Overview View Extraction
Draft Continue to Step 4

PASS 3: Temporal Dynamics

Case 56: Unlicensed Practice by Nonengineers with “Engineer” in Job Titles

Extraction Complete
Total Entities: 13
Actions: 3
Events: 2
Causal Chains: 3
Allen Relations: 4
Timeline: 5
Timeline Overview
Note: The timeline includes only actions and events with clear temporal markers that could be sequenced chronologically.
Timeline Elements: 5
Actions on Timeline: 3 (of 3 extracted)
Events on Timeline: 2 (of 2 extracted)
Temporal Markers
  • Initial phase 1 elements
  • Following document submission 1 elements
  • Prior to case events 1 elements
  • After document submission 1 elements
  • After receiving review comments 1 elements
Temporal Consistency Check
Valid
Extracted Actions (3)
Volitional professional decisions with intentions and ethical context

Description: Engineer A prepared, signed, sealed design documents and presented them to Transportation Engineer B for review.

Temporal Marker: Initial phase

Mental State: deliberate

Intended Outcome: Complete standard agency review process

Fulfills Obligations:
  • Professional responsibility for sealed documents
Guided By Principles:
  • Due diligence
  • Professional accountability
Required Capabilities:
Design expertise Professional judgment
Within Competence: Yes
Scenario Metadata
Pedagogical context for interactive teaching scenarios

Character Motivation: Following standard organizational procedure and trusting agency hierarchy to ensure proper oversight of engineering work

Ethical Tension: Duty to follow established processes vs. responsibility to verify reviewer qualifications

Learning Significance: Engineers must understand their responsibility to ensure competent review, not just compliance with procedures

Stakes: Public safety, professional liability, integrity of engineering seal, legal compliance with engineering practice acts

Decision Point: Yes - Story can branch here

Alternative Actions:
  • Verify reviewer's engineering credentials before submission
  • Request review by known licensed engineer
  • Submit with caveat about review process

Narrative Role: inciting_incident

RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/56#",
    "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/56#Action_Document_Submission_Decision",
  "@type": "proeth:Action",
  "proeth-scenario:alternativeActions": [
    "Verify reviewer\u0027s engineering credentials before submission",
    "Request review by known licensed engineer",
    "Submit with caveat about review process"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:characterMotivation": "Following standard organizational procedure and trusting agency hierarchy to ensure proper oversight of engineering work",
  "proeth-scenario:consequencesIfAlternative": [
    "Would have discovered qualification issue early",
    "Might have delayed project but ensured proper oversight",
    "Could have prompted discussion about review authority"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:decisionSignificance": "Engineers must understand their responsibility to ensure competent review, not just compliance with procedures",
  "proeth-scenario:ethicalTension": "Duty to follow established processes vs. responsibility to verify reviewer qualifications",
  "proeth-scenario:isDecisionPoint": true,
  "proeth-scenario:narrativeRole": "inciting_incident",
  "proeth-scenario:stakes": "Public safety, professional liability, integrity of engineering seal, legal compliance with engineering practice acts",
  "proeth:description": "Engineer A prepared, signed, sealed design documents and presented them to Transportation Engineer B for review.",
  "proeth:fulfillsObligation": [
    "Professional responsibility for sealed documents"
  ],
  "proeth:guidedByPrinciple": [
    "Due diligence",
    "Professional accountability"
  ],
  "proeth:hasAgent": "Engineer A (Licensed Professional Engineer)",
  "proeth:hasMentalState": "deliberate",
  "proeth:intendedOutcome": "Complete standard agency review process",
  "proeth:requiresCapability": [
    "Design expertise",
    "Professional judgment"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "Initial phase",
  "proeth:withinCompetence": true,
  "rdfs:label": "Document Submission Decision"
}

Description: Transportation Engineer B reviewed the sealed engineering documents, made comments, and directed changes despite lacking engineering license and degree.

Temporal Marker: Following document submission

Mental State: deliberate

Intended Outcome: Fulfill managerial review responsibilities

Fulfills Obligations:
  • Administrative duties
Guided By Principles:
  • Administrative authority
Required Capabilities:
Engineering expertise Professional engineering license
Within Competence: No
Scenario Metadata
Pedagogical context for interactive teaching scenarios

Character Motivation: Performing assigned job duties and exercising authority granted by job title and organizational position

Ethical Tension: Organizational role expectations vs. legal restrictions on engineering practice without license

Learning Significance: Non-engineers must understand legal boundaries of their authority in reviewing sealed engineering documents

Stakes: Unauthorized practice of engineering, potential design errors, legal liability, public safety risks from unqualified oversight

Decision Point: Yes - Story can branch here

Alternative Actions:
  • Decline to review technical content, focus only on administrative aspects
  • Refer documents to licensed engineer for technical review
  • Acknowledge limitations and request engineering consultation

Narrative Role: rising_action

RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/56#",
    "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/56#Action_Document_Review_Decision",
  "@type": "proeth:Action",
  "proeth-scenario:alternativeActions": [
    "Decline to review technical content, focus only on administrative aspects",
    "Refer documents to licensed engineer for technical review",
    "Acknowledge limitations and request engineering consultation"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:characterMotivation": "Performing assigned job duties and exercising authority granted by job title and organizational position",
  "proeth-scenario:consequencesIfAlternative": [
    "Would have maintained legal boundaries while fulfilling administrative role",
    "Would have ensured competent technical oversight",
    "Could have led to process improvements and proper resource allocation"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:decisionSignificance": "Non-engineers must understand legal boundaries of their authority in reviewing sealed engineering documents",
  "proeth-scenario:ethicalTension": "Organizational role expectations vs. legal restrictions on engineering practice without license",
  "proeth-scenario:isDecisionPoint": true,
  "proeth-scenario:narrativeRole": "rising_action",
  "proeth-scenario:stakes": "Unauthorized practice of engineering, potential design errors, legal liability, public safety risks from unqualified oversight",
  "proeth:description": "Transportation Engineer B reviewed the sealed engineering documents, made comments, and directed changes despite lacking engineering license and degree.",
  "proeth:foreseenUnintendedEffects": [
    "Potential interference with licensed professional work"
  ],
  "proeth:fulfillsObligation": [
    "Administrative duties"
  ],
  "proeth:guidedByPrinciple": [
    "Administrative authority"
  ],
  "proeth:hasAgent": "Transportation Engineer B (State Agency Manager)",
  "proeth:hasCompetingPriorities": {
    "@type": "proeth:CompetingPriorities",
    "proeth:priorityConflict": "Administrative authority vs Professional licensing requirements",
    "proeth:resolutionReasoning": "Administrative role prioritized over licensing constraints"
  },
  "proeth:hasMentalState": "deliberate",
  "proeth:intendedOutcome": "Fulfill managerial review responsibilities",
  "proeth:requiresCapability": [
    "Engineering expertise",
    "Professional engineering license"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "Following document submission",
  "proeth:violatesObligation": [
    "Professional engineering practice boundaries"
  ],
  "proeth:withinCompetence": false,
  "rdfs:label": "Document Review Decision"
}

Description: State Agency assigned the title 'Transportation Engineer' to staff member B without requiring proper engineering qualifications.

Temporal Marker: Prior to case events

Mental State: institutional policy

Intended Outcome: Fill transportation management position

Fulfills Obligations:
  • Administrative efficiency
Guided By Principles:
  • Government operations
  • Administrative convenience
Required Capabilities:
Engineering degree Professional engineering license
Within Competence: No
Scenario Metadata
Pedagogical context for interactive teaching scenarios

Character Motivation: Administrative convenience and assumption that job responsibilities could be separated from professional licensing requirements

Ethical Tension: Operational efficiency vs. professional licensing law compliance and public protection

Learning Significance: Organizations must align job titles, responsibilities, and required qualifications to avoid unauthorized practice

Stakes: Systematic unauthorized practice, regulatory violations, organizational liability, erosion of professional standards

Narrative Role: climax

RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/56#",
    "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/56#Action_Staff_Title_Assignment",
  "@type": "proeth:Action",
  "proeth-scenario:alternativeActions": [
    "Use title like \u0027Transportation Specialist\u0027 or \u0027Project Coordinator\u0027",
    "Require engineering license for engineer titles",
    "Clearly define and limit non-engineer authority over engineering work"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:characterMotivation": "Administrative convenience and assumption that job responsibilities could be separated from professional licensing requirements",
  "proeth-scenario:consequencesIfAlternative": [
    "Would have avoided misleading title while allowing technical contribution",
    "Would have ensured qualified oversight but might require hiring/training",
    "Would have created clear boundaries and accountability structure"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:decisionSignificance": "Organizations must align job titles, responsibilities, and required qualifications to avoid unauthorized practice",
  "proeth-scenario:ethicalTension": "Operational efficiency vs. professional licensing law compliance and public protection",
  "proeth-scenario:isDecisionPoint": false,
  "proeth-scenario:narrativeRole": "climax",
  "proeth-scenario:stakes": "Systematic unauthorized practice, regulatory violations, organizational liability, erosion of professional standards",
  "proeth:description": "State Agency assigned the title \u0027Transportation Engineer\u0027 to staff member B without requiring proper engineering qualifications.",
  "proeth:foreseenUnintendedEffects": [
    "Public confusion about qualifications",
    "Potential licensing conflicts"
  ],
  "proeth:fulfillsObligation": [
    "Administrative efficiency"
  ],
  "proeth:guidedByPrinciple": [
    "Government operations",
    "Administrative convenience"
  ],
  "proeth:hasAgent": "State Agency (Institutional)",
  "proeth:hasCompetingPriorities": {
    "@type": "proeth:CompetingPriorities",
    "proeth:priorityConflict": "Administrative convenience vs Professional integrity",
    "proeth:resolutionReasoning": "Institutional needs prioritized over professional title protection"
  },
  "proeth:hasMentalState": "institutional policy",
  "proeth:intendedOutcome": "Fill transportation management position",
  "proeth:requiresCapability": [
    "Engineering degree",
    "Professional engineering license"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "Prior to case events",
  "proeth:violatesObligation": [
    "Public transparency",
    "Professional title protection"
  ],
  "proeth:withinCompetence": false,
  "rdfs:label": "Staff Title Assignment"
}
Extracted Events (2)
Occurrences that trigger ethical considerations and state changes

Description: Transportation Engineer B completes review of Engineer A's design documents and provides specific comments and change directives.

Temporal Marker: After document submission

Activates Constraints:
  • Professional_Review_Standards
Scenario Metadata
Pedagogical context for interactive teaching scenarios

Emotional Impact: Relief for Engineer A that review is complete; confidence in collaborative process; routine professional satisfaction

Stakeholder Consequences:
  • engineer_a: Clear direction for design modifications, professional collaboration established
  • engineer_b: Review responsibilities fulfilled, technical input provided
  • state_agency: Quality control process executed, project advancement enabled
  • public: Design oversight process functioning as intended

Learning Moment: Shows normal professional collaboration and institutional review processes before ethical complications emerge

Ethical Implications: Establishes expectation of competent professional review; sets up tension between institutional authority and professional licensing requirements

Discussion Prompts:
  • What assumptions do licensed engineers typically make about institutional reviewers?
  • How should professional review processes be structured to ensure competent oversight?
Tension: low Pacing: slow_burn
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/56#",
    "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/56#Event_Document_Review_Completion",
  "@type": "proeth:Event",
  "proeth-scenario:crisisIdentification": false,
  "proeth-scenario:discussionPrompts": [
    "What assumptions do licensed engineers typically make about institutional reviewers?",
    "How should professional review processes be structured to ensure competent oversight?"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:dramaticTension": "low",
  "proeth-scenario:emotionalImpact": "Relief for Engineer A that review is complete; confidence in collaborative process; routine professional satisfaction",
  "proeth-scenario:ethicalImplications": "Establishes expectation of competent professional review; sets up tension between institutional authority and professional licensing requirements",
  "proeth-scenario:learningMoment": "Shows normal professional collaboration and institutional review processes before ethical complications emerge",
  "proeth-scenario:narrativePacing": "slow_burn",
  "proeth-scenario:stakeholderConsequences": {
    "engineer_a": "Clear direction for design modifications, professional collaboration established",
    "engineer_b": "Review responsibilities fulfilled, technical input provided",
    "public": "Design oversight process functioning as intended",
    "state_agency": "Quality control process executed, project advancement enabled"
  },
  "proeth:activatesConstraint": [
    "Professional_Review_Standards"
  ],
  "proeth:causedByAction": "http://proethica.org/cases/56#Action_Document_Review_Decision",
  "proeth:causesStateChange": "Design documents marked for revision; specific technical changes identified; implementation pathway established",
  "proeth:createsObligation": [
    "Implement_Directed_Changes",
    "Verify_Review_Authority"
  ],
  "proeth:description": "Transportation Engineer B completes review of Engineer A\u0027s design documents and provides specific comments and change directives.",
  "proeth:emergencyStatus": "routine",
  "proeth:eventType": "outcome",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "After document submission",
  "proeth:urgencyLevel": "low",
  "rdfs:label": "Document Review Completion"
}

Description: Engineer A discovers that Transportation Engineer B lacks both professional engineering license and engineering degree, revealing unauthorized practice of engineering.

Temporal Marker: After receiving review comments

Activates Constraints:
  • Unlicensed_Practice_Prohibition
  • Professional_Integrity_Protection
Scenario Metadata
Pedagogical context for interactive teaching scenarios

Emotional Impact: Shock and betrayal for Engineer A; potential embarrassment and defensiveness for Engineer B; institutional concern for State Agency; public trust implications

Stakeholder Consequences:
  • engineer_a: Ethical dilemma between professional obligations and institutional relationships; potential career implications
  • engineer_b: Exposure of unauthorized practice; potential legal and professional consequences
  • state_agency: Institutional credibility questioned; potential systemic review required; legal liability concerns
  • public: Safety oversight compromised; trust in professional standards undermined
  • engineering_profession: Professional licensing standards challenged; enforcement obligations activated

Learning Moment: Reveals how institutional authority can conflict with professional licensing requirements; demonstrates importance of verifying credentials and authority

Ethical Implications: Exposes fundamental tension between institutional authority and professional licensing; reveals gaps in credential verification; challenges assumptions about governmental competency; raises questions about public protection vs. institutional loyalty

Discussion Prompts:
  • What are Engineer A's obligations when discovering unlicensed practice by institutional authority?
  • How should professional licensing requirements interact with governmental institutional hierarchy?
  • What systemic changes could prevent unauthorized practice in institutional settings?
Crisis / Turning Point Tension: high Pacing: crisis
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/56#",
    "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/56#Event_Qualification_Discovery",
  "@type": "proeth:Event",
  "proeth-scenario:crisisIdentification": true,
  "proeth-scenario:discussionPrompts": [
    "What are Engineer A\u0027s obligations when discovering unlicensed practice by institutional authority?",
    "How should professional licensing requirements interact with governmental institutional hierarchy?",
    "What systemic changes could prevent unauthorized practice in institutional settings?"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:dramaticTension": "high",
  "proeth-scenario:emotionalImpact": "Shock and betrayal for Engineer A; potential embarrassment and defensiveness for Engineer B; institutional concern for State Agency; public trust implications",
  "proeth-scenario:ethicalImplications": "Exposes fundamental tension between institutional authority and professional licensing; reveals gaps in credential verification; challenges assumptions about governmental competency; raises questions about public protection vs. institutional loyalty",
  "proeth-scenario:learningMoment": "Reveals how institutional authority can conflict with professional licensing requirements; demonstrates importance of verifying credentials and authority",
  "proeth-scenario:narrativePacing": "crisis",
  "proeth-scenario:stakeholderConsequences": {
    "engineer_a": "Ethical dilemma between professional obligations and institutional relationships; potential career implications",
    "engineer_b": "Exposure of unauthorized practice; potential legal and professional consequences",
    "engineering_profession": "Professional licensing standards challenged; enforcement obligations activated",
    "public": "Safety oversight compromised; trust in professional standards undermined",
    "state_agency": "Institutional credibility questioned; potential systemic review required; legal liability concerns"
  },
  "proeth:activatesConstraint": [
    "Unlicensed_Practice_Prohibition",
    "Professional_Integrity_Protection"
  ],
  "proeth:causedByAction": "http://proethica.org/cases/56#Action_Document_Review_Decision",
  "proeth:causesStateChange": "Ethical crisis activated; professional obligations in conflict with institutional hierarchy; legal compliance questioned",
  "proeth:createsObligation": [
    "Report_To_Board",
    "Challenge_Unauthorized_Practice",
    "Protect_Public_Welfare",
    "Maintain_Professional_Integrity"
  ],
  "proeth:description": "Engineer A discovers that Transportation Engineer B lacks both professional engineering license and engineering degree, revealing unauthorized practice of engineering.",
  "proeth:emergencyStatus": "high",
  "proeth:eventType": "outcome",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "After receiving review comments",
  "proeth:urgencyLevel": "high",
  "rdfs:label": "Qualification Discovery"
}
Causal Chains (3)
NESS test analysis: Necessary Element of Sufficient Set

Causal Language: State Agency assigned the title 'Transportation Engineer' to staff member B without requiring proper licensing, enabling B to review and direct changes to sealed engineering documents

Necessary Factors (NESS):
  • Assignment of engineering title without verification of credentials
  • Authority granted to review sealed professional documents
  • Lack of licensing requirement enforcement
Sufficient Factors:
  • Combination of official title + document review authority + absence of credential verification
Counterfactual Test: Without the engineering title, B would not have had authority to review sealed documents or direct changes
Responsibility Attribution:

Agent: State Agency
Type: direct
Within Agent Control: Yes

Causal Sequence:
  1. Staff Title Assignment
    State Agency assigns 'Transportation Engineer' title to unlicensed staff member B
  2. Document Submission Decision
    Engineer A submits sealed design documents to Transportation Engineer B for review
  3. Document Review Decision
    Transportation Engineer B reviews sealed documents and directs changes
  4. Document Review Completion
    B completes review and provides specific comments on professional engineering work
  5. Qualification Discovery
    Engineer A discovers B lacks professional engineering license
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/56#",
    "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/56#CausalChain_9cdc85db",
  "@type": "proeth:CausalChain",
  "proeth:causalLanguage": "State Agency assigned the title \u0027Transportation Engineer\u0027 to staff member B without requiring proper licensing, enabling B to review and direct changes to sealed engineering documents",
  "proeth:causalSequence": [
    {
      "proeth:description": "State Agency assigns \u0027Transportation Engineer\u0027 title to unlicensed staff member B",
      "proeth:element": "Staff Title Assignment",
      "proeth:step": 1
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer A submits sealed design documents to Transportation Engineer B for review",
      "proeth:element": "Document Submission Decision",
      "proeth:step": 2
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Transportation Engineer B reviews sealed documents and directs changes",
      "proeth:element": "Document Review Decision",
      "proeth:step": 3
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "B completes review and provides specific comments on professional engineering work",
      "proeth:element": "Document Review Completion",
      "proeth:step": 4
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer A discovers B lacks professional engineering license",
      "proeth:element": "Qualification Discovery",
      "proeth:step": 5
    }
  ],
  "proeth:cause": "Staff Title Assignment",
  "proeth:counterfactual": "Without the engineering title, B would not have had authority to review sealed documents or direct changes",
  "proeth:effect": "Document Review Decision",
  "proeth:necessaryFactors": [
    "Assignment of engineering title without verification of credentials",
    "Authority granted to review sealed professional documents",
    "Lack of licensing requirement enforcement"
  ],
  "proeth:responsibilityType": "direct",
  "proeth:responsibleAgent": "State Agency",
  "proeth:sufficientFactors": [
    "Combination of official title + document review authority + absence of credential verification"
  ],
  "proeth:withinAgentControl": true
}

Causal Language: Engineer A's decision to submit sealed documents to Transportation Engineer B led to the discovery process that revealed B's lack of professional licensing

Necessary Factors (NESS):
  • Submission of sealed professional documents
  • Review process by unlicensed individual
  • Engineer A's subsequent investigation of reviewer qualifications
Sufficient Factors:
  • Document submission + professional review interaction + credential verification process
Counterfactual Test: Without document submission, the qualification issue would not have been discovered in this context
Responsibility Attribution:

Agent: Engineer A
Type: indirect
Within Agent Control: Yes

Causal Sequence:
  1. Document Submission Decision
    Engineer A submits sealed design documents to Transportation Engineer B
  2. Document Review Decision
    Transportation Engineer B proceeds to review sealed professional documents
  3. Document Review Completion
    B provides technical comments and feedback on engineering design
  4. Qualification Discovery
    Engineer A discovers Transportation Engineer B lacks professional license
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/56#",
    "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/56#CausalChain_07c90412",
  "@type": "proeth:CausalChain",
  "proeth:causalLanguage": "Engineer A\u0027s decision to submit sealed documents to Transportation Engineer B led to the discovery process that revealed B\u0027s lack of professional licensing",
  "proeth:causalSequence": [
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer A submits sealed design documents to Transportation Engineer B",
      "proeth:element": "Document Submission Decision",
      "proeth:step": 1
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Transportation Engineer B proceeds to review sealed professional documents",
      "proeth:element": "Document Review Decision",
      "proeth:step": 2
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "B provides technical comments and feedback on engineering design",
      "proeth:element": "Document Review Completion",
      "proeth:step": 3
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer A discovers Transportation Engineer B lacks professional license",
      "proeth:element": "Qualification Discovery",
      "proeth:step": 4
    }
  ],
  "proeth:cause": "Document Submission Decision",
  "proeth:counterfactual": "Without document submission, the qualification issue would not have been discovered in this context",
  "proeth:effect": "Qualification Discovery",
  "proeth:necessaryFactors": [
    "Submission of sealed professional documents",
    "Review process by unlicensed individual",
    "Engineer A\u0027s subsequent investigation of reviewer qualifications"
  ],
  "proeth:responsibilityType": "indirect",
  "proeth:responsibleAgent": "Engineer A",
  "proeth:sufficientFactors": [
    "Document submission + professional review interaction + credential verification process"
  ],
  "proeth:withinAgentControl": true
}

Causal Language: Transportation Engineer B's decision to review the sealed engineering documents directly resulted in the completion of an unauthorized professional engineering review

Necessary Factors (NESS):
  • Decision to proceed with review despite lack of credentials
  • Access to sealed professional documents
  • Authority to provide technical comments
Sufficient Factors:
  • Unlicensed review + sealed document access + technical commentary authority
Counterfactual Test: Without B's decision to review, no unauthorized professional review would have occurred
Responsibility Attribution:

Agent: Transportation Engineer B
Type: shared
Within Agent Control: Yes

Causal Sequence:
  1. Document Review Decision
    Transportation Engineer B decides to review sealed professional documents
  2. Document Review Completion
    B completes technical review and provides engineering feedback
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/56#",
    "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/56#CausalChain_c94b6406",
  "@type": "proeth:CausalChain",
  "proeth:causalLanguage": "Transportation Engineer B\u0027s decision to review the sealed engineering documents directly resulted in the completion of an unauthorized professional engineering review",
  "proeth:causalSequence": [
    {
      "proeth:description": "Transportation Engineer B decides to review sealed professional documents",
      "proeth:element": "Document Review Decision",
      "proeth:step": 1
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "B completes technical review and provides engineering feedback",
      "proeth:element": "Document Review Completion",
      "proeth:step": 2
    }
  ],
  "proeth:cause": "Document Review Decision",
  "proeth:counterfactual": "Without B\u0027s decision to review, no unauthorized professional review would have occurred",
  "proeth:effect": "Document Review Completion",
  "proeth:necessaryFactors": [
    "Decision to proceed with review despite lack of credentials",
    "Access to sealed professional documents",
    "Authority to provide technical comments"
  ],
  "proeth:responsibilityType": "shared",
  "proeth:responsibleAgent": "Transportation Engineer B",
  "proeth:sufficientFactors": [
    "Unlicensed review + sealed document access + technical commentary authority"
  ],
  "proeth:withinAgentControl": true
}
Allen Temporal Relations (4)
Interval algebra relationships with OWL-Time standard properties
From Entity Allen Relation To Entity OWL-Time Property Evidence
document presentation and review process before
Entity1 is before Entity2 		Engineer A learns about B's lack of qualifications time:before
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#before 		Engineer A subsequently discovers that B is neither licensed nor has an engineering degree
EI reports misrepresentation before
Entity1 is before Entity2 		six months period of inaction time:before
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#before 		The EI reported this misrepresentation to the marketing department, but after six months, the docume...
B reviews the documents before
Entity1 is before Entity2 		makes comments and directs changes time:before
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#before 		B reviews the documents, makes comments, and directs changes
Engineer A prepares, signs, and seals design documents before
Entity1 is before Entity2 		presents them to Transportation Engineer B time:before
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#before 		Engineer A prepares, signs, and seals design documents, then presents them to State Agency manager '...
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.

© Licensed under the GNU GPL v3 | Report Issue