faithful agent duty requires Engineer K to continuously monitor whether the Traditional Approach remains aligned with the City's stated Climate Resilience Policy, particularly as new information emerges about environmental impacts on underserved communities. This creates a dynamic obligation that may require Engineer K to proactively communicate policy inconsistencies to the City, even after the decision has been made.

In response to the implicit question about environmental justice disclosure obligations (Q101), Engineer K had a clear ethical duty to transparently communicate the disproportionate impact on underserved communities during stakeholder meetings. The discovery of this impact after the meetings created a retroactive disclosure obligation under both the public welfare paramount duty and the dignity and fairness treatment principle. Engineer K should have immediately convened additional stakeholder sessions or formal communications to ensure affected communities could meaningfully participate in the decision-making process, as environmental justice considerations are integral to public welfare protection in infrastructure projects.

Beyond the Board's finding that Engineer K has an ethical obligation to act as a faithful agent or trustee, this obligation extends to ongoing stewardship responsibilities throughout the project lifecycle. The faithful agent duty requires Engineer K to continuously monitor whether the Traditional Approach remains aligned with the City's stated Climate Resilience Policy, particularly as new information emerges about environmental impacts on underserved communities. This creates a dynamic obligation that may require Engineer K to proactively communicate policy inconsistencies to the City, even after the decision has been made.

The tension between FaithfulAgent_CityTrust and PublicWelfare_FloodControl_Primary reveals a sophisticated principle hierarchy where faithful agency does not require abandoning public welfare advocacy, but rather channeling it through appropriate professional mechanisms. This case demonstrates that when client decisions potentially compromise long-term public welfare, the engineer's faithful agent duty transforms from simple compliance to active stewardship—ensuring the client fully understands ongoing risks and policy inconsistencies. The resolution suggests that faithful agency and public welfare protection are complementary rather than competing principles when the engineer maintains transparency and continues professional advocacy within the client relationship.

The interaction between Sustainability_EngineerK_Belief and Objectivity_Reporting demonstrates that professional objectivity does not require engineers to suppress their technical judgment, but rather to channel personal expertise through rigorous analytical frameworks. Engineer K's belief in the Sustainable Approach, grounded in professional competence in climate resilience and environmental impact assessment, represents informed technical judgment rather than mere personal preference. The case shows that objectivity is achieved not by eliminating professional judgment, but by ensuring that such judgment is transparently communicated, thoroughly documented, and presented alongside comprehensive analysis of alternatives—allowing clients to benefit from engineering expertise while maintaining decision-making authority.

Addressing the theoretical question about virtue ethics (Q303), Engineer K's continuation with the Traditional Approach after the City's decision represents a complex virtue ethics scenario where professional integrity requires balancing competing virtues. While practical wisdom (phronesis) suggests respecting legitimate client authority demonstrates the virtue of fidelity, the virtue of justice demands ongoing advocacy for vulnerable communities affected by the decision. The virtuous engineer in this situation would continue implementation while simultaneously exercising the virtue of courage by documenting concerns and proposing mitigation measures for environmental justice impacts, thus maintaining integrity without abandoning professional stewardship responsibilities.