Enhanced Temporal Review

Overview View Extraction

Draft Continue to Step 4

Extraction Complete

Total Entities: 20

Actions: 7

Events: 3

Causal Chains: 3

Allen Relations: 6

Timeline: 10

Timeline Overview

Note: The timeline includes only actions and events with clear temporal markers that could be sequenced chronologically.

Timeline Elements: 10

Actions on Timeline: 7 (of 7 extracted)

Events on Timeline: 3 (of 3 extracted)

Temporal Markers

during planning phase 2 elements
after sessions completed 1 elements
after Engineer M's concerns 1 elements
immediate next step 1 elements
if first step fails 1 elements
if City takes no action 1 elements
During planning phase 1 elements
Following exclusion during planning phase 1 elements
As biased input patterns emerge 1 elements

Temporal Consistency Check

Valid

Extracted Actions (7)

Volitional professional decisions with intentions and ethical context

Description: Firm DBA scheduled public engagement sessions at times and locations difficult for Community P residents to attend, while making them accessible to Community Q residents who supported the highway routing.

Temporal Marker: during planning phase

Mental State: deliberate

Intended Outcome: Gather supportive feedback for preferred routing

Guided By Principles:

Client service

Required Capabilities:

Public engagement planning Community outreach

Within Competence: Yes

Scenario Metadata

Pedagogical context for interactive teaching scenarios

Character Motivation: Cost efficiency and convenience for firm operations, possibly influenced by unconscious bias or assumption that Community Q input was sufficient

Ethical Tension: Operational efficiency vs equitable public participation and environmental justice

Learning Significance: Demonstrates how seemingly procedural decisions can systematically exclude affected communities and perpetuate inequity

Stakes: Community P's ability to influence decisions affecting their neighborhood, legitimacy of public engagement process, potential environmental justice violations

Decision Point: Yes - Story can branch here

Alternative Actions:

Conduct accessibility analysis before scheduling
Use multiple meeting formats and times
Partner with Community P organizations for venue selection

Narrative Role: inciting_incident

RDF JSON-LD

{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/5#",
    "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/5#Action_Inaccessible_Meeting_Scheduling",
  "@type": "proeth:Action",
  "proeth-scenario:alternativeActions": [
    "Conduct accessibility analysis before scheduling",
    "Use multiple meeting formats and times",
    "Partner with Community P organizations for venue selection"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:characterMotivation": "Cost efficiency and convenience for firm operations, possibly influenced by unconscious bias or assumption that Community Q input was sufficient",
  "proeth-scenario:consequencesIfAlternative": [
    "Higher costs but truly representative input",
    "Broader participation revealing different concerns",
    "Stronger community relationships and trust"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:decisionSignificance": "Demonstrates how seemingly procedural decisions can systematically exclude affected communities and perpetuate inequity",
  "proeth-scenario:ethicalTension": "Operational efficiency vs equitable public participation and environmental justice",
  "proeth-scenario:isDecisionPoint": true,
  "proeth-scenario:narrativeRole": "inciting_incident",
  "proeth-scenario:stakes": "Community P\u0027s ability to influence decisions affecting their neighborhood, legitimacy of public engagement process, potential environmental justice violations",
  "proeth:description": "Firm DBA scheduled public engagement sessions at times and locations difficult for Community P residents to attend, while making them accessible to Community Q residents who supported the highway routing.",
  "proeth:foreseenUnintendedEffects": [
    "Exclusion of affected community"
  ],
  "proeth:guidedByPrinciple": [
    "Client service"
  ],
  "proeth:hasAgent": "Firm DBA (Consulting firm)",
  "proeth:hasCompetingPriorities": {
    "@type": "proeth:CompetingPriorities",
    "proeth:priorityConflict": "Client preferences vs Community access",
    "proeth:resolutionReasoning": "Prioritized project advancement over inclusive engagement"
  },
  "proeth:hasMentalState": "deliberate",
  "proeth:intendedOutcome": "Gather supportive feedback for preferred routing",
  "proeth:requiresCapability": [
    "Public engagement planning",
    "Community outreach"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "during planning phase",
  "proeth:violatesObligation": [
    "Public welfare",
    "Honest communication",
    "Fair representation"
  ],
  "proeth:withinCompetence": true,
  "rdfs:label": "Inaccessible Meeting Scheduling"
}

Description: Firm DBA decided not to provide alternative comment methods such as written submissions or virtual meetings that would have been more accessible to Community P residents.

Temporal Marker: during planning phase

Mental State: deliberate

Intended Outcome: Control scope and nature of public input

Guided By Principles:

Efficiency
Project control

Required Capabilities:

Digital platform management Administrative coordination

Within Competence: Yes

Scenario Metadata

Pedagogical context for interactive teaching scenarios

Character Motivation: Desire to minimize project costs and administrative burden while meeting minimum legal requirements for public engagement

Ethical Tension: Cost control and efficiency vs meaningful public participation and inclusion

Learning Significance: Shows how narrow interpretation of engagement requirements can undermine the spirit of public participation

Stakes: Depth and breadth of community input, project legitimacy, compliance with environmental justice principles

Decision Point: Yes - Story can branch here

Alternative Actions:

Implement multiple engagement channels proactively
Conduct community needs assessment for preferred engagement methods
Extend engagement timeline to allow multiple formats

Narrative Role: rising_action

RDF JSON-LD

{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/5#",
    "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/5#Action_Limited_Engagement_Methods",
  "@type": "proeth:Action",
  "proeth-scenario:alternativeActions": [
    "Implement multiple engagement channels proactively",
    "Conduct community needs assessment for preferred engagement methods",
    "Extend engagement timeline to allow multiple formats"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:characterMotivation": "Desire to minimize project costs and administrative burden while meeting minimum legal requirements for public engagement",
  "proeth-scenario:consequencesIfAlternative": [
    "More comprehensive input revealing routing concerns",
    "Stronger community buy-in and trust",
    "Potential project delays but better long-term outcomes"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:decisionSignificance": "Shows how narrow interpretation of engagement requirements can undermine the spirit of public participation",
  "proeth-scenario:ethicalTension": "Cost control and efficiency vs meaningful public participation and inclusion",
  "proeth-scenario:isDecisionPoint": true,
  "proeth-scenario:narrativeRole": "rising_action",
  "proeth-scenario:stakes": "Depth and breadth of community input, project legitimacy, compliance with environmental justice principles",
  "proeth:description": "Firm DBA decided not to provide alternative comment methods such as written submissions or virtual meetings that would have been more accessible to Community P residents.",
  "proeth:foreseenUnintendedEffects": [
    "Reduced community participation"
  ],
  "proeth:guidedByPrinciple": [
    "Efficiency",
    "Project control"
  ],
  "proeth:hasAgent": "Firm DBA (Consulting firm)",
  "proeth:hasCompetingPriorities": {
    "@type": "proeth:CompetingPriorities",
    "proeth:priorityConflict": "Process efficiency vs Accessibility",
    "proeth:resolutionReasoning": "Minimized engagement scope to reduce complexity"
  },
  "proeth:hasMentalState": "deliberate",
  "proeth:intendedOutcome": "Control scope and nature of public input",
  "proeth:requiresCapability": [
    "Digital platform management",
    "Administrative coordination"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "during planning phase",
  "proeth:violatesObligation": [
    "Public welfare",
    "Inclusive practice",
    "Democratic participation"
  ],
  "proeth:withinCompetence": true,
  "rdfs:label": "Limited Engagement Methods"
}

Description: Engineer M expressed concerns to Firm DBA about the adequacy and fairness of the public outreach process after the engagement sessions were completed.

Temporal Marker: after sessions completed

Mental State: deliberate

Intended Outcome: Address process deficiencies and protect public interest

Fulfills Obligations:

Public welfare protection
Professional integrity
Honest communication

Guided By Principles:

Public safety paramount
Professional responsibility

Required Capabilities:

Ethical judgment Professional communication

Within Competence: Yes

Scenario Metadata

Pedagogical context for interactive teaching scenarios

Character Motivation: Professional responsibility to ensure adequate public engagement and protect public welfare, concern about potential bias in the process

Ethical Tension: Professional duty to speak up vs maintaining working relationships and project momentum

Learning Significance: Illustrates the importance of engineers monitoring and challenging inadequate processes even when not directly responsible

Stakes: Engineer M's professional integrity, quality of decision-making process, Community P's representation

Decision Point: Yes - Story can branch here

Alternative Actions:

Document concerns privately but take no action
Raise concerns directly with the City instead of Firm DBA
Demand immediate re-engagement with Community P

Narrative Role: rising_action

RDF JSON-LD

{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/5#",
    "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/5#Action_Ethical_Concern_Raising",
  "@type": "proeth:Action",
  "proeth-scenario:alternativeActions": [
    "Document concerns privately but take no action",
    "Raise concerns directly with the City instead of Firm DBA",
    "Demand immediate re-engagement with Community P"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:characterMotivation": "Professional responsibility to ensure adequate public engagement and protect public welfare, concern about potential bias in the process",
  "proeth-scenario:consequencesIfAlternative": [
    "Potential complicity in flawed process",
    "Bypassing proper communication channels",
    "Project delays but more equitable process"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:decisionSignificance": "Illustrates the importance of engineers monitoring and challenging inadequate processes even when not directly responsible",
  "proeth-scenario:ethicalTension": "Professional duty to speak up vs maintaining working relationships and project momentum",
  "proeth-scenario:isDecisionPoint": true,
  "proeth-scenario:narrativeRole": "rising_action",
  "proeth-scenario:stakes": "Engineer M\u0027s professional integrity, quality of decision-making process, Community P\u0027s representation",
  "proeth:description": "Engineer M expressed concerns to Firm DBA about the adequacy and fairness of the public outreach process after the engagement sessions were completed.",
  "proeth:foreseenUnintendedEffects": [
    "Project delays",
    "Professional tension"
  ],
  "proeth:fulfillsObligation": [
    "Public welfare protection",
    "Professional integrity",
    "Honest communication"
  ],
  "proeth:guidedByPrinciple": [
    "Public safety paramount",
    "Professional responsibility"
  ],
  "proeth:hasAgent": "Engineer M (City-retained engineer)",
  "proeth:hasCompetingPriorities": {
    "@type": "proeth:CompetingPriorities",
    "proeth:priorityConflict": "Professional harmony vs Ethical duty",
    "proeth:resolutionReasoning": "Prioritized ethical obligations over professional convenience"
  },
  "proeth:hasMentalState": "deliberate",
  "proeth:intendedOutcome": "Address process deficiencies and protect public interest",
  "proeth:requiresCapability": [
    "Ethical judgment",
    "Professional communication"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "after sessions completed",
  "proeth:withinCompetence": true,
  "rdfs:label": "Ethical Concern Raising"
}

Description: Firm DBA prepared a carefully-framed report that omitted key details about the engagement process limitations while claiming consistency with City instructions.

Temporal Marker: after Engineer M's concerns

Mental State: deliberate

Intended Outcome: Avoid project disruption and maintain client relationship

Guided By Principles:

Client loyalty
Self-preservation

Required Capabilities:

Technical writing Strategic communication

Within Competence: Yes

Scenario Metadata

Pedagogical context for interactive teaching scenarios

Character Motivation: Self-preservation and reputation protection, desire to meet client expectations while deflecting responsibility for inadequate engagement

Ethical Tension: Client satisfaction and business interests vs honesty and transparency about process limitations

Learning Significance: Demonstrates how technical language and selective reporting can obscure ethical failures and mislead decision-makers

Stakes: Integrity of the decision-making process, Engineer M's professional standing, Community P's future, public trust in engineering profession

Decision Point: Yes - Story can branch here

Alternative Actions:

Acknowledge engagement limitations and recommend additional outreach
Refuse to submit report until process is corrected
Include dissenting opinion from Engineer M in the report

Narrative Role: climax

RDF JSON-LD

{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/5#",
    "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/5#Action_Misleading_Report_Preparation",
  "@type": "proeth:Action",
  "proeth-scenario:alternativeActions": [
    "Acknowledge engagement limitations and recommend additional outreach",
    "Refuse to submit report until process is corrected",
    "Include dissenting opinion from Engineer M in the report"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:characterMotivation": "Self-preservation and reputation protection, desire to meet client expectations while deflecting responsibility for inadequate engagement",
  "proeth-scenario:consequencesIfAlternative": [
    "Client disappointment but maintained integrity",
    "Project delays but ethical compliance",
    "Transparent disagreement allowing informed City decision"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:decisionSignificance": "Demonstrates how technical language and selective reporting can obscure ethical failures and mislead decision-makers",
  "proeth-scenario:ethicalTension": "Client satisfaction and business interests vs honesty and transparency about process limitations",
  "proeth-scenario:isDecisionPoint": true,
  "proeth-scenario:narrativeRole": "climax",
  "proeth-scenario:stakes": "Integrity of the decision-making process, Engineer M\u0027s professional standing, Community P\u0027s future, public trust in engineering profession",
  "proeth:description": "Firm DBA prepared a carefully-framed report that omitted key details about the engagement process limitations while claiming consistency with City instructions.",
  "proeth:foreseenUnintendedEffects": [
    "Misrepresentation of public input",
    "Potential future exposure"
  ],
  "proeth:guidedByPrinciple": [
    "Client loyalty",
    "Self-preservation"
  ],
  "proeth:hasAgent": "Firm DBA (Consulting firm)",
  "proeth:hasCompetingPriorities": {
    "@type": "proeth:CompetingPriorities",
    "proeth:priorityConflict": "Business interests vs Professional honesty",
    "proeth:resolutionReasoning": "Prioritized business relationship over complete transparency"
  },
  "proeth:hasMentalState": "deliberate",
  "proeth:intendedOutcome": "Avoid project disruption and maintain client relationship",
  "proeth:requiresCapability": [
    "Technical writing",
    "Strategic communication"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "after Engineer M\u0027s concerns",
  "proeth:violatesObligation": [
    "Honest communication",
    "Public welfare",
    "Professional integrity"
  ],
  "proeth:withinCompetence": true,
  "rdfs:label": "Misleading Report Preparation"
}

Description: Engineer M should immediately confer with Firm DBA to address the misleading report and demand corrections to accurately represent the public engagement process.

Temporal Marker: immediate next step

Mental State: deliberate

Intended Outcome: Correct misrepresentations and restore process integrity

Fulfills Obligations:

Public welfare protection
Professional integrity
Due process

Guided By Principles:

Public safety paramount
Professional collegiality

Required Capabilities:

Negotiation skills Technical expertise Professional communication

Within Competence: Yes

Scenario Metadata

Pedagogical context for interactive teaching scenarios

Character Motivation: Professional duty to correct misinformation and ensure accurate representation of public engagement, responsibility to protect public welfare

Ethical Tension: Maintaining professional relationships vs confronting misconduct and demanding accountability

Learning Significance: Shows the importance of direct professional communication as first step in addressing ethical concerns

Stakes: Accuracy of project documentation, Engineer M's professional relationships, potential for internal resolution

Decision Point: Yes - Story can branch here

Alternative Actions:

Go directly to the City without confronting Firm DBA
Document concerns but take no immediate action
Demand to be removed from the project

Narrative Role: falling_action

RDF JSON-LD

{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/5#",
    "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/5#Action_Direct_Firm_Conference",
  "@type": "proeth:Action",
  "proeth-scenario:alternativeActions": [
    "Go directly to the City without confronting Firm DBA",
    "Document concerns but take no immediate action",
    "Demand to be removed from the project"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:characterMotivation": "Professional duty to correct misinformation and ensure accurate representation of public engagement, responsibility to protect public welfare",
  "proeth-scenario:consequencesIfAlternative": [
    "Damaged professional relationships but faster resolution",
    "Continued complicity in misleading reporting",
    "Lost opportunity to influence outcome but protected reputation"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:decisionSignificance": "Shows the importance of direct professional communication as first step in addressing ethical concerns",
  "proeth-scenario:ethicalTension": "Maintaining professional relationships vs confronting misconduct and demanding accountability",
  "proeth-scenario:isDecisionPoint": true,
  "proeth-scenario:narrativeRole": "falling_action",
  "proeth-scenario:stakes": "Accuracy of project documentation, Engineer M\u0027s professional relationships, potential for internal resolution",
  "proeth:description": "Engineer M should immediately confer with Firm DBA to address the misleading report and demand corrections to accurately represent the public engagement process.",
  "proeth:foreseenUnintendedEffects": [
    "Professional confrontation",
    "Project delays"
  ],
  "proeth:fulfillsObligation": [
    "Public welfare protection",
    "Professional integrity",
    "Due process"
  ],
  "proeth:guidedByPrinciple": [
    "Public safety paramount",
    "Professional collegiality"
  ],
  "proeth:hasAgent": "Engineer M (City-retained engineer)",
  "proeth:hasCompetingPriorities": {
    "@type": "proeth:CompetingPriorities",
    "proeth:priorityConflict": "Relationship preservation vs Truth telling",
    "proeth:resolutionReasoning": "Attempt collaborative resolution before escalation"
  },
  "proeth:hasMentalState": "deliberate",
  "proeth:intendedOutcome": "Correct misrepresentations and restore process integrity",
  "proeth:requiresCapability": [
    "Negotiation skills",
    "Technical expertise",
    "Professional communication"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "immediate next step",
  "proeth:withinCompetence": true,
  "rdfs:label": "Direct Firm Conference"
}

Description: Engineer M should confer with the City if Firm DBA refuses to make corrections, involving the client authority to address the misrepresentation and process deficiencies.

Temporal Marker: if first step fails

Mental State: conditional deliberate

Intended Outcome: Ensure accurate reporting and proper public engagement through client intervention

Fulfills Obligations:

Public welfare protection
Client service
Professional integrity

Guided By Principles:

Public safety paramount
Proper authority channels

Required Capabilities:

Client communication Issue documentation Professional judgment

Within Competence: Yes

Scenario Metadata

Pedagogical context for interactive teaching scenarios

Character Motivation: Escalation to client authority when direct communication fails, duty to ensure client has accurate information for decision-making

Ethical Tension: Loyalty to consulting team vs obligation to client and public interest

Learning Significance: Demonstrates appropriate escalation when internal resolution fails, showing engineers' duty to clients extends beyond immediate employers

Stakes: City's ability to make informed decisions, project credibility, Engineer M's professional relationships and future work opportunities

Decision Point: Yes - Story can branch here

Alternative Actions:

Accept Firm DBA's refusal and document concerns privately
Threaten regulatory reporting to pressure Firm DBA
Resign from project in protest

Narrative Role: falling_action

RDF JSON-LD

{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/5#",
    "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/5#Action_City_Authority_Involvement",
  "@type": "proeth:Action",
  "proeth-scenario:alternativeActions": [
    "Accept Firm DBA\u0027s refusal and document concerns privately",
    "Threaten regulatory reporting to pressure Firm DBA",
    "Resign from project in protest"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:characterMotivation": "Escalation to client authority when direct communication fails, duty to ensure client has accurate information for decision-making",
  "proeth-scenario:consequencesIfAlternative": [
    "Continued misinformation influencing City decisions",
    "Possible resolution but damaged relationships",
    "Clear conscience but lost influence over outcome"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:decisionSignificance": "Demonstrates appropriate escalation when internal resolution fails, showing engineers\u0027 duty to clients extends beyond immediate employers",
  "proeth-scenario:ethicalTension": "Loyalty to consulting team vs obligation to client and public interest",
  "proeth-scenario:isDecisionPoint": true,
  "proeth-scenario:narrativeRole": "falling_action",
  "proeth-scenario:stakes": "City\u0027s ability to make informed decisions, project credibility, Engineer M\u0027s professional relationships and future work opportunities",
  "proeth:description": "Engineer M should confer with the City if Firm DBA refuses to make corrections, involving the client authority to address the misrepresentation and process deficiencies.",
  "proeth:foreseenUnintendedEffects": [
    "Contract disputes",
    "Project complications"
  ],
  "proeth:fulfillsObligation": [
    "Public welfare protection",
    "Client service",
    "Professional integrity"
  ],
  "proeth:guidedByPrinciple": [
    "Public safety paramount",
    "Proper authority channels"
  ],
  "proeth:hasAgent": "Engineer M (City-retained engineer)",
  "proeth:hasCompetingPriorities": {
    "@type": "proeth:CompetingPriorities",
    "proeth:priorityConflict": "Industry relationships vs Public accountability",
    "proeth:resolutionReasoning": "Escalate when collaboration fails to protect public interest"
  },
  "proeth:hasMentalState": "conditional deliberate",
  "proeth:intendedOutcome": "Ensure accurate reporting and proper public engagement through client intervention",
  "proeth:requiresCapability": [
    "Client communication",
    "Issue documentation",
    "Professional judgment"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "if first step fails",
  "proeth:withinCompetence": true,
  "rdfs:label": "City Authority Involvement"
}

Description: Engineer M should report Firm DBA to the state licensing board if the City takes no action, pursuing regulatory enforcement to address professional misconduct.

Temporal Marker: if City takes no action

Mental State: conditional deliberate

Intended Outcome: Professional accountability and prevention of future misconduct

Fulfills Obligations:

Professional integrity
Public welfare protection
Professional standards enforcement

Guided By Principles:

Public safety paramount
Professional accountability

Required Capabilities:

Regulatory knowledge Documentation skills Formal complaint preparation

Within Competence: Yes

Scenario Metadata

Pedagogical context for interactive teaching scenarios

Character Motivation: Last resort to address professional misconduct when internal and client-level interventions fail, duty to protect profession's integrity and public welfare

Ethical Tension: Professional solidarity vs regulatory enforcement and public protection

Learning Significance: Illustrates when and why engineers must use regulatory mechanisms to address misconduct, despite personal and professional costs

Stakes: Professional accountability, public trust in engineering profession, Engineer M's career prospects, precedent for future similar situations

Narrative Role: resolution

RDF JSON-LD

{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/5#",
    "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/5#Action_Licensing_Board_Reporting",
  "@type": "proeth:Action",
  "proeth-scenario:alternativeActions": [
    "Accept the situation and move on",
    "Seek resolution through professional engineering organization"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:characterMotivation": "Last resort to address professional misconduct when internal and client-level interventions fail, duty to protect profession\u0027s integrity and public welfare",
  "proeth-scenario:consequencesIfAlternative": [
    "Precedent that such conduct is acceptable",
    "Professional guidance but potentially no enforcement action"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:decisionSignificance": "Illustrates when and why engineers must use regulatory mechanisms to address misconduct, despite personal and professional costs",
  "proeth-scenario:ethicalTension": "Professional solidarity vs regulatory enforcement and public protection",
  "proeth-scenario:isDecisionPoint": false,
  "proeth-scenario:narrativeRole": "resolution",
  "proeth-scenario:stakes": "Professional accountability, public trust in engineering profession, Engineer M\u0027s career prospects, precedent for future similar situations",
  "proeth:description": "Engineer M should report Firm DBA to the state licensing board if the City takes no action, pursuing regulatory enforcement to address professional misconduct.",
  "proeth:foreseenUnintendedEffects": [
    "Professional retaliation",
    "Industry reputation impact"
  ],
  "proeth:fulfillsObligation": [
    "Professional integrity",
    "Public welfare protection",
    "Professional standards enforcement"
  ],
  "proeth:guidedByPrinciple": [
    "Public safety paramount",
    "Professional accountability"
  ],
  "proeth:hasAgent": "Engineer M (City-retained engineer)",
  "proeth:hasCompetingPriorities": {
    "@type": "proeth:CompetingPriorities",
    "proeth:priorityConflict": "Professional community vs Public protection",
    "proeth:resolutionReasoning": "Final escalation necessary when other remedies fail"
  },
  "proeth:hasMentalState": "conditional deliberate",
  "proeth:intendedOutcome": "Professional accountability and prevention of future misconduct",
  "proeth:requiresCapability": [
    "Regulatory knowledge",
    "Documentation skills",
    "Formal complaint preparation"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "if City takes no action",
  "proeth:withinCompetence": true,
  "rdfs:label": "Licensing Board Reporting"
}

Extracted Events (3)

Occurrences that trigger ethical considerations and state changes

Description: Community P residents are effectively excluded from public engagement process due to inaccessible meeting locations and timing, resulting in their voices being absent from project planning.

Temporal Marker: During planning phase

Activates Constraints:

Public_Participation_Requirements
Environmental_Justice_Considerations

Scenario Metadata

Pedagogical context for interactive teaching scenarios

Emotional Impact: Frustration and anger for Community P residents; satisfaction for Community Q supporters; ethical discomfort for Engineer M; potential defensiveness from Firm DBA

Stakeholder Consequences:

community_p: Loss of voice in decisions affecting their neighborhood, potential negative project impacts without input
community_q: Disproportionate influence over project affecting another community
engineer_m: Professional ethical dilemma, potential complicity in unjust process
firm_dba: Potential reputation damage, professional ethics violations

Learning Moment: Demonstrates how procedural barriers can create substantive injustices; shows importance of meaningful public participation

Ethical Implications: Reveals tension between efficient consultation and genuine participation; demonstrates environmental justice concerns; shows how procedural fairness affects substantive outcomes

Discussion Prompts:

What constitutes truly inclusive public engagement?
How do accessibility barriers affect engineering project legitimacy?
What obligations do engineers have when they observe exclusionary processes?

Tension: medium Pacing: escalation

RDF JSON-LD

{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/5#",
    "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/5#Event_Community_P_Exclusion",
  "@type": "proeth:Event",
  "proeth-scenario:crisisIdentification": false,
  "proeth-scenario:discussionPrompts": [
    "What constitutes truly inclusive public engagement?",
    "How do accessibility barriers affect engineering project legitimacy?",
    "What obligations do engineers have when they observe exclusionary processes?"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:dramaticTension": "medium",
  "proeth-scenario:emotionalImpact": "Frustration and anger for Community P residents; satisfaction for Community Q supporters; ethical discomfort for Engineer M; potential defensiveness from Firm DBA",
  "proeth-scenario:ethicalImplications": "Reveals tension between efficient consultation and genuine participation; demonstrates environmental justice concerns; shows how procedural fairness affects substantive outcomes",
  "proeth-scenario:learningMoment": "Demonstrates how procedural barriers can create substantive injustices; shows importance of meaningful public participation",
  "proeth-scenario:narrativePacing": "escalation",
  "proeth-scenario:stakeholderConsequences": {
    "community_p": "Loss of voice in decisions affecting their neighborhood, potential negative project impacts without input",
    "community_q": "Disproportionate influence over project affecting another community",
    "engineer_m": "Professional ethical dilemma, potential complicity in unjust process",
    "firm_dba": "Potential reputation damage, professional ethics violations"
  },
  "proeth:activatesConstraint": [
    "Public_Participation_Requirements",
    "Environmental_Justice_Considerations"
  ],
  "proeth:causedByAction": "http://proethica.org/cases/5#Action_Inaccessible_Meeting_Scheduling",
  "proeth:causesStateChange": "Public engagement process becomes non-representative; project decisions lack input from most affected community",
  "proeth:createsObligation": [
    "Ensure_Representative_Input",
    "Address_Access_Barriers"
  ],
  "proeth:description": "Community P residents are effectively excluded from public engagement process due to inaccessible meeting locations and timing, resulting in their voices being absent from project planning.",
  "proeth:emergencyStatus": "medium",
  "proeth:eventType": "outcome",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "During planning phase",
  "proeth:urgencyLevel": "medium",
  "rdfs:label": "Community P Exclusion"
}

Description: Public engagement process produces systematically biased input favoring routing through Community P, as only supporters from Community Q participate effectively in the consultation.

Temporal Marker: Following exclusion during planning phase

Activates Constraints:

Data_Integrity_Requirements
Representative_Analysis_Standards

Scenario Metadata

Pedagogical context for interactive teaching scenarios

Emotional Impact: Growing concern for Engineer M; confidence for Community Q; mounting frustration for Community P; potential anxiety for City officials

Stakeholder Consequences:

project_integrity: Decision-making based on non-representative data
community_p: Risk of adverse decisions made without their input
engineer_m: Professional obligation to address biased foundation
city: Risk of illegitimate and potentially challengeable project decisions

Learning Moment: Shows how exclusion creates cascading data integrity problems; demonstrates interconnection of procedural fairness and technical validity

Ethical Implications: Demonstrates connection between social justice and technical integrity; reveals how procedural flaws compromise professional analysis; shows cumulative effect of exclusionary practices

Discussion Prompts:

How do biased inputs affect engineering analysis validity?
What professional obligations arise when data sources are compromised?
How should engineers respond to systematically flawed consultation processes?

Tension: medium Pacing: escalation

RDF JSON-LD

{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/5#",
    "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/5#Event_Biased_Input_Generation",
  "@type": "proeth:Event",
  "proeth-scenario:crisisIdentification": false,
  "proeth-scenario:discussionPrompts": [
    "How do biased inputs affect engineering analysis validity?",
    "What professional obligations arise when data sources are compromised?",
    "How should engineers respond to systematically flawed consultation processes?"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:dramaticTension": "medium",
  "proeth-scenario:emotionalImpact": "Growing concern for Engineer M; confidence for Community Q; mounting frustration for Community P; potential anxiety for City officials",
  "proeth-scenario:ethicalImplications": "Demonstrates connection between social justice and technical integrity; reveals how procedural flaws compromise professional analysis; shows cumulative effect of exclusionary practices",
  "proeth-scenario:learningMoment": "Shows how exclusion creates cascading data integrity problems; demonstrates interconnection of procedural fairness and technical validity",
  "proeth-scenario:narrativePacing": "escalation",
  "proeth-scenario:stakeholderConsequences": {
    "city": "Risk of illegitimate and potentially challengeable project decisions",
    "community_p": "Risk of adverse decisions made without their input",
    "engineer_m": "Professional obligation to address biased foundation",
    "project_integrity": "Decision-making based on non-representative data"
  },
  "proeth:activatesConstraint": [
    "Data_Integrity_Requirements",
    "Representative_Analysis_Standards"
  ],
  "proeth:causedByAction": "http://proethica.org/cases/5#Action_Limited_Engagement_Methods",
  "proeth:causesStateChange": "Project consultation data becomes systematically biased; decision-making foundation compromised",
  "proeth:createsObligation": [
    "Correct_Bias_In_Data",
    "Seek_Missing_Perspectives",
    "Acknowledge_Limitations"
  ],
  "proeth:description": "Public engagement process produces systematically biased input favoring routing through Community P, as only supporters from Community Q participate effectively in the consultation.",
  "proeth:emergencyStatus": "medium",
  "proeth:eventType": "outcome",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "Following exclusion during planning phase",
  "proeth:urgencyLevel": "medium",
  "rdfs:label": "Biased Input Generation"
}

Description: Engineer M becomes aware of systematic problems in the public engagement process that compromise professional standards for inclusive consultation and unbiased analysis.

Temporal Marker: As biased input patterns emerge

Activates Constraints:

Professional_Ethics_Codes
Duty_To_Address_Violations

Scenario Metadata

Pedagogical context for interactive teaching scenarios

Emotional Impact: Professional moral stress for Engineer M; potential defensiveness from Firm DBA; anxiety about project integrity for City; validation for excluded Community P

Stakeholder Consequences:

engineer_m: Must choose between professional comfort and ethical duty
firm_dba: Faces potential professional accountability
project: Timeline and approach may need revision
communities: Opportunity for more equitable process

Learning Moment: Demonstrates when professional ethics obligations override convenience; shows individual responsibility within flawed systems

Ethical Implications: Highlights tension between professional solidarity and ethical integrity; demonstrates individual moral agency within institutional constraints; reveals cascading consequences of ethical compromises

Discussion Prompts:

When do engineers have obligations to challenge problematic processes?
How should professionals balance team loyalty with ethical duties?
What are the consequences of remaining silent about observed ethics violations?

Crisis / Turning Point Tension: high Pacing: crisis

RDF JSON-LD

{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/5#",
    "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/5#Event_Professional_Ethics_Violation",
  "@type": "proeth:Event",
  "proeth-scenario:crisisIdentification": true,
  "proeth-scenario:discussionPrompts": [
    "When do engineers have obligations to challenge problematic processes?",
    "How should professionals balance team loyalty with ethical duties?",
    "What are the consequences of remaining silent about observed ethics violations?"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:dramaticTension": "high",
  "proeth-scenario:emotionalImpact": "Professional moral stress for Engineer M; potential defensiveness from Firm DBA; anxiety about project integrity for City; validation for excluded Community P",
  "proeth-scenario:ethicalImplications": "Highlights tension between professional solidarity and ethical integrity; demonstrates individual moral agency within institutional constraints; reveals cascading consequences of ethical compromises",
  "proeth-scenario:learningMoment": "Demonstrates when professional ethics obligations override convenience; shows individual responsibility within flawed systems",
  "proeth-scenario:narrativePacing": "crisis",
  "proeth-scenario:stakeholderConsequences": {
    "communities": "Opportunity for more equitable process",
    "engineer_m": "Must choose between professional comfort and ethical duty",
    "firm_dba": "Faces potential professional accountability",
    "project": "Timeline and approach may need revision"
  },
  "proeth:activatesConstraint": [
    "Professional_Ethics_Codes",
    "Duty_To_Address_Violations"
  ],
  "proeth:causedByAction": "http://proethica.org/cases/5#Action_Ethical_Concern_Raising",
  "proeth:causesStateChange": "Engineer M faces professional ethical obligation to address identified problems",
  "proeth:createsObligation": [
    "Raise_Concerns_Formally",
    "Seek_Corrective_Action",
    "Document_Issues"
  ],
  "proeth:description": "Engineer M becomes aware of systematic problems in the public engagement process that compromise professional standards for inclusive consultation and unbiased analysis.",
  "proeth:emergencyStatus": "medium",
  "proeth:eventType": "automatic_trigger",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "As biased input patterns emerge",
  "proeth:urgencyLevel": "high",
  "rdfs:label": "Professional Ethics Violation"
}

Causal Chains (3)

NESS test analysis: Necessary Element of Sufficient Set

Causal Language: Firm DBA scheduled public engagement sessions at times and locations difficult for Community P residents, effectively excluding Community P residents from public engagement process

Necessary Factors (NESS):

Deliberate scheduling at inaccessible times
Selection of difficult locations for Community P
No alternative participation methods provided

Sufficient Factors:

Combination of inaccessible timing + difficult locations + lack of alternatives

Counterfactual Test: With accessible scheduling and locations, Community P residents would have been able to participate meaningfully

Responsibility Attribution:

Agent: Firm DBA
Type: direct
Within Agent Control: Yes

Causal Sequence:

Inaccessible Meeting Scheduling
Firm DBA deliberately schedules meetings at times/locations difficult for Community P
Limited Engagement Methods
Firm DBA decides not to provide alternative participation methods
Community P Exclusion
Community P residents are effectively excluded from participation
Biased Input Generation
Process produces systematically biased input favoring routing through Community P
Misleading Report Preparation
Firm DBA prepares report omitting key details about engagement process limitations

RDF JSON-LD

{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/5#",
    "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/5#CausalChain_98a52eef",
  "@type": "proeth:CausalChain",
  "proeth:causalLanguage": "Firm DBA scheduled public engagement sessions at times and locations difficult for Community P residents, effectively excluding Community P residents from public engagement process",
  "proeth:causalSequence": [
    {
      "proeth:description": "Firm DBA deliberately schedules meetings at times/locations difficult for Community P",
      "proeth:element": "Inaccessible Meeting Scheduling",
      "proeth:step": 1
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Firm DBA decides not to provide alternative participation methods",
      "proeth:element": "Limited Engagement Methods",
      "proeth:step": 2
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Community P residents are effectively excluded from participation",
      "proeth:element": "Community P Exclusion",
      "proeth:step": 3
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Process produces systematically biased input favoring routing through Community P",
      "proeth:element": "Biased Input Generation",
      "proeth:step": 4
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Firm DBA prepares report omitting key details about engagement process limitations",
      "proeth:element": "Misleading Report Preparation",
      "proeth:step": 5
    }
  ],
  "proeth:cause": "Inaccessible Meeting Scheduling",
  "proeth:counterfactual": "With accessible scheduling and locations, Community P residents would have been able to participate meaningfully",
  "proeth:effect": "Community P Exclusion",
  "proeth:necessaryFactors": [
    "Deliberate scheduling at inaccessible times",
    "Selection of difficult locations for Community P",
    "No alternative participation methods provided"
  ],
  "proeth:responsibilityType": "direct",
  "proeth:responsibleAgent": "Firm DBA",
  "proeth:sufficientFactors": [
    "Combination of inaccessible timing + difficult locations + lack of alternatives"
  ],
  "proeth:withinAgentControl": true
}

Causal Language: Community P residents effectively excluded from public engagement process, causing Engineer M to become aware of systematic problems that compromise professional standards

Necessary Factors (NESS):

Systematic exclusion of affected community
Engineer M's awareness of the exclusion
Professional obligation to ensure fair public engagement

Sufficient Factors:

Exclusion of stakeholders + Engineer awareness + professional duty

Counterfactual Test: Without Community P exclusion, no ethics violation would have occurred

Responsibility Attribution:

Agent: Firm DBA
Type: direct
Within Agent Control: Yes

Causal Sequence:

Community P Exclusion
Systematic exclusion of Community P from engagement process
Biased Input Generation
Engagement process produces biased results due to exclusion
Professional Ethics Violation
Engineer M recognizes systematic problems compromise professional standards
Ethical Concern Raising
Engineer M expresses concerns about adequacy and fairness of process
Misleading Report Preparation
Firm DBA responds by preparing misleading report omitting key details

RDF JSON-LD

{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/5#",
    "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/5#CausalChain_36e5d304",
  "@type": "proeth:CausalChain",
  "proeth:causalLanguage": "Community P residents effectively excluded from public engagement process, causing Engineer M to become aware of systematic problems that compromise professional standards",
  "proeth:causalSequence": [
    {
      "proeth:description": "Systematic exclusion of Community P from engagement process",
      "proeth:element": "Community P Exclusion",
      "proeth:step": 1
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engagement process produces biased results due to exclusion",
      "proeth:element": "Biased Input Generation",
      "proeth:step": 2
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer M recognizes systematic problems compromise professional standards",
      "proeth:element": "Professional Ethics Violation",
      "proeth:step": 3
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer M expresses concerns about adequacy and fairness of process",
      "proeth:element": "Ethical Concern Raising",
      "proeth:step": 4
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Firm DBA responds by preparing misleading report omitting key details",
      "proeth:element": "Misleading Report Preparation",
      "proeth:step": 5
    }
  ],
  "proeth:cause": "Community P Exclusion",
  "proeth:counterfactual": "Without Community P exclusion, no ethics violation would have occurred",
  "proeth:effect": "Professional Ethics Violation",
  "proeth:necessaryFactors": [
    "Systematic exclusion of affected community",
    "Engineer M\u0027s awareness of the exclusion",
    "Professional obligation to ensure fair public engagement"
  ],
  "proeth:responsibilityType": "direct",
  "proeth:responsibleAgent": "Firm DBA",
  "proeth:sufficientFactors": [
    "Exclusion of stakeholders + Engineer awareness + professional duty"
  ],
  "proeth:withinAgentControl": true
}

Causal Language: Engineer M expressed concerns about adequacy and fairness, leading to the recommendation that Engineer M should immediately confer with Firm DBA to address the misleading report

Necessary Factors (NESS):

Engineer M's awareness of ethical problems
Professional obligation to address concerns
Firm DBA's continued problematic behavior

Sufficient Factors:

Ethical awareness + professional duty + ongoing violations

Counterfactual Test: Without raising ethical concerns, no direct conference action would be warranted

Responsibility Attribution:

Agent: Engineer M
Type: direct
Within Agent Control: Yes

Causal Sequence:

Ethical Concern Raising
Engineer M expresses concerns about engagement process adequacy
Misleading Report Preparation
Firm DBA prepares misleading report despite concerns raised
Direct Firm Conference
Engineer M should immediately confer with Firm DBA about misleading report
City Authority Involvement
If Firm DBA refuses corrections, Engineer M should involve the City client
Licensing Board Reporting
If City takes no action, Engineer M should report to licensing board

RDF JSON-LD

{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/5#",
    "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/5#CausalChain_fb5a5ff7",
  "@type": "proeth:CausalChain",
  "proeth:causalLanguage": "Engineer M expressed concerns about adequacy and fairness, leading to the recommendation that Engineer M should immediately confer with Firm DBA to address the misleading report",
  "proeth:causalSequence": [
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer M expresses concerns about engagement process adequacy",
      "proeth:element": "Ethical Concern Raising",
      "proeth:step": 1
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Firm DBA prepares misleading report despite concerns raised",
      "proeth:element": "Misleading Report Preparation",
      "proeth:step": 2
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer M should immediately confer with Firm DBA about misleading report",
      "proeth:element": "Direct Firm Conference",
      "proeth:step": 3
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "If Firm DBA refuses corrections, Engineer M should involve the City client",
      "proeth:element": "City Authority Involvement",
      "proeth:step": 4
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "If City takes no action, Engineer M should report to licensing board",
      "proeth:element": "Licensing Board Reporting",
      "proeth:step": 5
    }
  ],
  "proeth:cause": "Ethical Concern Raising",
  "proeth:counterfactual": "Without raising ethical concerns, no direct conference action would be warranted",
  "proeth:effect": "Direct Firm Conference",
  "proeth:necessaryFactors": [
    "Engineer M\u0027s awareness of ethical problems",
    "Professional obligation to address concerns",
    "Firm DBA\u0027s continued problematic behavior"
  ],
  "proeth:responsibilityType": "direct",
  "proeth:responsibleAgent": "Engineer M",
  "proeth:sufficientFactors": [
    "Ethical awareness + professional duty + ongoing violations"
  ],
  "proeth:withinAgentControl": true
}

Allen Temporal Relations (6)

Interval algebra relationships with OWL-Time standard properties

From Entity	Allen Relation	To Entity	OWL-Time Property	Evidence
Code revision	after Entity1 is after Entity2	BER Case 60-3	`time:after` http://www.w3.org/2006/time#after	However, the Code has been revised since that time... In BER Case 60-3
Engineer M retention by City	before Entity1 is before Entity2	planning phase	`time:before` http://www.w3.org/2006/time#before	Engineer M is retained by the City as the lead engineer on a major public infrastructure project to ...
City requirement for public engagement	during Entity1 occurs entirely within the duration of Entity2	planning phase	`time:intervalDuring` http://www.w3.org/2006/time#intervalDuring	During the planning phase, the City requires a series of public engagement sessions to gather input ...
Firm DBA partnership	during Entity1 occurs entirely within the duration of Entity2	planning phase	`time:intervalDuring` http://www.w3.org/2006/time#intervalDuring	During the planning phase... Engineer M's firm partners with an engineering consultant, Firm DBA, to...
public outreach sessions	after Entity1 is after Entity2	Firm DBA partnership	`time:after` http://www.w3.org/2006/time#after	Engineer M's firm partners with an engineering consultant, Firm DBA, to coordinate public outreach a...
Engineer M concerns	after Entity1 is after Entity2	public outreach sessions	`time:after` http://www.w3.org/2006/time#after	Engineer M expresses concern to Firm DBA about the public outreach and session locations

About Allen Relations & OWL-Time

Allen's Interval Algebra provides 13 basic temporal relations between intervals. These relations are mapped to OWL-Time standard properties for interoperability with Semantic Web temporal reasoning systems and SPARQL queries.

Each relation includes both a ProEthica custom property and a time:* OWL-Time property for maximum compatibility.

PASS 3: Temporal Dynamics

Extraction Complete

Timeline Overview

Temporal Markers

Temporal Consistency Check

Extracted Actions (7)

Inaccessible Meeting Scheduling Firm DBA (Consulting firm)

Guided By Principles:

Required Capabilities:

Scenario Metadata

Limited Engagement Methods Firm DBA (Consulting firm)

Guided By Principles:

Required Capabilities:

Scenario Metadata

Ethical Concern Raising Engineer M (City-retained engineer)

Fulfills Obligations:

Guided By Principles:

Required Capabilities:

Scenario Metadata

Misleading Report Preparation Firm DBA (Consulting firm)

Guided By Principles:

Required Capabilities:

Scenario Metadata

Direct Firm Conference Engineer M (City-retained engineer)

Fulfills Obligations:

Guided By Principles:

Required Capabilities:

Scenario Metadata

City Authority Involvement Engineer M (City-retained engineer)

Fulfills Obligations:

Guided By Principles:

Required Capabilities:

Scenario Metadata

Licensing Board Reporting Engineer M (City-retained engineer)

Fulfills Obligations:

Guided By Principles:

Required Capabilities:

Scenario Metadata

Extracted Events (3)

Community P Exclusion

Activates Constraints:

Scenario Metadata

Biased Input Generation

Activates Constraints:

Scenario Metadata

Professional Ethics Violation

Activates Constraints:

Scenario Metadata

Causal Chains (3)

Inaccessible Meeting Scheduling Community P Exclusion

Necessary Factors (NESS):

Sufficient Factors:

Responsibility Attribution:

Causal Sequence:

Community P Exclusion Professional Ethics Violation

Necessary Factors (NESS):

Sufficient Factors:

Responsibility Attribution:

Causal Sequence:

Ethical Concern Raising Direct Firm Conference

Necessary Factors (NESS):

Sufficient Factors:

Responsibility Attribution:

Causal Sequence:

Allen Temporal Relations (6)

About Allen Relations & OWL-Time